The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a wife’s false allegation of her husband’s alcoholism amounts to mental cruelty, granting him divorce after finding that her baseless claims damaged his social reputation and marital relationship.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MADHYA PRADESH: In a verdict, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently granted a divorce to a man after determining that his wife had falsely accused him of being an alcoholic and had actively sought to tarnish his reputation in social circles. The Court also noted that the wife had contested his divorce plea despite being unwilling to resume marital life.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Vishal Dhagat and Anuradha Shukla emphasized that ridiculing a spouse as an alcoholic in society amounts to mental cruelty, a serious ground for divorce.
“In the case on hand, the wife, in order to avoid marital obligations, has made unfounded allegations of the husband’s habit of intoxication and has exposed him to social shame and contempt by compromising his social position as a public servant. Her act of baseless accusation definitely has a decisive impact on the future relationship of the parties,”
the Bench observed.
Background of the Case
The couple, married in 2004, have two children but have been living separately since 2017. The wife had earlier filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against her husband, which was subsequently closed.
In 2018, the husband filed for divorce, citing cruelty and false allegations against him. The wife contested the plea, claiming she had faced cruelty and that a compromise had been reached only after the husband apologized.
In 2021, a family court rejected the divorce, holding that the husband was a habitual drinker and had harassed his wife. Disagreeing with this decision, the husband appealed to the High Court.
High Court Findings
The High Court meticulously examined the evidence and found that the documents relied upon by the family court did not prove the husband’s alleged alcohol habit. Key findings included:
- No document substantiated habitual drinking after 2011.
- The wife’s complaint to the police in 2015 did not result in any action.
- The husband’s sworn statements rebutted claims of intoxication.
The Court concluded that the family court erred in labeling the husband a habitual drinker.
Additionally, the Court noted a power imbalance in their professional lives—the husband being a Class IV employee and the wife an officer in the public sector—but stressed that her intent to publicly humiliate him was a serious matter.
“Normal bickering and quarrels between the parties cannot be treated as a grave concern. However, the wife’s persistent and resolved attitude to see that her husband is ridiculed and humiliated in his social circle as an alcoholic is definitely a serious affair,”
the judgment highlighted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the husband’s appeal for divorce.
Appearance:
The husband: Advocate Pradeep Kumar Naveria
The wife: Advocate Jagadish Prasad Kanojia
Case Title:
X vs. Y
FIRST APPEAL No. 334 of 2021
READ JUDGMENT
