Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Divorce to Husband in Matrimonial Dispute: Unfounded Allegations Weaken the ‘Golden Thread’ of Marital Trust
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Anuradha Shukla granted a divorce to a husband on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, setting aside the Family Court’s earlier refusal. The Bench observed that mutual trust in a marital relationship is a golden thread that weakens when one spouse makes unfounded and defamatory accusations against the other. The case involved a matrimonial dispute where the wife had left the matrimonial home and levelled unsubstantiated allegations of dowry harassment and a second marriage. Finding that these claims caused mental cruelty and that the separation lacked reasonable justification, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered dissolution of the marriage solemnized in 2008.
The matter concerned a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife married in November 2008. After residing together for about one and a half months, the wife left the matrimonial home in January 2009 and later returned in June 2011, staying until February 2012. She gave birth to a girl child in May 2012. The husband sought divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, asserting that the wife behaved discourteously toward him and his family, left without informing him, and concealed her pregnancy. He alleged that she provided false information to his employer, which resulted in his termination, and that her conduct caused distress to him and his family members.
The wife opposed the petition, alleging harassment for dowry by her husband and in-laws. She stated that she was compelled to leave due to persistent ill-treatment and that her return was resisted. She claimed that during the husband’s stay abroad, he informed her of a second marriage, and when she returned with relatives, she was subjected to continued cruelty and forced to leave while pregnant. She also asserted that her belongings and personal articles were withheld.
The wife later obtained employment in Gujarat and filed proceedings for maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code and for relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Both parties presented oral and documentary evidence before the trial court. The primary statutory provisions referred to included Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, along with the maintenance and domestic violence proceedings initiated separately.
The Court observed that the wife had been living separately since 29.02.2012 and that “there was no reunion of parties since 29.02.2012.” The Court recorded that although some communication occurred, “neither of the parties visited the house of opponent since then.”
On desertion, the Court noted the conflicting claims: the husband stating she left without information, and the wife alleging she was thrown out. The Court stated that under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, “it is incumbent on the deserting party to prove that there was justifiable reason for withdrawing from the company of other spouse,” placing this burden on the wife.
The Court recorded that “no police report or complaint was made by the respondent/wife regarding demand of dowry, her harassment for this demand, and for that matter, forcibly throwing her out of the matrimonial house.” Regarding allegations, the Bench observed: “Making allegations is the easiest adventure, but proving them is a burdensome task.” It further stated that false allegations may expose a spouse to “shame, ridicule, persecution and also penal liability.”
The Court found the wife’s explanation for not filing complaints to be inadequate, noting: “this explanation does not befit in the circumstances of the case.” It also recorded that she had filed proceedings under Section 125 CrPC and the Domestic Violence Act, commenting that “it is difficult to understand how these two petitions were helpful in strengthening the marital ties.”
On conduct, the Bench observed that the wife expected the husband to persuade her to return and stated: “her inflated ego was restraining her to restore the marital ties while she herself had left the matrimonial house.” Based on this, the Court concluded that the wife had deserted the husband without reasonable cause.
Regarding cruelty, the Court noted that the trial court failed to appreciate that “it could also have been an attribute of cruelty that wife was making allegations of dowry harassment and also of solemnization of second marriage by husband.” It referred to the statement that she admitted the husband returned from Australia “singly,” despite alleging he had married there. The Court observed that unfounded allegations impair marital trust, stating: “mutual trust is the golden thread that weaves affection… and it gets impaired when unfounded and defamatory allegations are made.”
The Court recorded that the allegations of dowry harassment and second marriage were “unfounded accusations” and held that they constituted cruelty.
The Court allowed the appeal “on both of the grounds i.e., desertion and cruelty.” It ordered that “setting aside the impugned judgment and decree and the divorce petition is allowed. The marriage solemnized between the parties on 29.11.2008 is dissolved. Decree be drawn accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Shri Pushp Raj Singh Gaharwar – Advocate
Case Title: AS v. DK
Case Number: First Appeal No. 58 of 2020
Bench: Justice Vishal Dhagat, Justice Anuradha Shukla
