Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an appeal filed by a husband against the Trial Court’s judgment dismissing his divorce petition and granting him a lesser relief of a decree of judicial separation, the Division Bench of Vishal Dhagat and Anuradha Shukla*, JJ., allowed the appeal on the ground of cruelty, holding that the wife had failed in establishing her allegations against the husband’s illicit relationships and such false allegations amounted to cruelty by wife.
Background
The parties got married in 2002 and had a daughter in 2007. Admittedly, they had been living separately since 2019. The parties had a joint locker in HDFC Bank, and the properties acquired during the period of marriage were registered in their joint name.
Admittedly, when the husband went to Manila, Philippines, in 2019, the wife went to Chennai with her daughter and started living separately. There she lodged a complaint in the Mahila Thana, Madipakkam, but did not show up to the counselling session. Undeniably, she filed petitions under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“CrPC”), Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”), and Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”).
The husband filed a divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty and desertion in 2021 before the Trial Court, claiming that his in-laws interfered too much in their marital life, the wife behaved poorly with his mother, the wife did not care for the child, and was frivolously spending money. He contended that their bond started dying when the wife’s behaviour worsened with his family, and she withdrew jewellery items worth Rs. 50 Lakhs from the joint locker without informing him. He further claimed that she would doubt his moral character and his ability to earn money and sustain the family. Allegations of this nature were made in her maintenance application as well.
The wife claimed that she was always keen to resume the marital ties, which is why she filed a petition under Section 9 of the HMA and visited the matrimonial house several times, but she was denied entry by the husband. The counselling session in Chennai was unsuccessful as the husband did not arrive on time, and she was compelled to leave after waiting for the whole day. She contended that the husband was not keen to return her Stridhan and operated the joint locker in her absence.
Accordingly, the Trial Court passed the impugned judgment granting judicial separation instead of divorce to the parties.
Hence, the present appeal.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that though the Trial Court observed that both parties claimed cruelty against each other, it restricted its finding only to the fact that the wife was cruel. The husband claimed cruelty based on the insulting and intimidating behaviour of the wife towards him and his mother, neglect of household tasks, misuse of financial liberty, living a luxurious life, and spending most of the time in kitty parties, and casting aspersions on the husband’s moral character by claiming he was having physical and illicit relationships with other women.
The Court further noted that the Trial Court was not convinced on the ground of desertion as the couple resumed their relationship in 2020-21, thus, the minimum two-year period was not complete when the divorce petition was filed in 2021.
After analysis of the oral testimonies, the Court opined that it was difficult to arrive at any etching finding that the wife’s behaviour towards the husband and his mother was unbecoming and offensive, or that she had a habit of squandering money to the extent of constituting cruelty against the husband. The Court reasoned that this was because whatever had been stated by the husband had been denied by the wife, and no other witness was examined by either party to seek corroboration of their respective statements on this issue. Thus, the Court held that cruelty through misbehaviour or any insulting attitude, or by squandering the money or misusing the financial access to the husband’s bank account had not been proved.
Regarding the aspect of cruelty by doubting the husband’s character, the Court noted that the wife had made these allegations not just in her oral testimonies but also in the petitions filed by her under Section 125 of the CrPC and under Section 12 of the DV Act. In both the said petitions, she categorically stated that her husband was in illicit relationships with many women and that he had the habit of engaging in vulgar chats with these women. During cross-objection, she explained that she initiated the proceeding under Section 12 of the DV Act in anger. The Court remarked that this explanation would not absolve her of the liability incurred by making baseless allegations against her husband regarding his moral character.
The Court noted that to tarnish her husband’s image further, she claimed before the Trial Court that she had clicked some photos regarding vulgar chatting of her husband, his intimacy with other women, and of him carrying condoms on his solo foreign visits. Noting that these chats and photographs were not considered as admissible evidence by the Trial Court, the Court concurred that it had no reason to differ, as the alleged chatting documents were photocopies without any certificate about the sources and the process through which they were generated. Photographs showing a condom lying over a bag do not connect the husband nor establish any fact regarding his alleged sin. Even the other photographs did not have any vulgar content or show any intimate relationship.
From the aforesaid discussion, the Court held that it was established that the wife had hopelessly failed in establishing any grain of truth in the very serious allegations about the illicit relationships of her husband.
“Making baseless and false allegations of the nature of moral turpitude not only causes mental agony to the other party of marriage, but it brings the marital relationship to its doom.”
The Court remarked that if the allegations were true, then nothing should have been spared by the wife to establish what was being claimed by her repeatedly, i.e., the burden to prove these grave allegations was heavily on her. The Court stated, “As nothing worth credence has been proved by her, we find no exaggeration in the complaint of the husband that he has suffered great agony on account of these allegations and has therefore been subjected to cruelty.” In this regard, the Court referred to Chanderkala Trivedi v. S.P. Trivedi (Dr), (1993) 4 SCC 232 and V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337.
Therefore, the Court held that the Trial Court committed no wrong in holding that the wife’s behaviour was cruel towards the husband and no immoral character of the husband was proved.
“We are aware that the relationship between the parties had gone so bitter that neither of them was having any empathy for the other, but even this kind of relationship cannot be an excuse to make false allegations regarding the moral character of the other party.”
Thus, on this ground of cruelty, the Court held that the husband deserved a decree of divorce, and there was no reasoned justification in the impugned judgment for not allowing the decree of divorce despite holding that the husband was being subjected to cruelty by wife.
Regarding the ground of desertion, the Court noted that though the husband claimed that they had been separated since 2019, the wife had proved otherwise as she used his credit card in 2022-23 and they were enjoying family time with their daughter. The Court remarked that this behaviour was incoherent with any intention to permanently withdraw from the company of the other spouse. Thus, the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the divorce petition on the ground of desertion.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal on the ground of cruelty and dismissed the cross-objection filed by the wife. Consequently, the marriage solemnized between the parties was declared to be dissolved on the ground of cruelty.
[B v. C, First Appeal No. 930 of 2024, decided on 25-09-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Anuradha Shukla
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellant: Ajay Kumar Ojha
For the respondent: Vaibhav Tiwari