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 the husband against the Family Court’s judgment whereby his application for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion was rejected, the Division Bench of Vishal Dhagat and B. P. Sharma*, JJ., upheld the impugned judgment, holding that there was no error or perversity warranting interference and the Family Court correctly held that the husband had failed to prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Background
The parties got married in 2018 as per Hindu rites and customs. According to the husband, soon after the marriage, the wife started behaving rudely, avoided her marital responsibilities, frequently quarrelled without cause, and insulted him and his family members. On 08-12-2018, the wife left the matrimonial home without justification and did not return despite repeated requests and efforts made by him. He mentioned certain dates when he allegedly attempted reconciliation, claiming that the respondent on all these occasions refused to accompany him to the matrimonial home.
On these assertions, the husband contended that the conduct of the wife amounted to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(“HMA”) and that she had also deserted him without reasonable cause as per Section 13(1)(ib).
On the other hand, the wife specifically denied all allegations of cruelty. She stated that she always intended to continue marital life and made sincere efforts for reconciliation, but her attempts were not reciprocated. She asserted that whatever separation occurred was due to the conduct and behaviour of the husband and his family members, as she was subjected to taunts and mental stress at the matrimonial home and was compelled to leave as the circumstances became intolerable.
The Family Court noted that the husband merely asserted certain dates as attempts at reconciliation but produced no evidence to prove those attempts or to show that the wife intentionally refused cohabitation. Accordingly, the Family Court passed the impugned judgment.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court remarked that, “cruelty in matrimonial law need not always be physical; mental cruelty, which causes deep anguish, disappointment, and frustration, can also be sufficient ground for dissolution of marriage.”
The Court examined the husband’s allegations in detail as follows:
-
Regarding the allegation that the wife was extravagant and overspent on expensive items, the Court noted that the husband admitted during his cross-examination that he did not produce any bills, receipts, or documentary proof to show that such expenses were incurred on account of the wife’s conduct. Although he further stated that he would be able to produce such bills if called for, no such documents were ever produced either during the trial or at any subsequent stage.
-
The second allegation was that the wife refused to do household chores and remained engrossed on her mobile phone for prolonged periods, and that her conduct caused stress to the mother-in-law, allegedly to the extent of affecting her cardiac health. The Court noted that during cross-examination, the husband admitted that no medical records, prescriptions, doctor’s opinion, or any evidence whatsoever was produced to establish that the wife’s conduct resulted in any deterioration of his mother’s health.
“The husband married the wife of his own volition through social media, and if household habits or lifestyle preferences were material factors to him, they could have been ascertained before marriage. Even otherwise, such allegations about spending habits, household contribution, or mobile usage, without proof of severe mental harassment, do not fall within the statutory meaning of cruelty as required under law.”
-
The third allegation was that the wife used to quarrel with customers and employees at the beauty parlour and restaurant owned by the husband’s family, which allegedly caused financial loss to the businesses and reduced their clientele. The Court noted that, yet again, apart from making these assertions, the husband did not produce any ledger sheet, audit report, financial records, or any other documentary proof to substantiate that any financial loss occurred due to the wife’s conduct. Noting this, the Court stated that as a business proprietor, such documents would naturally be within his possession and could have easily been produced before the Family Court. Thus, the failure to do so rendered the allegation unsubstantiated.
-
Regarding the allegation that the wife used to threaten him with false criminal complaints, the Court noted that in his cross-examination, the husband admitted that no complaint, report, or FIR was ever registered by her against him or any of his family members.
-
The final grievance was that the wife refused to accompany him to a social function, which caused him embarrassment. The Court opined that a refusal by a spouse to attend a social event, even if such refusal caused displeasure to the other spouse, did not constitute cruelty in the eyes of the law.
“Matrimonial life involves individual choices and personal preferences, and isolated acts of refusal to participate in social engagements cannot be elevated to the level of matrimonial cruelty warranting dissolution of marriage.”
Thus, after considering the submissions and perusing the Family Court’s record, the Court held that the Family Court marshalled the facts and evidence correctly.
“Cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act must be proven through definite and convincing evidence. The allegations must be specific, supported by instances, dates, and, where possible, independent testimony.”
The Court held that in the present case, no particular incident of cruelty was proved by the husband, and the allegations were sweeping in nature and devoid of specific details. Even the contention that the wife refused reconciliation on specific dates remained unsubstantiated because no witness who was present on those occasions was examined, nor was any documentary proof filed.
“The material evidence does not establish that the behaviour of the wife was consistently hostile, abusive, and disrespectful towards the husband and his mother.”
The Court further noted that the wife’s conduct, as reflected in her statements and the evidence, indicated that she was willing to resume her matrimonial life.
“The husband could not demonstrate that the wife intended permanent separation or that she left the matrimonial home with the settled intention not to return. Desertion requires the element of animus deserendi, which was not proved.”
Remarking this, the Court stated that the Family Court rightly held that the burden of proving cruelty and desertion lies on the party who asserts it, and the husband failed to discharge that burden.
“a decree of divorce cannot be granted merely because the marriage has become strained or the parties are living separately. Matrimonial ties cannot be dissolved based on general allegations or because of incompatibility alone.” The law required the husband to establish matrimonial misconduct amounting to cruelty, and he had failed to establish even a single act through reliable evidence.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the impugned judgment, holding that there was no error or perversity warranting interference and the Family Court correctly held that the husband had failed to prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Thus, the appeal was dismissed.
[C v. D, First Appeal No. 1360 of 2024, decided on 06-11-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice B. P. Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Senior Advocate R. K. Sanghi and Advocate Raghav Sanghi
For the respondent: Suneesh Tiwari