The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that the termination of pregnancy without the husband’s consent constitutes cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955, while upholding the dissolution of marriage between the appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The court, presided over by Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi, examined the concept of ‘cruelty’ in depth and emphasised that cruelty encompasses both physical and mental harm, and the termination of pregnancy without the husband’s consent falls within this definition.
However, the court clarified that there cannot be a one size fit all approach in such cases and the “termination of pregnancy may come under the term ‘cruelty’ depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The court delivered the verdict in a case wherein the husband filed for divorce under Section 13 of the HMA, 1955, citing cruelty and desertion by his wife. The marriage, solemnised in 2017, quickly deteriorated when the appellant allegedly began mistreating the respondent and his family. According to the husband, she frequently threatened to implicate them in a false dowry case and, without her husband’s consent, terminated her pregnancy. Subsequently, she left the matrimonial home to live with her parents without sufficient reason. The appellant returned briefly to the matrimonial home in October 2017 but left again after 15-20 days, despite the respondent’s objections.
On November 12, 2017, she lodged a false FIR against the respondent and his family, accusing them of cruelty and dowry demands. The trial court acquitted the respondent and his family of these charges on November 5, 2019. The respondent claimed that the appellant had deserted him for over three years, depriving him of cohabitation. Despite receiving a summons, the appellant did not appear to file her defence, leading to an ex-parte proceeding on July 14, 2022.
The family court, after examining the evidence presented by the respondent, granted the divorce on September 3, 2022, citing cruelty and desertion as the grounds for dissolution.
The wife approached the High Court against the family court’s order arguing that she was not given a fair opportunity to participate in the proceedings, and the family court erred in its judgment. Her counsel contended that the allegations against the appellant were baseless and unsupported by evidence. The appellant urged the High Court to set aside the impugned judgment and decree, claiming that the ex parte proceedings were conducted in undue haste.
The High Court examined the relevant provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which outlines cruelty and desertion as grounds for divorce. Further, the court in its judgment, took into consideration several precedents to clarify the scope and definition of “cruelty” under matrimonial law, including the cases of ‘N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975)’, in which the apex court ruled that “The court has to deal, not with an ideal husband and an ideal wife (assuming any such exist) but with the particular man and woman before it,” emphasising that the court must consider the specific circumstances of the parties involved rather than abstract ideals of marital conduct and ‘Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988)’ wherein the Supreme Court emphasised that cruelty in matrimonial cases may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. The nature of cruel treatment and its impact on the spouse must be considered, particularly whether it creates a reasonable apprehension of harm.
“The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In a delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case,” the court noted.
Conclusively, the court held that, in the present case, the family court had not committed any legal or factual error in its judgment. “The findings recorded by the learned Court below are impregnable and infallible,” the court stated.
“It is only the wife, who has ruined her family life by her own misdeeds,” the court further remarked, finding that the evidence presented was credible, and the grounds for divorce were convincingly established.
As a result, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Comments
0 comment