Wife’s implacable attitude, which involved making unfounded allegations while simultaneously not being interested in resuming marital ties but also contesting the divorce, was itself a facet of cruelty. A wife’s desire to live with a husband, despite making serious allegations, was considered a resolution to make his life “further miserable”
High Court of Madhya Pradesh Grants Divorce on the Ground of Cruelty
Head Note
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench, in a First Appeal, dissolved a marriage on the ground of cruelty by the wife, setting aside the decree of the Family Court. The Division Bench held that the wife’s persistent and unproven allegation that the husband was addicted to intoxication (alcoholism), despite no supporting evidence in the record of compromise from a prior domestic violence case, constituted grave mental cruelty. The Court found that such a baseless accusation, especially against a public servant, exposed him to “social sham and contempt,” definitively compromising his social position2222. Furthermore, the wife’s implacable attitude of both refusing to resume cohabitation and resolutely contesting the divorce petition amounted to cruelty, demonstrating an intent to make the husband’s life “further miserable”3333. The Court also dismissed the ground of desertion, noting that the mandatory two-year period had not been completed at the time the petition was filed4.
Case Details
- Case Name: [Name of Appellant/Husband] v. [Name of Respondent/Wife]
- Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:52433
- Case Number: First Appeal No. 334 of 2021
- Coram: Hon’ble Shri Justice Vishal Dhagat & Hon’ble Smt. Justice Anuradha Shukla 7777
- Date of Judgment: 15th of October, 2025 8
- Advocate for Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar Naveria 9
- Advocate for Respondent: Shri Jagadish Prasad Kanojia 10
Facts in Issue
The parties were married on June 23, 2004, and have two children. Both are public servants11. The wife had previously filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act of 2005), which was compromised on November 19, 2011121212121212121212. The husband filed for divorce on grounds of desertion and cruelty131313. The parties had been living separately since 2017, with the wife moving to a separate house on June 5, 2017141414141414141414. The divorce petition was filed on July 10, 201815. The Family Court rejected the petition, finding the husband to be cruel, citing his alleged habitual consumption of liquor161616161616161616.
Reasoning and Decision
1. Desertion Not Established
The Court observed that the husband’s divorce petition was filed on July 10, 201817. However, he admitted during cross-examination that the matrimonial relationship finally snapped on June 5, 201718. Since the statutory requirement for desertion mandates a continuous period of two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, the ground was deemed not available to the appellant19.
2. False Allegations as Cruelty
The Court critically reviewed the finding of the trial court regarding the husband’s alleged alcoholism.
- Evidentiary Flaw: The trial court heavily relied on documents ($Ex.-D/1$ to $D/4$) from the prior compromise20. While the husband had confessed in $Ex.-D/2$ to physically assaulting the wife on “trivial matters” and neglecting his obligations in 2011, the High Court emphasized that none of these documents mentioned his habit of taking liquor.
- Beyond Pleadings: The Court noted that the trial court erred by admitting and relying on the evidence of the wife’s brother regarding a drinking incident, as there were no specific pleadings about this incident in the wife’s written reply, violating principles of civil law22.
- Mental Torture: The Court concluded that the wife’s unjustified, persistent, and resolved attitude to see her husband “ridiculed and humiliated in his social circle as an alcoholic” amounted to a serious case of mental cruelty23. This act of baseless accusation had a decisive impact on the husband’s social position as a public servant24.
3. Implacable Attitude of Wife
The High Court further held that the wife’s implacable attitude, which involved making unfounded allegations while simultaneously not being interested in resuming marital ties but also contesting the divorce, was itself a facet of cruelty25. The Court referred to a Supreme Court precedent where a wife’s desire to live with a husband, despite making serious allegations, was considered a resolution to make his life “further miserable”26.
Conclusion
The appeal was allowed on the ground of cruelty27. The impugned judgment and decree of the Family Court were set aside, and the marriage solemnized on 23/06/2004 was declared dissolved28.
End Notes: Cited Case Laws
- Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, AIR 2007 SC 314829.
- Chanderkala Trivedi (Smt.) Vs. Dr. S.P. Trivedi, (1993) 4 SCC 23230.
- V. Bhagat Vs. D. Bhagat (Smt.), (1994) 1 SCC 33731.