The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, holding that an egoistic approach has no place under the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court said false allegations and an inflated ego can destroy marital harmony.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BHOPAL: In a ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted divorce to a couple on the grounds of desertion and cruelty, emphasizing that an “egoistic approach cannot be accommodated under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
A Division Bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Anuradha Shukla observed that the wife’s “inflated ego” and unfounded accusations of dowry harassment and a second marriage amounted to cruelty, justifying the dissolution of the marriage.
Case Background
The case involved a husband who challenged a Family Court judgment dismissing his divorce petition filed under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The couple married in 2008, but the wife left the matrimonial home after just one and a half months and returned to her parental house in 2009. She later gave birth to a daughter, and despite the birth, her husband did not visit her. Subsequently, the wife began working and filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC, which was allowed, granting ₹5,000 per month to her and ₹3,000 for the child.
The husband alleged that the wife was discourteous towards him and his family and had threatened to move to Delhi to live with a male friend. He sought a divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and desertion.
The wife, on the other hand, accused the husband of dowry harassment and claimed he had remarried while staying in Australia. The Family Court dismissed the husband’s plea, prompting an appeal to the High Court.
Court’s Observations
The High Court found no evidence to substantiate the wife’s allegations of dowry harassment or second marriage. It noted that the wife never lodged any police complaint or provided proof to support her claims, calling them “unfounded and casually made.”
“Making allegations is the easiest adventure, but proving them is a burdensome task,”
the Bench observed.
“False allegations expose the other spouse to shame, ridicule, persecution, and even penal liability.”
The Court added that the wife’s claim of not filing a police complaint to “save her marriage” was not convincing, as she also did not file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Bench found that the wife expected the husband to visit her parental home and persuade her to return, despite being the one who left the matrimonial home. Her insistence, according to the Court, reflected an “inflated ego” that restrained her from restoring marital ties.
“Her inordinate insistence gives an impression that her inflated ego was restraining her to restore the marital ties while she herself had left the matrimonial house,”
the judges said.
“This egoistic approach cannot be accommodated under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
Thus, the Court held that the husband’s failure to persuade her to return did not make him guilty of desertion.
The Court ruled that the false accusations made by the wife of dowry harassment and a second marriage constituted mental cruelty, as such charges attack the foundation of mutual trust essential in marriage.
“In marital relationship, mutual trust is the golden thread that weaves affection and admiration in the life of married couples, and it gets impaired when unfounded and defamatory allegations are made,”
the Bench stated.
On both counts, cruelty and desertion, the Court found in favor of the husband and granted a decree of divorce, setting aside the Family Court’s decision.
Appearance:
The appellant: Advocate Pushp Raj Singh Gaharwar
None for the respondent
Case Title:
ABHISHEIKH SHRIVASTAVA Versus SMT. DIPIKA KHARE
FIRST APPEAL No. 58 of 2020
READ ORDER