Madhya Pradesh High Court: In two appeals, arising from two separate judgments of the Family Court, challenging the dismissal of the wife’s petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty and the decree in favor of the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, a Division Bench of Vivek Rusia and Gajendra Singh,* JJ., set aside the both the order and decree and dissolved the marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Hindu Marriage Act).
In the instant matter, the marriage between the appellant (wife) and respondent (husband) was solemnized on 01-05-2015 as per Hindu customs. At the time of marriage, the wife had passed the 12th standard and wished to continue her studies, to which the husband’s family initially agreed. The gauna ceremony was performed on 16-07-2016, after which the wife was taken to her matrimonial home for two days. She expressed a desire to return to her maternal home, but her in-laws insisted she remain at her matrimonial home and discontinue her studies. The wife’s family was also pressured for an additional dowry of Rs.1 lakh and a motorcycle. The wife alleged cruelty on her, including harassment, unnatural sexual intercourse, and physical abuse.
The wife’s father lodged a complaint at Police Station Akodiya, enabling her to return to her maternal home on 28-07-2016. The wife filed a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), along with a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on 21-11-2016.
However, the husband denied all the allegations and claimed he never demanded dowry or restricted the wife’s education. He further alleged that the wife’s father had received Rs. 2 lakh and jewellery from him. The husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights on 12-03-2018 and argued that the wife left without reasonable cause.
The Court noted that the Family Court dismissed the wife’s divorce petition and ruled in favor of the husband’s plea for restitution of conjugal rights. It was noted that mediation efforts were unsuccessful at both trial and appellate levels.
The Court stated that “unlike the case of physical cruelty mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case.” The Court cited to Praveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, (2002) 5 SCC 706 and noted that “feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances.” The Court relied on Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy, (1988) 1 SCC 105, where it was held that cruelty does not require intent and mental cruelty is sufficient for divorce.
The Court cited Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666, where the Supreme Court recognized education as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, meaning that “access to education is essential for living a life with dignity.” The Court noted that the husband did not bear the expenses of the wife’s education despite initial assurances. The Court found that compelling the wife to discontinue her studies or creating an atmosphere where she could not study amounted to mental cruelty. The Court further deemed the conduct of the husband, including failure to support education and forcing the wife to stay in an environment where she felt unsafe, as cruel.
“Compelling the wife to discontinue her studies or creating such an atmosphere that she is put in a position not to continue her studies is equivalent to destroy her dreams in the beginning of their marital life and forcing her to live with a person who is neither educated nor eager to improve himself certainly amounts to mental cruelty.”
The Court noted that the couple had lived together for only three days since July 2016 and the prolonged separation indicates irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The Court further noted that the wife had a reasonable excuse to live separately due to the cruelty she suffered. The Court asserted that the husband’s petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed merely to counter the divorce petition.
The Court noted that the in present case “is not a case where the wife was taking advantage of her own fault but this is a case where wife was putting to sacrifice her dreams, career in the name of marital obligations.” The Court opined that the lower court’s order granting restitution of conjugal rights was erroneous.
The Court allowed both the appeals, set aside the Family Court’s order of not granting divorce, set aside the decree for restitution of conjugal rights and dissolved the marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
[Bhuribai v. Bheem Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 1742, Decided on -01-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Gajendra Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Chandrakant Verma, Counsel for the Appellant
Shri Aditya Verma, Counsel for the Respondent
Buy Constitution of India HERE
