Madhya Pradesh: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a husband’s divorce petition while lauding his wife as an “ideal Indian wife” rooted in dharma for continuing to live with her in-laws for nearly two decades despite being abandoned by her husband.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi delivered a comprehensive judgment celebrating traditional Indian values while rejecting the husband’s claims of cruelty and desertion in First Appeal No. 1283 of 2018.
The court heard an appeal challenging the dismissal of a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act by the 15th Additional District Judge, Indore.
The couple had married according to Hindu rituals on November 10, 1998, at Village Pipalada, Indore, and had a son born in December 2002. The husband alleged that his wife had deserted him, shown no interest in marital obligations, and made false allegations about his character, including claims of illicit relationships with other women.
However, the case took an unusual turn as the wife had never left the matrimonial home and continued living with her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law as a joint family member even after the husband’s departure in 2006.
Justice Dwivedi, writing for the bench, made extensive observations about the wife’s conduct that reflected traditional Hindu values. The court noted:
“The instant case is unique in the sense that the respondent/wife, even after being deserted by her husband, in the hope that one day good sense will prevail upon the appellant/husband, has not left her matrimonial house.”
The court also made philosophical reflections on the ideal Indian wife, stating:
“As per Hindu concept, marriage is a sacred, eternal and indissoluble union. An ideal Indian wife, even when deserted by her husband, continues to embody strength, dignity and virtue. Her conduct is rooted in dharma, cultural values and the sanctity of the marital bond.”
The court extensively praised the wife’s character, observing that “despite the pain of abandonment, she remains rooted in her dharma as a wife. She does not allow bitterness or despair to erode her sense of responsibility towards the marriage and the family she has become a part of.”
The court further noted that the wife “upholds her self-respect and dignity. She neither begs for her husband’s return nor maligns him, but lets her quiet endurance and noble conduct speak for her strength.”
The bench emphasized that despite her husband’s absence, “she remained committed to her in-laws, serving them with care and affection as she would have if her husband were present, thereby reinforcing her moral stature.”
In a particularly striking observation, the judgment stated that the wife “does not use her sufferings to gain sympathy; instead, she channels them inward, reflecting the Hindu ideal of the woman as Shakti—not weak, but submissive and powerful in her endurance and grace.”
The court noted that even in abandonment, “she does not forsake the mangalsutra, the sindoor or the symbols of her marital status, as her marriage to her is not a contract but a sanskara—an indelible sacrament.”
Regarding the husband’s allegations, the court found them “very shallow and hollow in nature” and lacking credible evidence. It observed that the husband’s claim that his wife was unwilling to fulfill marital obligations was “falsified by the fact that a son was born out of their wedlock, who has now attained majority and lives along with other family members.”
The court also noted that the wife’s allegations about her husband’s illicit relationships were made “in sheer frustration” after being abandoned for 19 years and that they arose from “entertained apprehension” rather than constituting mental cruelty.
It emphasized that “none of the appellant’s family members have come before the Court to support him in this family dispute, which amply proves that the allegations levelled against the respondent/wife are false.”
Applying the Latin maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria (no one can take advantage of their own wrong), the court held that the husband “cannot be allowed to reap the fruits of his own faults and misdeeds.”
In analyzing the concept of cruelty under matrimonial law, the court extensively quoted Supreme Court precedents, noting that “the foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another” and that courts “do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives.”
The court concluded:
“Even after being deserted by her husband, the respondent/wife has neither chosen to leave the matrimonial home nor filed any criminal case against the appellant/husband making allegations which might have ruined his career and life. This, in itself, proves the level of tolerance, respectfulness and helpful attitude of the respondent/wife.”
It further observed that “nothing has come out which could form a basis for inferring cruelty on the part of the respondent/wife; rather, it is the appellant/husband who, by deserting the respondent/wife, has meted out cruelty of a false degree against her.”
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the family court’s refusal to grant divorce, and noting that the wife had “revealed her strong determination and character which a typical Indian woman/wife has.”
.jpeg)
![Supporting defamatory WhatsApp posts doesn’t constitute involvement in offence of defamation: MP HC [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2024/09/lj_6675_WhatsApp_Image_2024-09-16_at_12.24.54_PM.webp)
