Indore: The Family Court, Indore, has dismissed a divorce petition filed by a husband seeking the dissolution of his marriage on the grounds of fraud and cruelty. The petitioner had alleged that his wife concealed a skin disease (vitiligo) prior to their marriage. Dismissing the plea, the Court observed that the husband’s allegations were false and that he was, in fact, the one guilty of treating his wife with cruelty and engaging in an adulterous relationship.
Case Background
The marriage between the parties—a businessman running a mobile service center and a doctor—was solemnized in January 2011 at the Arya Samaj temple in Bhagirathpura, Indore, according to Hindu rites and rituals.
The husband approached the Family Court seeking a decree of divorce, claiming that the wife suffered from vitiligo (white spots on the skin) before the marriage and had deliberately concealed this fact from him. He contended that this suppression amounted to fraud. Furthermore, he alleged that the wife’s behavior towards him and his family constituted mental cruelty.
In her written statement, the wife denied all allegations. She submitted that she was subjected to harassment by the husband and his family, who allegedly demanded a dowry of ₹10 lakhs. Despite being a qualified doctor, she claimed she was forced to perform menial household tasks, including cleaning bathrooms. She further alleged that the husband deserted her and their child in 2017 under the pretext of business expansion and was living in adultery with another woman.
Arguments of the Parties
The husband’s counsel argued that the concealment of the wife’s medical condition vitiated the marriage and that her conduct made it impossible for the couple to live together.
Appearing for the respondent-wife, Advocates Krishna Kumar Kunhare and Dr. Rupali Rathore argued that the husband was fully aware of the wife’s skin condition at the time of the marriage. To substantiate this, they placed on record photographs from the wedding ceremony, which clearly showed the white spots on the wife’s hands, thereby disproving the claim of concealment.
Regarding the husband’s conduct, the wife’s counsel submitted evidence of his illicit relationship. They informed the Court that the husband had tattooed the name of another woman on his arm and submitted photographs of him with the said woman.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court, after examining the evidence and hearing the submissions, found the husband’s testimony unreliable and the allegations against the wife baseless.
- On Concealment of Disease: The Court observed that the wedding photographs presented by the defense conclusively proved that the vitiligo was visible on the wife’s body at the time of the marriage. Thus, the husband’s claim that the disease was concealed was factually incorrect.
- On Adultery: During cross-examination, the husband was asked to show his arm to verify the existence of the tattoo bearing another woman’s name. The husband refused to do so, terming it a “personal matter.” The Court took a serious view of this refusal, drawing an adverse inference that corroborated the wife’s allegation of his extra-marital affair.
- On Cruelty: The Court noted that a criminal case for cruelty and dowry harassment was already pending against the husband and his family, who are currently on bail. The Court held that the husband’s actions—deserting his wife and child, demanding dowry, and living in adultery—constituted severe mental and physical cruelty towards the wife.
Decision
The Family Court held that the husband failed to prove the grounds of fraud or cruelty against the wife. Instead, the evidence established that the husband was the wrongdoer who had deserted his wife and child. Consequently, the Court dismissed the husband’s petition for divorce.
