In an appeal filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court to challenge the judgment and decree dated 05-12-2019 by the Family Court, Satna, whereby the divorce petition of the husband (appellant) was dismissed, a Division Bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Anuradha Shukla allowed the divorce petition on grounds of desertion and cruelty while noting that the wife’s inflated ego could not be accommodated under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
The parties were married on 29-11-2008, and after residing for one and a half months in her matrimonial house, the wife left for her parental home in Pratapgarh on 15-01-2009. On 29-06-2011, the wife came back to her matrimonial house and lived there until 29-02-2012. She gave birth to a girl child in Rewa on 05-05-2012, but the husband did not visit her. The wife began working in Gujarat and filed a case for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). Amounts of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 3000 were allowed in favor of the wife and the daughter, respectively.
The divorce petition stated that the wife had threatened the husband that she would find a job in Delhi and reside with a male friend, and that she did not disclose her pregnancy to the husband. It was mentioned that the husband and his family were told not to meddle in the wife’s life, and the wife falsely informed the husband’s employers regarding matrimonial disputes, which led to his termination.
The husband decided to withdraw his application under Section 9 of the HMA, as the wife was not interested in the restoration of marital ties and made a request to allow the divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The wife challenged the divorce petition by stating that she was being harassed to the extent that leaving her matrimonial house was the only option for her. She also mentioned that her in-laws demanded more dowry from her parents while expressing their discontent with the insufficient dowry. The wife contended that the husband had solemnized a second marriage in Australia and that she was subjected to cruelty, which is why she had to leave her matrimonial house during pregnancy.
The husband submitted that the Trial Court ignored relevant evidence while dismissing the petition, and that its findings were also perverse on the facts.
The Court noted that the parties had not reunited since 29-02-2012 and that the wife had filed no police complaint regarding any demand for dowry or her being thrown out of her matrimonial house. It was further stated that, as per Section 9, the deserting party has to prove that there was a justifiable reason for withdrawing from the company of the spouse.
The Court said that making allegations is the easiest task, but proving them is a burdensome task. The Court perused the statements on record of the Trial Court and found that the wife made allegations against the husband very casually, even though she failed to provide details of the circumstances she faced.
The Court noted that the wife was not interested in making a police report to avoid damaging her matrimonial relationship, but found this explanation to be delusive. It was stated that instead of filing a report or a petition under Section 9, the wife chose to file a petition for maintenance and another under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court found it difficult to understand how these petitions would strengthen the marital ties.
The Court said that the wife expected the husband to visit her place and persuade her to restore their relationship, and that her inflated ego was restraining her from restoring the marital ties while she herself left the matrimonial house. It was stated that this egoistic approach could not be accommodated under the HMA and that no guilt would be placed on the husband for the separation of the parties.
The Court concluded that the wife was guilty of deserting the husband without reasonable cause, and that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in the proper perspective. It was held that the Trial Court had wrongly placed emphasis on deciding which of the two parties was non-responsive in restoration of ties, while emphasis should have been on deciding which of the two parties deserted the other without any reasonable cause.
Further, the Court held that the Trial Court failed to notice that the wife making allegations of dowry harassment, as well as a second marriage, could also have been an attribute of cruelty. Thus, because of the wife’s unfounded accusations, the divorce petition was allowed on grounds of desertion and cruelty. The impugned judgment and decree were set aside while the marriage between the parties was dissolved.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Mr. Pushp Raj Singh Gaharwar
For Respondent – None
