In a significant ruling on the scope of mental cruelty in matrimonial disputes, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) upheld the divorce granted to a husband on grounds of persistent harassment, including threats of suicide and false allegations made by the wife. The Court emphasized that such behavior constitutes mental cruelty under Hindu Marriage laws and justifies dissolution of marriage.
The judgment, delivered by Justice R. M. Joshi on February 20, 2025, came in Second Appeal No. 268 of 2018, challenging concurrent findings of cruelty by two lower courts. The appeal was dismissed.
Background of the Case
The couple was married in April 2009 and had one daughter. Within a year, the wife allegedly left the matrimonial home without informing the husband and returned to her parental house. According to the husband, this departure was abrupt and unexplained.
Attempts by the husband to reconcile were allegedly met with hostility and insults from the wife’s family. He also claimed that the wife and her relatives frequently interfered in their marital life and that he and his family were subjected to repeated humiliation.
One of the central allegations was that the wife falsely accused the husband’s father of attempting to outrage her modesty. Despite the seriousness of this accusation, no complaint was ever lodged with the police or any other authority. Additionally, the husband alleged that the wife regularly threatened to commit suicide and send him and his family to jail.
These events led to the filing of a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty in 2016. The Family Court granted the divorce, which was later upheld by the First Appellate Court in 2017.
Key Legal Issues
The appeal raised the following legal questions:
- Whether the acts alleged amounted to “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Whether the courts below failed to appreciate evidence properly.
- Whether any substantial question of law arose to justify interference under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Counsel for the wife argued that the allegations did not amount to cruelty and that the lower courts erred in assessing the evidence. The husband’s counsel defended the findings, pointing to consistent evidence and conduct on the part of the wife that demonstrated cruelty.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
Justice R. M. Joshi provided detailed reasoning, focusing on the seriousness and psychological impact of the wife’s conduct.
A key issue was the false allegation of sexual misconduct against the husband’s father. The Court noted:
“Husband has not only made allegation that wife used to threaten him and his family to send them to jail by committing suicide but in fact that attempt was made. Such an act on the part of spouse would amount to such a cruelty that it becomes a ground for decree of divorce.”
The Court found it significant that no explanation was offered by the wife for making such a grave allegation without pursuing it legally:
“Wife was unable to give any explanation for making allegation against the father of the husband without making any complaint to that effect to the police.”
The judgment also highlighted a suicide attempt allegedly made by the wife, and noted conduct in court suggesting suppression of evidence. It was observed that the wife appeared with Mehendi on her hands during a scheduled cross-examination to avoid answering questions about the incident—interpreted by the Court as deliberate and evasive behavior.
On the scope of review under Section 100 CPC, the Court clarified:
“Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is not open for this Court to re-assess the evidence to record independent findings of fact. It is, however, open for the wife to satisfy this Court that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are inconsistent with the evidence on record and hence perverse.”
Finding no such perversity, the Court concluded:
“Perusal of the evidence on record shows that the findings of the Trial Court for granting dissolution of marriage confirmed by the First Appellate Court are consistent. Thus, no perversity is seen in the said findings to cause any interference therein.”
The second appeal was accordingly dismissed.
