Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that if a wife is disrespectful towards her husband and his family, it would construe as cruelty towards the husband.

The bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Virender Singh observed so while dismissing a woman's appeal against the decree of divorce granted by the family court. The family court had granted the divorce on the husband's plea on the ground of cruelty.

In appeal before the high court, the wife alleged that it was in fact her husband's behaviour towards her that had forced her to move out of her matrimonial house along with her minor son.  

However, it was the husband, who filed a plea for divorce before the family court on the ground of cruelty and desertion in which the family court found both the grounds proved but on technical grounds, allowed the petition on the ground of ‘cruelty’ only.

The wife, before the high court, alleged that while passing the decree of divorce, the family court only considered the aspects and contentions of the husband and despite contradictions, it wrongly believed the evidence produced by him. She claimed that the husband's actions towards her were the reason for their separation. However, opposing the appeal, the husband claimed otherwise. 

The high court underscored that in the case at hand, the husband had alleged that the wife, who is daughter of an IPS officer, was very proud, arrogant, stubborn, short-tempered, and pretentious and she also used to insult his family members.

Court noted that the husband, in his examination-in-chief before the trial court, had alleged that the day his wife entered her matrimonial house, she started disobeying everyone stating that she is a progressive girl and neither likes nor follows orthodox traditions.

To reach its conclusion, court referred to a catena of judgments of the Top Court including the decision in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) in which the Supreme Court held that mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other.

Moreover, court highlighted that the family court, in its very lengthy judgment categorically touching each and every aspect, had arrived at a conclusion that the statements of the husband and his witnesses were reliable while the allegations of the wife did not withstand. 

"All this shows that the wife was harassing and torturing him and his entire family. His statement remained intact in cross-examination. His witnesses including his younger brother stood firm with him", Court observed.

Therefore, in view of wife's not much will to stay with the husband, while noting that the reasons stated by the wife for leaving her matrimonial home were not satisfactory and were without just and reasonable cause, court refused to interfere in the decision of the family court.