In a landmark judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a wife's refusal to engage in physical relations with her husband constitutes cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. This decision upholds a family court's ruling to grant a man a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by his wife.
The case, First Appeal No. 618 of 2021, was heard by a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani). Advocate Ashok Kumar Jain represented the appellant, Smt. ABC, while Advocate Brijendra Kumar Varshya represented the respondent, XYZ.
Background of the Case
The couple married on May 26, 2013, following Hindu customs and rites. However, on their wedding night, the wife refused to establish physical relations, expressing her dislike for her husband and revealing that she had married under familial pressure.
Shortly after, on May 29, 2013, the wife left for her parental home to take her M.Com final examinations. When her husband and his family went to bring her back on May 31, 2013, her parents refused, citing her ongoing exams.
The husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, citing cruelty and desertion by his wife. The Principal Judge of the Family Court in Satna granted the divorce on August 17, 2021. The wife, aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the High Court.
Key Legal Issues
The central question before the High Court was whether the wife's refusal to engage in physical relations and her subsequent desertion constituted cruelty and grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Court's Observations and Decision
After reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, the High Court made several important observations:
1. The court acknowledged the wife's admission that she refused to return to her matrimonial home on May 31, 2013, when her husband and in-laws came to take her back after her exams.
2. The court highlighted the wife's statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi, which confirmed that no physical relations had been established during her stay at her in-laws' house.
3. Referring to the Supreme Court's 2006 judgment in Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli, the High Court noted that prolonged separation can be taken as a sign that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.
4. The court stated, "The denial of the appellant/wife to establish a physical relationship with the respondent/husband amounts to cruelty."
5. Given the wife's admission and the lengthy separation of over 11 years, the court found no reason to interfere with the family court's judgment and decree. Thus, the High Court dismissed the wife's appeal and upheld the divorce granted in favor of the husband.
This ruling underscores the importance of mutual consent and cooperation in a marriage, highlighting that the refusal to engage in physical relations and prolonged separation can be seen as grounds for divorce due to cruelty.
To get free legal advice: https://www.advotalks.com/
For More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
