MP High Court Grants Divorce Over False Allegations, Says Baseless Claims of Immorality Amount to Mental Cruelty [Read Judgment]

Madhya Pradesh: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant judgment granting divorce on the ground of cruelty, emphasizing that making baseless and false allegations of moral turpitude against one’s spouse causes mental agony and amounts to cruelty sufficient to dissolve a marriage.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Anuradha Shukla made crucial observations on what constitutes cruelty in matrimonial law, particularly focusing on unsubstantiated allegations affecting a spouse’s reputation and character.

The court addressed an appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Principal Judge, Bhopal. The court noted, “The appellant/husband is aggrieved by the judgment whereby his divorce petition was dismissed and a lesser relief of a decree of judicial separation was allowed.”

Addressing the background of the case, the court observed, “Facts admitted between the parties are that they were married on 08.12.2002 and a daughter was born to them in the year 2007. Admittedly, they have been living separately since 2019. It is admitted that the appellant/husband is working in a multinational company and the properties acquired during the period of marriage were registered in the joint name of the parties.”

The court highlighted the nature of allegations made by the wife, stating, “The other aspect of cruelty relates to aspersions cast about the immoral character of the appellant/husband. These allegations were documented and prominently made in petitions filed by the respondent/wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and under Section 12 of the Act of 2005.”

In a critical observation about the specific allegations, the court stated, “In both the said petitions, the respondent/wife has categorically stated that the husband is in an illicit relationship with many women and that he is in the habit of engaging in vulgar chats through laptop and mobile with these women once he returns to India.”

The court emphasized the wife’s failure to prove her allegations, noting that “the respondent/wife was making very serious allegations about the illicit relationship of the appellant/husband and she has hopelessly failed to establish any grain of truth in those allegations. Making baseless and false allegations of moral turpitude not only causes mental agony to the other party to the marriage but also brings the marital relationship to its doom.”

Regarding the burden of proof, the court observed, “We accede that if the allegations were true, then nothing should have been spared by the wife to establish what was being claimed by her repeatedly, or we may say that the burden to prove these grave allegations was heavily on her. As nothing worth credence has been proved by her, we find no exaggeration in the husband’s complaint that he has suffered great agony on account of these allegations and has therefore been subjected to cruelty.”

The court referenced Supreme Court precedents, stating, “In Chanderkala Trivedi (Smt.) Vs. Dr. S.P. Trivedi, (1993) 4 SCC 232, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the serious allegations made by a party against the other and observed that it was obvious that the marriage of the two could not be continued in these circumstances any further.”

The court also cited V. Bhagat Vs. D. Bhagat (Smt.), (1994) 1 SCC 337, observing that “in spite of making various allegations against the husband and his family about being insane, the desire of the wife to live with him was only a resolution to make the life of the husband further miserable, and this attitude was considered as cruelty.”

In addressing the wife’s justification, the court observed, “It is claimed in the cross-objection that the wife initiated the proceeding under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 in anger, but this explanation would not absolve her of the liability incurred by making baseless allegations against the husband regarding his moral character.”

The court emphasized a crucial principle, stating, “We are aware that the relationship between the parties had become so bitter that neither of them had any empathy for the other, but even this kind of relationship cannot be an excuse to make false allegations regarding the moral character of the other party.”

In its final directive, the court stated, “We hold that the Trial Court committed no wrong in holding that the behaviour of the wife was cruel towards the husband. On this ground of cruelty, the husband deserves a decree of divorce, and there is no reasoned justification in the impugned judgment for not allowing the decree of divorce despite holding that the husband was subjected to cruelty.”

The court concluded by observing, “The appeal filed by the appellant/husband is allowed on the ground of cruelty, and the cross-objection filed by the respondent/wife is dismissed. Consequently, the marriage solemnized between the parties on 08.12.2002 is declared to be dissolved on the ground of cruelty.”

The court further noted that regarding the ground of desertion, the Trial Court was justified in dismissing it, as the parties were meeting frequently and enjoying family time with their daughter even after 2019, which was not coherent with any intention to permanently withdraw from the company of the other spouse.

Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha appeared as counsel for the appellant, while Shri Vaibhav Tiwari appeared for the respondent.

[Read Judgment]