'Even in 19-Year Desertion, She Wore Sindoor': MP HC Rejects Husband’s Divorce Plea

The division bench of Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi tabled the judgment on August 5, 2025, in an appeal filed by Santosh Choudhary, a constable with the Special Armed Forces. He had challenged the decision of the family court that rejected his divorce petition filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The couple was married in 1998 and have a son who is now an adult. In his petition, the husband claimed that his wife, Seema Choudhary, never showed interest in the marriage, made unsubstantiated accusations of his relationship with a female colleague, and refused to accompany him to his posting at Neemuch. He alleged that they had been living separately since 2006 and that her conduct amounted to cruelty and desertion.

The wife, however, denied all allegations and submitted that she continues to live in the matrimonial home with her in-laws and has always been ready to fulfill her marital duties. She did not initiate any criminal proceedings or make any public accusations against her husband, despite being deserted for nearly two decades.

Calling the case “unique,” the high court held that the wife's continued residence with her in-laws, even after her husband abandoned her, was a powerful testament to her character and commitment. “She has ensured that on or of both her Maika (natal family) and Sasural (in-laws) is never tarnished by her deeds, words or actions,” the court said.

Drawing from several Supreme Court precedents, the judges clarified that not every quarrel or allegation amounts to mental cruelty. They emphasized that the allegations made by the wife about the husband’s alleged relationship with another woman, mentioned only in the written statement and not made publicly, could not constitute cruelty under the law.

"...this cannot be taken as a fact creating a cruelty as mentioned in Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA because respondent/wife, who has not been taken by the appellant/husband to live with her since last near about 19 years. In sheer frustration she is constrained to think and in utter frustration entertained apprehension, alleged that husband is having some romantic relationship with other woman, therefore, he was not taking her to live with him," court said.

In a particularly evocative passage, court reflected on the wife’s endurance, stating that she continued wearing symbols of marriage such as sindoor and mangalsutra, and remained committed to her dharma as a wife despite being left alone.

"She does not use her sufferings for gain of sympathy, instead she channeled it inward, reflecting the Hindu ideal of the woman as Shakti - not weak, but submissive and powerful in her endurance and grace. Even when she left alone, she does not forsake, the Mangalsutra, the Sindoor or the symbols of her marriage status as her marriage to her is not a contract, but a Sanskara - an indelible sacramant," the judgment stated. 

Therefore, the bench concluded that the husband could not be allowed to benefit from his own wrongdoing, invoking the legal principle “nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria” — no one can take advantage of their own wrong.

Court further noted that none of the husband’s family members supported his claims during the proceedings, while the wife’s testimony and conduct remained consistent and dignified.

Finding no legal or factual error in the family court’s decision, the high court concluded that the appellant failed to make out a case for cruelty or desertion. “He cannot be permitted to reap the fruits of his own faults and misdeeds,” the judgment declared, dismissing the appeal.

The court did not impose costs on either party.

Case Title: Santosh Choudhary vs. Seema Choudhary

Judgment Date: August 5, 2025

Bench: Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi