Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Gwalior bench confirmed a Family Court’s decision of granting divorce to a man on grounds of cruelty by his wife under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HM Act). The court observed that the appellant-wife's consistent unwillingness to cohabitate with her husband without valid reasons, coupled with her alleged filing of false dowry-related complaints, amounted to mental cruelty towards the husband.

The court, presided over by 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 appellant wife and the respondent husband got married on June 9, 2011. The husband, however, sought a divorce on the grounds of cruelty, alleging that the appellant wife continuously chose to stay at her parental home despite efforts at reconciliation, including mediation at a Police Counselling Centre in October 2017. The husband also secured a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on December 13, 2019, which the appellant allegedly failed to comply with. Despite multiple attempts by the husband to reunite, including mediation efforts, the appellant refused to return to the matrimonial home, due to which, the husband was bound to file a divorce application.

Countering these allegations, the wife sought the dismissal of the divorce petition. She asserted that the respondent and his family harassed her for dowry and mistreated her. It was also claimed that her in-laws obstructed her attempts to rejoin the respondent, including after the restitution decree. The wife expressed willingness to live with the respondent if provided with separate accommodation, citing fear of harassment from her in-laws. The wife also filed applications under Section 24 and Section 25 of the HM Act, seeking interim maintenance and permanent alimony of Rs.59,40,000/-, citing poor financial condition and health issues.

Denying the allegations, the respondent labelled them as baseless, arguing that the Family Court had rightly granted the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It was highlighted that no complaints of dowry demand had been raised for more than seven years of separate living, and the allegations of harassment related to dowry demands made by the appellant were false and frivolous, as the Family Court itself found them unsubstantiated.

The High Court noted that despite reconciliation attempts and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the wife demonstrated an unwillingness to resume cohabitation. The court also found that the  wife lived at her matrimonial home for a limited period and left the home without justifiable cause, interpreting her insistence on separate accommodation as an intent to live on her terms, disregarding her marital obligations.

The court also took into account the Family Court’s observations and aligned with the same. “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,” the court stated.

Relying on the legal principles of “mental cruelty” as defined in various judgments, including Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Mrs. Sucheta Narayan Dastane (1975), the court concluded that the respondent was subjected to mental cruelty due to the appellant’s conduct.

As a result, the High Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the Family Court, stating that “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.”

The court also rejected the wife’s applications seeking enhancement of maintenance amount as well as permanent alimony.

 

Cause Title: Girja Alias Pooja v Avinash Singh [FA 1781 of 2023]

Appearance: Shri R. K. Shrivastava- learned counsel for appellant- wife.; Shri S. N. Seth- learned counsel for respondent-husband