Pranav B Prem

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Gwalior Bench has upheld the Family Court’s decision to grant divorce to a man on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HM Act). The court held that the wife’s persistent unwillingness to cohabit with her husband without any justifiable reason, coupled with the filing of false dowry-related complaints, amounted to mental cruelty against the husband.

Wife’s Conditional Cohabitation & Allegations of Dowry Demand

The division bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh observed: “The conduct of wife…is apparent that she does not want to live with her husband-respondent. She wants to live with her husband only on a condition that if respondent keeps her at separate place. The motive of appellant is apparent that she wants to live with her husband, not with her in-laws family. Her allegation, therefore, appears to be false regarding raising of demand of dowry and it seems that false story has been made with an intention to implicate her in-laws including husband in civil proceedings.”

The couple got married on June 9, 2011. The husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty, alleging that his wife persistently chose to stay at her parental home despite multiple attempts at reconciliation, including mediation at the Police Counselling Centre on October 24, 2017. He also obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on December 13, 2019, which the appellant failed to comply with. Despite repeated attempts by the husband to bring her back, the wife refused to return to the matrimonial home, prompting him to file for divorce.

Wife’s Allegations & Counterclaims

In response, the wife refuted the allegations and sought dismissal of the divorce petition. She claimed that the husband and his family had harassed her for dowry and denied her cohabitation, leading to their separation. The wife contended that she had attempted to return after the restitution decree but was prevented from entering her husband’s house. She expressed willingness to live with him but only in a separate residence away from her in-laws, citing a fear of harassment. Additionally, she filed applications under Section 24 and Section 25 of the HM Act, seeking interim maintenance and permanent alimony of Rs. 59,40,000/-, asserting that she was financially distressed and suffering from health issues.

Husband’s Stand & Family Court’s Findings

The husband countered these claims by arguing that the allegations were baseless and that the Family Court had rightfully granted the divorce decree. He emphasized that the wife had raised no dowry-related complaints for more than seven years of their separation and that her claims were false and frivolous. The Family Court had also found these allegations unsubstantiated.

The High Court concurred with the findings of the Family Court and noted that despite several reconciliation efforts, including judicial orders directing the wife to reunite with her husband, she failed to comply. The court further noted: “The evidence of witnesses recorded by the Family Court also in one breath stated that allegation raising demand of dowry is totally absurd. In fact, the respondent made all possible efforts to bring back her wife-appellant but she was not agreed and levelled false and vague allegations to anyhow break her matrimonial fold.”

Legal Precedents on Mental Cruelty

The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Mrs. Sucheta Narayan Dastane (1975), which defines mental cruelty based on its effect on the aggrieved spouse rather than an objective standard. Relying on this and other judgments, including Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) and Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Viswanath Agrawal (2012), the High Court concluded that the husband had suffered mental cruelty due to his wife’s conduct.

High Court’s Decision

Taking into account the circumstances and legal precedents, the High Court affirmed the Family Court’s ruling: “Taking all these narration of facts into consideration, prima facie, there appears that respondent has been subjected to mental cruelty at the hands of his wife- appellant and she was desperate to live on her own terms and conditions. The Family Court, therefore, cannot be said to have approached wrongly in recording a finding which is well-merited, calling no interference by this Court.” Further, the High Court dismissed the wife’s applications for an increase in maintenance and permanent alimony, finding no merit in them.

Cause Title: XYZ vs ABC

Case No: FA 1781 of 2023

Date: January-21-2025

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak, Justice Hirdesh

[Read/Download order]