In a family dispute that moved the Madhya Pradesh High Court, a husband’s appeal against a family court’s refusal to grant him a divorce was allowed. The husband had obtained a decree only to be denied later by the family court, which declined to recognize his claims as grounds for cruelty. But upon review, the High Court found that the wife’s actions—setting herself on fire and accusing the husband’s relatives without evidence—amounted to mental cruelty, and allowed the appeal.
The marriage had been arranged several years earlier, but early tensions had emerged. The husband alleged that his wife began displaying hostility towards him and his family within a short span after marriage. These tensions escalated to the point that she poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze at the matrimonial home, resulting in significant injuries. The husband claimed that this troubling incident was precipitated not by any wrongdoing by his family, but was a deliberate act by his wife.
In her defense, the wife asserted that she had been subjected to harassment by her in-laws since shortly after the wedding. She alleged that they were responsible for her immolation attempt. Furthermore, she contended that she had not pursued criminal proceedings, explaining that she was advised by respected members of the community to avoid escalating the matter legally. She also claimed that the husband was seeking a divorce only because her appearance had changed after her injuries, making him uncomfortable.
Despite the severity of these claims, the family court had rejected the husband's divorce petition, apparently finding that the evidence did not sufficiently prove mental cruelty. The husband then approached the High Court, insisting that the act of self-immolation in a matrimonial setting and the subsequent blame placed on his family amounted to cruelty. He argued that his wife’s conduct had created a domestic environment of fear and instability, making continued marital bonds unsustainable.
A division bench of the High Court, comprising Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Anuradha Shukla, deliberated on the complex interplay of facts. The court weighed the evidence presented by both parties, including bodily injury, allegations made, and explanations for not filing criminal charges.
In its judgment, the bench noted that while the wife had sustained serious burn injuries in a traumatic incident, she failed to produce any reliable evidence to support her claim that relatives had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Notably, no eye-witnesses, neighbors, or third parties were summoned to testify in support of her allegations. The court observed that the failure to bring forward such important witnesses weakened her version significantly.
Moreover, the female party did not file an FIR or pursue any legal action naming the husband’s relatives. According to the bench, the absence of any formal complaint or investigation undermined the legitimacy of her claims. The court found that no reasonable explanation had been provided for this omission. The court held that given the physical harm suffered, a normal reaction would have been to seek legal recourse or at least involve the police, yet no such action was taken.
Against this backdrop, the bench found the husband's account—that the incident was a case of self-immolation—credible. The court held that the wife's drastic act in a moment of despair, followed by wrongful blame, constituted mental cruelty. The bench stated that her conduct was sufficient to justify dissolution of the marriage under the relevant sections of the Hindu Marriage Act, specifically cruelty.
The High Court also observed that the family court had erred in replacing the parties’ factual claims with its own perceptions of their relationship dynamics. Mediation discussions, if any, had been improperly recorded in the court’s order sheet, bypassing rules of confidentiality. The bench reiterated that mediation proceedings are not to be documented beyond noting their outcome. The family court should have confined its analysis strictly to the evidence before it, without delving into speculative conclusions.
After carefully considering the evidence and legal principles, the High Court allowed the appeal. The court set aside the family court’s judgment and decree, holding that the husband's version was legally tenable. The bench granted him a divorce on the grounds of cruelty.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.