Is persistent pressure on a husband to leave his widowed mother a ground for divorce? Pressuring a son to abandon his widowed mother is mental cruelty, the Allahabad High Court has held, on the husband’s unchallenged evidence, and it has dissolved the marriage.
Prayagraj: Allowing a husband’s first appeal, the Allahabad High Court has held that persistent pressure on a husband to abandon his aged widowed mother constitutes mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It set aside the Family Court’s ex parte dismissal of his petition and granted a decree of divorce. The wife did not appear in the appeal, and the findings rest on the husband’s unchallenged evidence [Harsh Deepankar Tiwari v. Smt. Heeresh Tiwari].
Justice Indrajeet Shukla delivered the judgment, sitting with Justice J.J. Munir.
Cruelty that did not depend on the jewellery
Theft-type allegations between spouses are best avoided, the Bench accepted. But it held that the cruelty claim did not rest only on the jewellery and cash: the pressure to abandon the aged widowed mother was separately pleaded and proved. On that pressure, the Court recorded:
exerting persistent pressure upon the appellant to abandon his parents
would, if proved, constitute mental cruelty. The Court found the husband’s account worthy of credence, and held that living under the fear of a false complaint was also relevant to cruelty. It added that restitution and divorce can be sought in one petition, though only one relief can be granted.
The husband’s case
The parties married on 17 February 2000 under Hindu rites and have two daughters. The husband, the only son of his parents, lived at Mainpuri with his widowed mother, then 68. His allegations, which were not contested in court, are that from the start his wife pressed him to live apart from his mother and that the demand grew with time; that she insulted and misbehaved with his mother; and that she threatened false dowry cases, relying on her father’s police service.
He further alleged that on 6 July 2012 she left for her parental home at Etawah with jewellery, including his mother’s, and Rs 50,000 in cash, and on 3 March 2015 refused to cohabit.
He sought restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act or, alternatively, divorce under Section 13. Service on the wife failed and the matter proceeded ex parte.
What the Family Court did
On 12 July 2017 the Family Court at Mainpuri dismissed the petition with costs. It disbelieved the theft allegation because no one saw her take the items, his mother was not examined and no bills were filed. The High Court found that the Family Court had treated the case like a criminal theft trial and had not framed issues. An undefended trial does not automatically end in a decree, the Court said, but unchallenged assertions in the examination-in-chief are treated as admitted, and an ex parte judgment must still be a reasoned one under Order XX Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The decree
The Family Court’s judgment and decree were set aside and the appeal was allowed. The petition for divorce was allowed, the restitution prayer was held otiose and the marriage stands dissolved. No permanent alimony was claimed, and the wife may later apply under Section 25 of the Act. The Registry is to draw up the decree, and there is no order as to costs.
A reminder for Family Courts
The judgment ties mental cruelty to a specific, provable course of conduct, persistent pressure to abandon an aged parent, and not to the unproved theft allegations. It also reminds Family Courts that an ex parte hearing does not relieve them of framing issues and giving reasons.
Case Details: Harsh Deepankar Tiwari v. Smt. Heeresh Tiwari [First Appeal No. 715 of 2017]; Allahabad High Court; Date of Judgment: 21 September 2026.
Bench: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla. Appearances: Anurag Dubey, Pravin Kumar and Vineet Kumar Singh for the appellant; none for the respondent.