Compelling Wife To Discontinue Studies Amounts To Mental Cruelty For Granting Divorce: Madhya Pradesh High Court

A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Gajendra Singh remarked, “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 and we hold that it constitutes a ground of divorce under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. “

Advocate Chandrakant Verma represented the wife, whereas Advocate Aditya Verma represented the husband.

Brief Facts

Mariage between the wife, Appellant herein, and husband, the respondent herein, was solemnized as per Hindu rituals. At the time of marriage, the wife had cleared the 12^th standard examination, and had further expressed her desire to continue further studies, to which the family members of the in-laws were agreeable to.

After the gauna ceremony was solemnized, her husband's elder brother and a relative took her to her matrimonial home for two days, assuring her return to her maternal home. However, after the function, when she requested to leave, her in-laws refused, insisting that she discontinue her studies and stay there. They further claimed that an insufficient dowry was given and pressured her to fulfil demands for ₹1 lakh in cash and a motorcycle, subjecting her to harassment.

The wife further claimed that during her brief stay, she was subjected to unnatural sexual intercourse, and her husband, a habitual drinker, endangered her life. She was not given medical care. With police intervention, she returned to her maternal home. Unwilling to continue the marriage, she filed a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and a divorce petition on grounds of cruelty.

The husband contended that he never asked her to stop further studies and also denied committing domestic violence. He claimed that the petition had been filed under a false pretext solely to avoid returning the jewelry and money, and that a false case had been lodged against him. The husband also filed a petition under Section 9 of the HMA, for restitution of conjugal rights, claiming that the wife had withdrawn herself from his company without reasonable.

The Trial Court ruled that it had not been proved that the husband had committed any cruelty towards the wife, or that he had subjected her to unnatural sex. The Trial Court therefore dismissed wife’s divorce petition and allowed husband’s petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, the wife has filed appeals against both decisions before this Court.

Reasoning

After perusing the records, the Court observed, “It has to be borne in mind that in section 13(1(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, legislature has used the word treated the petitioner with cruelty and the word "has treated" denotes a conscious action on the part of the respondents where the act of cruelty is established. It is not necessary to establish that the respondent had the requisite intention to commit the act.”

The Bench referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) where it was recognized that "education is a facet of life" and is considered an integral part of "right to life" under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, meaning that access to education was essential for living life with dignity.

The Court noted that the Trial Court had erred in its decision and held, “…this is not a case where she 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. Accordingly, findings of the trial court on issues no.1 & 2 are set aside and it is found proved that respondent/husband treated the petitioner/wife with mental cruelty and treating the petitioner/wife with cruelty was a reasonable excuse to live separately from the husband and trial court committed error regarding issue no.1 in RCS HM No.61/2018 and it is found proved that appellant/wife has withdrawn the society of respondent/husband with reasonable excuse.”

The Court further observed that this was a clear case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as in the ten years of being married, the parties had only spent three days together.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, allowed both appeals, and dissolved the marriage between the parties under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.

Cause Title: B v. B ( Neural Citation No. 2025:MPHC-IND:5956)

Click here to read/download judgment