Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has ruled that compelling a wife to discontinue her studies after marriage is equivalent to destroying her dreams and amounts to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

A Division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Gajendra Singh, delivered the verdict while setting aside the family court’s orders and granting divorce to the appellant-wife.

The court noted: “Compelling the wife to discontinue her studies or creating such an atmosphere that she is put in a position not to continue her studies is equivalent to destroy her dreams in the beginning of their marital life and forcing her to live with a person who is neither educated nor eager to improve himself certainly amounts to mental cruelty and we hold that it constitutes a ground of divorce under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”

The court was hearing a case arising from two appeals filed by the wife. Firstly, the wife had challenged the family court’s rejection of her divorce petition, and another  appeal was filed against the decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the husband.

The couple was married on May 1, 2015, and the gauna ceremony (the taking of a bride from her natal to marital home after marriage) was performed on July 16, 2016. At the time of marriage, the wife had completed her 12th standard and wished to continue her studies, which was agreed upon by her in-laws. However, upon moving into her matrimonial home, within 2-3 days, she was allegedly prevented from studying and subjected to demands for dowry, including ₹1 lakh and a motorcycle. She claimed to have faced harassment, domestic violence, and unnatural sexual intercourse. Due to alleged mistreatment, she returned to her parental home and filed filed a case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), 2005, and a petition for divorce on November 21, 2016, citing cruelty.

The husband contested the allegations, asserting that he had cooperated with the wife to continue her education and never demanded dowry. He claimed that his wife had willingly left the matrimonial home and refused to return despite his efforts. The husband claimed to have given a considerable amount of jewellery to the wife’s family at the time of the gauna ceremony and alleged a false case has been filed by his wife to retain the jewellery. He later filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, arguing that she had withdrawn from cohabitation without reasonable excuse. The family court, however, dismissed the wife’s divorce plea and allowed the husband's restitution petition.

The High Court reappraised the evidence and citing the Apex Court’s judgment in Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka & others (1992), recognised that - “education is a facet of life” and is considered an integral part of “right to life” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, meaning that access to education is essential for living a life with dignity.

The court also quoted the American philosopher, psychologist and educational reformer John Dewey and noted: “education is not just about preparing for life, but it is life itself.”

The court found that this was not a case where the wife was attempting to benefit from her own wrongdoing. Instead, it was a situation where she was compelled to sacrifice her dreams and career under the pretext of fulfilling marital obligations. It acknowledged the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, as the parties had been living separately since 2016, and ruled that “there is no possibility of reunion of the parties.”

Consequently, the court concluded that the wife had been subjected to mental cruelty, which justified granting her a divorce. The orders of the Family Court were set aside and the wife’s plea for divorce was allowed.

 

Case Number: FA-377 of 2020 with FA-388 of 2020

Appearance: Advocate Chandrakant Verma (for the appellant); Advocate Aditya Verma (for the respondent).