Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a first appeal filed by a husband against the judgment passed by the Family Court rejecting his divorce petition filed on twin grounds of desertion and cruelty, the Division Bench of Vishal Dhagat and Anuradha Shukla*, JJ., allowed the appeal on the grounds of cruelty committed by the wife against the husband by making false allegations of husband’s alcoholism and contesting the divorce petition despite being resolute in not resuming the cohabitation.
Background
The parties, both public servants, got married in 2004 and had two children. However, their relationship went sour in 2015, and they began living separately in 2017.
The wife alleged that she was being subjected to physical and mental cruelty and filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’), wherein a compromise was reached between the parties after the husband allegedly apologized. She claimed that her husband had a suspicious nature and was prone to casting aspersions on her character. He also shied away from his responsibility towards his children.
Before the Family Court, the wife stated that she never wanted to seek a divorce, and she was willing to live with him if the husband mended his ways. The husband alleged that she was cruel and used to make false allegations against him, which was why he filed the divorce petition.
The Family Court ultimately dismissed the divorce petition. Hence, the present appeal.
Analysis
Upon perusal of the facts, the Court noted that the wife had been living in a separate house since 2017. Although the husband claimed that their marital relations had come to an end when the wife got transferred to a different place in 2013, he admitted during his cross-examination that the matrimonial relationship finally ended in 2017. Incidentally, the divorce petition was filed in 2018. Thus, the Court held that the ground of desertion was not available to the husband as the mandatory period of two years of desertion was not complete as on the date of filing of the divorce petition, and their marital relationship was continuing immediately before 05-06-2017.
Regarding the issue of cruelty committed by the wife by making false allegations against the husband, the Court noted that, as per the wife, her husband was addicted to intoxication and would commit cruelty against her. The Family Court also reached this finding, for which it heavily relied on the following four documents:
-
Document 1 (‘D1’) was the jointly signed application given by both parties requesting the Lok Adalat to settle their case based on a compromise signed in 2011
-
Document 2 (‘D2’) mentioned the terms of compromise set out between the parties. In D2, the husband admitted that he used to physically assault the wife on trivial matters and was also neglecting his obligations towards his wife and children. Further, he assured that, henceforth, he would take care of his wife and children. Consequently, the couple decided to live together once again, and no proceedings were ever registered thereafter against the husband.
-
Document 3 (‘D3’) was the order passed by the Lok Adalat based on this compromise.
-
Document 4 (‘D4’) was a complaint given to the Police in 2015 by the wife, but it appeared that the Police did not take any follow-up action on the basis of it.
The Court noted that there was no mention of the husband having an alcohol habit or being an alcoholic in D1 to D3. Thus, the Court stated that whatever wicked deeds were confessed by the husband in 2011, under D2 had evidently no recurring episodes in subsequent years of his marital life. Further, the Court noted that the husband rebutted the wife’s allegations of his habit of intoxication in his statement given on oath. Thus, the Court held that D1 to D4 did not have any evidentiary value to support the allegation of the husband’s addiction to liquor.
Furthermore, the Court noted that in para 18 of the impugned judgment, the Family Court relied upon the testimony of the wife’s brother regarding some incident which occurred during his reception ceremony and speaking about the husband’s alcoholism. However, no pleadings were available in the wife’s written reply regarding this incident. Thus, the Court remarked that against the propositions of civil law, the Family Court admitted and placed reliance on evidence, which was definitely beyond the scope of pleadings.
Accordingly, the Court held that the alcoholism allegations were not duly proved, and the Family Court committed an error in holding that the husband was an alcoholic.
Regarding whether the wife committed cruelty against her husband, the Court stated that the wife did not hesitate in declaring that her husband was an alcoholic. The Court further stated that, “normal bickering and quarrels between the parties, happening in their day-to-day life, cannot be taken as a matter of grave concern, but a persistent resolved attitude of the wife to see that her husband is ridiculed and humiliated in his social circle as an alcoholic is definitely a serious affair.”
In this regard, the Court referred to Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, wherein the Court held that an unjustified behaviour of one spouse actually affecting the physical or mental health of the other spouse was a grave case of mental cruelty. The Court also referred to Chanderkala Trivedi v. S.P. Trivedi (Dr), (1993) 4 SCC 232, and V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337.
The Court remarked that the wife made an unfounded allegation of habit of intoxication against the husband to avoid marital obligations, thereby exposing him to social sham and contempt and compromising his social position as a public servant. Thus, the Court held that her act of baseless accusation definitely had a decisive impact on the future relationship of the parties, and the dismissal of the divorce petition was not legitimate and warranted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal on the ground of cruelty committed by the wife against the husband by making false allegations of addiction to intoxication and contesting the divorce petition despite being resolute in not resuming the cohabitation.
[A v. B, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 7717, decided on 15-10-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Anuradha Shukla
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellant: Pradeep Kumar Naveria
For the respondent: Jagadish Prasad Kanojia