Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an appeal filed by a police officer against the judgment passed by the Family court rejecting his divorce plea filed under Section 13(1)(1-a)(1b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), the Division Bench of Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi*, JJ., rejected the appeal, holding that there was nothing which could form a basis for inferring cruelty on the part of the wife, rather it was the husband, who inflicted cruelty on her by deserting her.
Background
The couple got married in 1998 and had a son in 2002. The appellant husband was a Constable in S.A.F., posted at the Police Headquarters, Jahangirabad, Bhopal, while the respondent wife resided with her in-laws in her matrimonial home.
Allegedly, after marriage, the wife went to her maternal home and returned to live with her husband, who had just left military service, after six months. Aggrieved by his alleged alcohol consumption and infidelity, she began residing with her maternal uncle-in-law. Eventually, the couple became detached and started living separately in 2006.
The wife alleged that she had always been ready to fulfill her marital obligations, but the husband had developed a romantic relationship with a colleague and filed the divorce petition on false grounds.
The husband then filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(1-a)(1b) of the HMA, which was dismissed by the Family Court. Hence, the present appeal.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court reiterated the meaning of cruelty and referred to various landmark decisions defining it.
The Court remarked that the instant case was unique as the wife, even after being deserted by her husband, did not leave her matrimonial house in hopes that one day good sense would prevail over her husband.
“It is a case depicting the loyalty of the wife as a typical Indian woman, who puts all her efforts to save her family life.”
The Court stated that, as per the Hindu concept, marriage is a sacred, eternal, and indissoluble union. The wife did not allow bitterness or despair to erode her sense of responsibility towards the marriage and the family that she had become a part of, and therefore, upheld her self-respect and dignity.
“An ideal Indian wife, even when deserted by her husband, continues to embody strength, dignity, and virtue. Her conduct is rooted in dharma, cultural values, and sanctity of marital bond.”
The Court added that despite the absence of her husband, she remained committed to her in-laws, serving them with care and affection, as she would have if her husband were present. She did not use her sufferings for the gain of sympathy; instead, she channelled it inward, reflecting the Hindu ideal of the woman as Shakti – not weak, but submissive and powerful in her endurance and grace.
“She neither begs for her husband’s return nor maligns him, but lets her quiet endurance and noble conduct speak up for her strength. She has ensured that the image of both her Maika (natal family) and Sasural (in-laws) is never tarnished by her deeds, words, or actions.”
The Court further remarked, “Even when she left alone, she does not forsake the Mangalsutra, the Sindoor, or the symbols of her marriage status as marriage to her is not a contract, but a Sanskara – an indelible sacrament.”
The Court stated that, unlike the present case, usually in family disputes, the wife leaves the matrimonial house to live separately or along with her parents after levelling several allegations against the husband and in-laws. Additionally, the grounds advanced by the husband for getting a divorce were very shallow and hollow in nature and not supported by evidence, which could inspire confidence. The ground that the wife was never ready and willing to fulfill her marital obligation was falsified by the fact that they had a son who was also residing with the wife in the matrimonial home.
The Court further rejected the claim that the wife’s allegations of her husband having an illicit relationship with his colleague amounted to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA. The wife, who had not been living with her husband for more than 19 years, was constrained to think and, in utter frustration, allege that her husband had a romantic relationship with another woman, which is why he did not take her to live with him. This allegation was not made publicly against her husband, but rather mentioned in her written statement to refute the allegations leveled by her husband.
The Court opined that this was not a case where unsubstantiated allegations were levelled against the husband for his character assassination, which might constitute mental cruelty under the HMA. Despite the husband distancing himself from the wife for a long time, she did not relinquish her obligations as Indian Bahu, but preferred to live in the matrimonial house not only to preserve her dignity, but also to serve her parents-in-law.
The Court held that the instances cited by the husband were false and concocted, which did not come to his rescue. He could not be allowed to reap the fruits of his own faults and misdeeds. It was also noteworthy that, except for the husband and his friends, none of the husband’s family members appeared before the Court to support him in this family dispute. This proved that the allegations levelled against the wife were false.
The Court stated that not only did the wife continue to live with her in-laws, but she also did not file any criminal case against the husband, which might have ruined his career and life. This proved the level of tolerance, a respectful and helpful attitude of the wife towards her husband.
“She has revealed her strong determination and character that a typical Indian woman/wife has.”
Thus, upon perusal of the evidence on record, the Court held that there was nothing which could form a basis for inferring cruelty on the part of the wife; rather, it was the husband who inflicted cruelty on the wife by deserting her. The husband could not make out any case for the grant of a decree of divorce, which had been considered by the Family Court from the right perspective. The Court further held that the Family Court did not commit any error of law or fact in holding that the husband was not entitled to a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(1-a)(1-b) of the HMA.
Thus, the appeal, which was devoid of any substance, was dismissed by the Court.
[A v. B, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 5507, decided on 05-08-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellant: Sameer Verma
For the respondent: Pramod C. Nair