The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, has dismissed a husband’s appeal for divorce, holding that his wife’s continued residence in the matrimonial home with his parents, despite being deserted by him for nearly 19 years, demonstrates her commitment to the marriage. A division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi ruled that an allegation of an illicit relationship made by the wife in her written statement, born out of “sheer frustration,” does not amount to cruelty under these specific circumstances.
Case Background
The appellant-husband had filed a petition for divorce against his wife under Section 13(1)(i-a) (cruelty) and 13(1)(i-b) (desertion) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petition was initially dismissed by the 15th Additional District Judge, Indore.
The couple married on November 10, 1998, and have a son who was born on December 18, 2002. It is an undisputed fact that the husband is a Constable in the S.A.F. posted in Bhopal, while the wife continues to live in the joint family matrimonial home with her in-laws.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant-Husband’s Contentions: Learned counsel for the husband, Shri Sameer Verma, argued that the wife had deserted him without sufficient reason since 2006. He claimed she refused to cohabit with him at his place of posting in 2004, stating she did not like him. A central plank of his argument was that the wife had levelled false allegations of an illicit relationship with a female colleague, which in itself constituted mental cruelty. He contended that the Family Court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence of cruelty.
Respondent-Wife’s Submissions: Representing the wife, learned counsel Shri Pramod C. Nair countered that the husband had concocted false grounds for divorce simply to get rid of her. It was argued that the wife has always been ready to fulfill her marital duties, and the birth of their son is proof of this. The counsel asserted that it was the husband who refused to take her to live with him. Her continued residence with her in-laws was presented as evidence of her respectful nature and adjustment within the family, a fact underscored by the lack of support for the husband’s case from his own family members. It was submitted that the husband cannot be allowed to benefit from his own wrongdoings.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court, after a thorough review of the facts and legal precedents on mental cruelty, found the husband’s appeal devoid of substance.
The judgment authored by Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi described the case as “unique,” praising the wife’s conduct. The Court observed, “It is a case depicting the loyalty of the respondent/wife as typical Indian woman, who puts all her efforts to save her family life”. The bench noted that despite the “pain of abandonment,” the wife remained rooted in her dharma, serving her in-laws and upholding the dignity of the family. The Court further emphasized her deep-seated belief in the sanctity of her marriage, observing, “Even when she left alone, she does not forsake, the Mangalsutra, the Sindoor or the symbols of her marriage status as her marriage to her is not a contract, but a Sanskara – an indelible sacramant”.
Addressing the husband’s primary ground of cruelty based on the wife’s allegation of an affair, the Court opined that it could not be treated as cruelty in the “peculiar factual matrix of the case”. The Court stated:
“In sheer frustration she is constrained to think and in utter frustration entertained apprehension, alleged that husband is having some romantic relationship with other woman, therefore, he was not taking her to live with him. This allegation has not been made publicly against the appellant/husband… this fact has been mentioned in written statement to refute the allegations levelled by the appellant/husband against the respondent/wife”.
The Court found the husband’s grounds for divorce to be “very shallow and hollow in nature”. It pointed out that the claim of the wife not fulfilling marital obligations was “falsified by the fact itself that out of their wedlock son is born”.
Significantly, the Court observed that the absence of testimony from the husband’s own family members in his support “amply proves that the allegations levelled against the respondent/wife are false”.
Invoking the legal maxim “nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria” (no one can take advantage of their own wrong), the Court held that the appellant “cannot be allowed to reap fruits of his own faults and misdeeds”. The bench concluded that it was the husband who had deserted the wife and subjected her to cruelty, not the other way around.
Finding no error in the Family Court’s decision, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the original judgment. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
