The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a wife’s occasional refusal of physical relations is not cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, dismissing the husband’s divorce plea.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MADHYA PRADESH: The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Jitendra Jani vs. Smt. Bhumi Jani (2025) reiterated that trivial disputes and ordinary wear and tear of married life cannot be equated with cruelty. The case also clarified the evidentiary burden on a petitioner, even when the respondent chooses not to contest.
ALSO READ: Jharkhand High Court: “Mental Illness Alone Not Enough for Divorce Without Proof”
Background of the Case
Jitendra Jani approached the Family Court, Jabalpur, under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce from his wife, Smt. Bhumi Jani, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The couple, married on 14th May 2007, had two sons.
The husband alleged that his wife refused to live with his parents, quarreled over minor issues, threatened suicide, withdrew from marital obligations, and finally left the matrimonial home on 28th March 2024. He also claimed she filed false complaints and neglected him and his family during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Family Court dismissed the petition, holding that cruelty and desertion were not proved. Dissatisfied, the husband filed an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
ALSO READ: Divorced Couples Can’t Divorce Their Parental Duties: Kerala High Court
Legal Issues Before the Court
- Whether the conduct of the wife amounted to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act?
- Whether the wife’s departure in March 2024 constituted desertion under Section 13(1)(ib)?
- Whether the unrebutted testimony of the husband sufficient to prove cruelty in the absence of the wife’s contest?
Court’s Analysis
The Court first examined the ground of desertion. Section 13(1)(ib) requires continuous desertion for at least two years before filing the petition. Since the wife left the matrimonial home in March 2024 and the petition was filed in July 2024, the statutory requirement was not satisfied. Thus, the claim of desertion failed at the threshold.
The Court emphasized that cruelty is not defined under the Act but must be of such severity that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other spouse. Citing Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) and Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur (2010), the Court noted that trivial irritations, disagreements, or occasional refusals of cohabitation fall within the normal wear and tear of marital life, not cruelty.
- The husband’s complaints, such as the wife refusing to wear a mangalsutra, avoiding rituals, or preferring to stay at her parental home, were not considered grave enough to justify divorce.
- Even allegations of refusal of cohabitation were unsupported, as the couple had lived together for 17 years and had two children, showing continuity of marital relations.
The Court said,
“In ordinary wear and tear of married life, occasional refusal to perform marital obligation is not sufficient to attract mental cruelty. To establish such cruelty there must be persistent refusal to have sexual relationship. Therefore, respondent cannot be held responsible for the denial of coitus so as to constitute cruelty.”
A key factor was the wife’s reply notice, where she expressed willingness to resume marital life provided the husband assured her of care, maintenance, and fidelity. The Court held that these were reasonable expectations in marriage, not conditions amounting to cruelty. This demonstrated that the marriage was not irretrievably broken.
Even though the wife did not contest the case in the Family Court or appeal, the Court relied on Dr. N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975) to stress that the burden still lies on the petitioner to prove cruelty. Courts cannot grant a divorce merely because evidence is unrebutted; the evidence must independently establish the cruelty of a serious degree.
Final Judgment
After considering the evidence and legal principles, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision. It held that:
- No case of desertion was made out due to the short period of separation.
- The alleged conduct of the wife did not rise to the level of cruelty.
- Both parties had expressed willingness to reconcile, further weakening the divorce case.
The appeal was dismissed; no dissolution of marriage.
Appearance:
Appellant by Advocate Shri Ankit Saxena.
None for the respondent.
Case Title:
Jitendra Jani vs Smt Bhumi Jani
FIRST APPEAL NO.2370/2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Divorce
