The court noted that after marriage, both husband and wife have the freedom to communicate with friends. However, the conversations must be “decent and dignified,” especially when involving members of the opposite gender.
Madhya Pradesh: The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by a woman against a family court’s decision granting her husband’s divorce plea on the grounds of cruelty.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Rules Public Humiliation of Husband by Wife as Mental Cruelty
The bench, comprising Justices Vivek Rusia and Gajendra Singh, observed that the wife’s indecent conversations with male friends through mobile chats amounted to mental cruelty.
The court noted that after marriage, both husband and wife have the freedom to communicate with friends. However, the conversations must be “decent and dignified,” especially when involving members of the opposite gender.
The bench stated, “No husband would tolerate that his wife is in conversation through mobile by way of these type of vulgar chatting. After marriage husband and wife both have freedom to have a conversation by way of mobile, chatting and other means with friends but the level of conversation should be decent and dignified, specially when it is with an opposite gender, which may not objectionable to the life partner.”
The court emphasized that if a spouse continues with such behavior despite objections, it can amount to mental cruelty.
“If despite objection, the husband or wife continues with such activity, then it certainly will cause mental cruelty to the other partner.”
Background of the Case
The couple got married in 2018. The husband, who is partially deaf, had disclosed his condition to the wife before marriage. Post-marriage, the husband alleged that his wife started misbehaving with his mother and left the matrimonial home within one and a half months.
ALSO READ: “Separating a Child From Father Amounts To Mental Cruelty”: Madhya Pradesh High Court
He further alleged that the wife was involved in indecent conversations with her “old lovers” through mobile chats. The husband claimed that the WhatsApp messages were vulgar in nature.
On the other hand, the wife denied the allegations, asserting that she had no such relationships. She also accused her husband of hacking her phone and sending fabricated messages to the men in question to build evidence against her. The wife further contended that her privacy was violated and alleged that her husband had beaten her and demanded a dowry of Rs.25 lakh.
The High Court observed that the woman’s father, who is a practicing lawyer with 40-50 years of experience, admitted that his daughter was accustomed to talking with male friends.
The court noted, “The learned family court has observed that father of the appellant is a practicing lawyer having 40-50 years standing in the Bar but he did not enter into the witness box to deny the his statement given to the police. Ex.A/4 & A/6, the printout of the chatting of this appellant with Vinod and others, are not a decent conversation.”
The court further stated, “There is no counter blast by way of FIR or complain of the Domestic violence etc. against the respondent, which establishes that the allegations of the respondent against wife are correct.”
Based on the evidence, the court upheld the family court’s decision to grant the husband a divorce.
The bench concluded, “The respondent has certainly make out the case by way of evidence that the appellant committed mentally cruelty upon him. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the family court, hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.”
Thus, the woman’s appeal was dismissed.
Advocate Yash Pal Rathore represented the appellant (wife), while Senior Advocate Virendra Sharma, along with Advocate Satish Yadav, represented the respondent (husband).
