The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a wife’s unproven allegations of her husband’s infidelity, made out of anger or other motives, amount to cruelty and can be a ground for divorce. The bench of Justices Vishal Dhagat and Anuradha Shukla granted divorce to the husband by setting aside a trial-court decree that had only granted judicial separation. The High Court found that while the trial court had held that the husband was subjected to cruelty, it had erred in not granting a divorce despite those findings.
The couple had been married in 2002 and were living separately since 2019. The husband's divorce petition alleged that the wife neglected their child and treated his in-laws with repulsion. The wife, in response, claimed that she had been denied entry into the matrimonial home and asserted that the husband was involved in illicit relationships with other women. She also initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The Court examined the allegations of infidelity made by the wife and found that she had failed to prove any part of them. The evidence produced by her in support of her claims—photographs and chat messages—were photocopies without certification of their source. The Court held that such evidence was not sufficient to establish moral turpitude on the husband’s part. The Court noted that allegations of moral misconduct are serious in nature and place a heavy burden of proof on the one who makes them. Since no credible proof was given, the claims were held to be baseless and false.
The High Court reiterated that anger cannot justify making false allegations that harm another person’s reputation. It observed that the husband had suffered great mental agony because of these unproven claims. The Court emphasized that cruelty includes mental cruelty caused by defamatory allegations when they are made without substantiation. It held that the wife’s behavior, in making unproven allegations of immoral character, was itself a form of cruelty which justified dissolution of marriage.
While the trial court had rejected the husband’s plea for divorce and granted only judicial separation, the High Court found no valid justification in the trial court’s reasoning for withholding a divorce once cruelty had been established on the basis of proven behaviour. The High Court also dismissed the wife’s cross-objection, which sought restoration of marital ties. The Court concurred that there was no ground for desertion, finding that the conduct of the parties did not indicate any intention on either side to permanently withdraw from the relationship of marriage in the manner required by law for desertion.
In its final order, the High Court declared the marriage solemnized on December 8, 2002 dissolved on the ground of cruelty. The husband’s appeal was allowed, and the respondent wife’s cross-objection dismissed.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.