Egoistic Approach Can’t Be Accommodated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Divorce To Husband
The Husband approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the judgment of the Family Court whereby his divorce petition filed on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, was dismissed.
Justice Vishal Dhagat, Justice Anuradha Shukla, Madhya Pradesh High Court
While terming a woman’s accusations as unfounded, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted divorce to a couple on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. The High Court also held that an egoistic approach cannot be accommodated under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Appellant/Husband approached the High Court challenging the judgment of the Family Court whereby his divorce petition, filed on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, was dismissed.
The Division Bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Anuradha Shukla held, “From the overview of facts stated on oath, it appears that respondent/wife was expecting the appellant/husband to visit her place and persuade her to restore the matrimonial relationship. Her inordinate insistence gives an impression that her inflated ego was restraining her to restore the marital ties while she herself had left the matrimonial house. This egoistic approach cannot be accommodated under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act and in these conditions, a cold shoulder given by husband, in not requesting her to come back to the matrimonial house, would not place any guilt intent on him in the separation of parties.”
The Bench further asserted, “In the light of unfounded accusations made in this case by respondent/wife, regarding her subjugation to dowry harassment and solemnisation of second marriage by appellant/husband, we hold that the divorce petition deserves to be allowed on the ground of cruelty as well.”
Advocate Pushp Raj Singh Gaharwar represented the Appellant.
Factual Background
The couple got married in the year 2008, and the respondent wife went to her parental house in 2009 after staying for a month and a half in the matrimonial house. She gave birth to a girl child, but the appellant/husband did not visit her on this occasion. The respondent/wife started working and filed a case for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Maintenance amounts of Rs 5,000 and Rs 3,000 were allowed in favour of the respondent/wife and her daughter. The husband filed a divorce petition on the grounds that the behaviour of the wife with the appellant/husband and his family members was very discourteous.
The husband alleged that the wife used to threaten him that she would find a job in Delhi and live there with her male friend, with whom she was maintaining a relationship. A request was therefore made to allow the divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Respondent/wife challenged the divorce petition, claiming that she was being harassed to an extent that leaving the matrimonial house was her only option. The Trial Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant husband approached the High Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that no police report or complaint was made by the respondent/wife regarding the demand of dowry, her harassment for this demand, and for forcibly throwing her out of the matrimonial house. “Making allegations is the easiest adventure, but proving them is a burdensome task.We are alive to the fact that on making false allegations, the other spouse may be exposed to shame, ridicule, persecution and also penal liability. Therefore, heavy burden lies upon the spouse to be sensitive and careful while making any such allegations against the other spouse, but from the statements recorded before the trial Court, it can be figured out that respondent/wife was making these allegations very casually”, it stated.
“The reason for not making the police report or complaint for dowry harassment rested on the fact that she was not interested in damaging her matrimonial relationship any further, but this explanation does not befit in the circumstances of the case. If she was not keen to report the matter of dowry harassment, she was equally not keen to file a petition of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for obtaining a decree of restitution of conjugal rights”, it added.
Considering the facts stated on oath, the Bench noted that the respondent/wife was expecting the appellant/husband to visit her place and persuade her to restore the matrimonial relationship and this was a sign of her inflated ego which restrained her to restore the marital ties The Bench was of the view that the divorce petition deserved to be allowed on the ground of desertion.
Coming to the aspect of cruelty, the Bench found that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that it could also have been an attribute of cruelty that the wife was making allegations of dowry harassment and also of solemnization of second marriage by the husband during his stay in Australia. “In marital relationship mutual trust is the golden thread that weaves affection and admiration in the life of married couples and it gets impaired when unfounded and defamatory allegations are made by one against the other”, the order read.
Thus, the Bench allowed the divorce petition on both the grounds of desertion and cruelty.
Cause Title: P v. Y (Case No.: First Appeal No. 58 of 2020)