Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Divorce on Grounds of Mental Cruelty
Case Background: Marriage, Disputes, and Separation
- Wife’s Allegations and Trial Court’s Decision
- Division Bench’s Findings: False Allegations Cause Social Humiliation
- Legal Reasoning: What Constitutes Mental Cruelty
- Verdict: Marriage Dissolved on Grounds of Cruelty
- Significance of the Judgment
Madhya Pradesh High Court grants divorce, holding that a wife's persistent ridicule of her husband as an alcoholic amounts to mental cruelty...
 |
| Legal News |
Persistent Ridiculing Husband As Alcoholic In His Social Circle Is A Serious Affair Amounting To Mental Cruelty: MP HC
It is entirely in the fitness of things and so also absolutely pragmatic that the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest divorce decree judgment in First Appeal No. 334 of 2021 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:MPHC-JBP:52433 that was pronounced as recently as on October 15, 2025, granted divorce to a man after finding that his wife had falsely accused him of intoxication and contested his divorce plea despite being determined not to resume marital life. It is worth paying attention that a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Shri Vishal Dhagat and Hon’ble Smt Justice Anuradha Shukla minced absolutely no words to hold in no uncertain terms that the attitude of the wife to persistently ridicule her husband as an alcoholic in his social circle is a serious affair, amounting to mental cruelty. We thus see that the Apex Court allowed the husband’s appeal for divorce. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this robust, remarkable, rational and recent judgment authored by Hon’ble Smt Justice Anuradha Shukla for a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Appellant/husband has assailed the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2021 passed in Civil Suit No.71-A/2018 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandla, rejecting his divorce petition filed on twin grounds of desertion and cruelty.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 stating that, “The facts not in dispute are that the parties were married on 23.06.2004 and two children were born to them. It is also admitted that both appellant and respondent are public servants, and the respondent had filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the Act of 2005) in which a compromise was reached between the parties. It is also admitted that the parties have been living separately since 2017.”
While elaborating further on the facts of the case, the Division Bench enunciates in para 3, disclosing that, “The facts of the divorce petition are that the parties lived cordially only for some years and their relationship went bitter since 2015. There was no matrimonial relationship between them since then and the respondent/wife started living separately since 05.06.2017 in a separate house. Her behaviour with the appellant/husband was cruel, and she used to make false allegations against him. A request was, accordingly, made to allow the divorce petition.”
As it turned out, the Division Bench then lays bare in para 4 observing that, “Respondent/wife contested the case on the ground that she was being subjected to physical and mental cruelty for which she had to file a petition under the Act of 2005 and in that case appellant/husband had offered apologies after which a compromise was reached between the parties. Appellant/husband was of a very suspicious nature and used to cast aspersions of the character of wife. Looking to her own safety and also the future of the children, the only option she was left with was to live separately. She never wanted to seek divorce, while the appellant/husband was eager for the dissolution of the marriage so that he could solemnise a second marriage. He also avoided the liability towards children. It was proposed that if the husband mends his way, the wife was willing to live with him. A request was therefore made to dismiss the divorce petition.”
As things stands, the Bench then reveals in para 5 mentioning that, “The issues were settled by the Court on the basis of pleadings and after recording the evidence, it dismissed the divorce petition.”
Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 8 that, “Facts reveal that the wife is living in a separate house since 05.06.2017. Although it was claimed by the husband that their marital relations had come to an end when the wife got transferred to a different place in 2013, but during his cross-examination, he has admitted that the matrimonial relationship was finally snapped on 05.06.2017, and prior to that date parties used to live as husband and wife. Incidentally, the divorce petition was filed on 10.07.2018; therefore, it can be instinctively concluded that the mandatory period of two years of desertion was not complete as on the date of filing of the divorce petition, and their relationship of husband and wife was continuing immediately prior to 05.06.2017. The ground of desertion is, therefore, not available to the appellant/husband in the present case.”
Do note, the Division Bench then notes in para 9 that, “The other contested issue is of cruelty allegedly committed by wife and in this case, this ground included the facet of false allegations made against the husband, but the trial Court was of the view that husband was cruel to wife and not vice-versa.”
It is also worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 10 that, “According to the wife, appellant/husband was addicted to intoxication and his cruel behaviour compelled her to file a case under the Act of 2005. The trial Court too reached to this finding and for this, it heavily relied upon the documents of Ex. D/1 to D/4. The document of Ex.-D/1 was the jointly signed application given by both the parties requesting the Lok Adalat to settle their case on the basis of compromise, while Ex.-D/2, had the terms of compromise set out between the parties. In Ex.-D/2, it was admitted by appellant/husband that he used to physically assault the respondent/wife on trivial matters and was also neglecting his obligations towards wife and children. Further it was assured by him in Ex.- D/2 that, henceforth, he would take care of his wife and children and parties, consequently, decided to live together once again. Said compromise was signed on 19.11.2011 and no proceedings were ever registered thereafter against the appellant/husband. Ex. D/3 was the order passed by Lok Adalat on the basis of this compromise. In none of these documents, it is mentioned that the appellant/husband had any habit of taking liquor. The last document was Ex. D/4, which was a complaint given to Police Paramarash Kendra on 24.02.2015 by respondent/wife, but it appears that police did not take any follow-up action on its basis. Thus, whatever wicked deeds were confessed by appellant/husband in the year 2011, under Ex.-D/2, had evidently no recurring episodes in subsequent years of his marital life. Further, whatever was stated by the wife regarding this habit to intoxication, the same was rebutted by appellant-husband in his statement given on oath. Thus, documents of D/1 to D/4 do not have any evidentiary value to support the allegation of addiction of appellant/husband to liquor.”
It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench then hastens to add in para 11 pointing out that, “In para 18, the trial Court relied upon the testimony of the brother of respondent/wife regarding some incident, which occurred during reception ceremony of brother of respondent/wife and having reflections upon the habit of alcoholism, but no pleadings are available in the written reply of respondent/wife regarding this incident. Thus, we may say that, against the propositions of civil law, the trial Court was admitting and placing reliance on evidence, which was definitely beyond the scope of pleadings. From this discussion, it is established that the allegations of taking liquor made against appellant/husband was not duly proved by respondent/wife and the trial Court committed error in holding that appellant/husband was given to alcoholism.”
Most significantly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 12 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Now let us examine whether any cruelty was committed by respondent/ wife to the appellant/husband. We are aware that the expression of mental cruelty is not static and, depending upon the human behaviour, new instances of cruelty may crop up. In the present case, wife has shown no hesitation in declaring that her husband/appellant was alcoholic and was thus given to intolerable habits. Admittedly, appellant/husband is a class IV employee while respondent/wife is in the Officer cadre, but both are serving in public sector. We have no hesitation in observing that normal bickering and quarrels between the parties, happening in their day to day life, can not be taken as a matter of grave concern, but a persistent resolved attitude of respondent-wife to see that her husband is ridiculed and humiliated in his social circle as an alcoholic is definitely a serious affair. An unjustified behavior of one spouse actually affecting physical or mental health of other spouse has been considered as serious and grave case of mental cruelty in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, AIR 2007 SC 3148 . 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 it observed that it was obvious that the marriage of the two could not be continued in these circumstances any further. In the case of V. Bhagat Vs. D. Bhagat (Smt.), (1994) 1 SCC 337 , the Court observed that in spite of making various allegations against husband, the desire of wife to live with him was only a resolution to make the life of husband further miserable and this attitude was considered as cruelty. In the case on hand, the wife, in order to avoid marital obligations, has made unfounded allegation of habit of intoxication against the appellant/husband and has thus exposed him to social sham and contempt by compromising his social position of a public servant. Her act of baseless accusation definitely has a decisive impact on the future relationship of the parties and in this state of facts, the dismissal of divorce petition was not legitimate and warranted.”
Resultantly, the Division Bench then directs and holds in para 13 that, “We accordingly allow this appeal on the ground of cruelty committed by making false allegation of addiction to intoxication and also contesting the divorce petition despite being resolute in not resuming the cohabitation. Accordingly, impugned judgment and decree are set aside and the marriage solemnised between the parties on 23/06/2004 is declared to be dissolved from the date of this judgment.”
Finally, the Division Bench then draws the curtains of this notable judgment and concludes by directing and holding in para 14 that, “Registry is directed to draw the decree accordingly.”
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Shri Vishal Dhagat and Hon’ble Smt Justice Anuradha Shukla of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has allowed the appeal of husband for divorce on the ground of cruelty committed by making false allegation of addiction to intoxication and also contesting the divorce petition despite being resolute in not resuming the cohabitation which is a serious affair. It was her act of baseless accusation that turned the tables against her and so also went a long way in turning the tide hugely in favour of her husband! Very rightly so!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
(The author is a advocate based in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. The views expressed are his personal.)
