The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that termination of pregnancy without the consent of the husband amounted to 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). and abandonment.
The court, presided over by Justices Vivek Rusiah and Binod Kumar Dwivedi, examined the concept of “cruelty” in depth and emphasized that cruelty includes physical and mental harm, under which termination of pregnancy without the consent of the husband falls A definition.
However, the court clarified that there is no one-size-fits-all approach in such cases and “depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, termination of pregnancy may fall under the term 'cruel'.”
The court delivered its judgment in a case in which the husband filed for divorce under Section 13 of the HMA 1955 on the ground of cruelty and desertion by his wife. The marriage, which took place in 2017, deteriorated rapidly after the appellant allegedly began abusing the defendant and his family. According to her husband, she often threatened to involve them in false dowry cases and terminated pregnancies without his consent. She subsequently left the matrimonial home and lived with her parents without sufficient reason. The appellant briefly returned to the matrimonial home in October 2017, but left again 15 to 20 days later despite the objections of the respondent.
On November 12, 2017, she filed a false FIR against the accused and his family, accusing them of cruelty and demanding dowry. The court of first instance acquitted the defendant and his family on November 5, 2019. Despite receipt of the summons, the appellant did not appear to have advanced a defence, leading to ex parte proceedings on 14 July 2022.
The Family Court granted the divorce on September 3, 2022, after reviewing the evidence presented by the defendant, citing abuse and abandonment as the grounds for dissolution.
The wife brought proceedings in the High Court against the order of the Family Court, arguing that she had not been given a fair opportunity to participate in the proceedings and that the decision of the Family Court was wrong. Her counsel argued that the charges against the appellant were baseless and unsupported by evidence. The appellants urged the High Court to quash the impugned judgment and decree, claiming that the ex parte proceedings were conducted in an undue haste.
The High Court examined the relevant provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides for cruelty and desertion as grounds for divorce. Furthermore, in its decision, the Court considered several precedents to clarify the scope and definition of “cruelty” in matrimonial law, including the case of NG Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975), in which the Supreme Court held that “the Court must deal with husband and ideal wife (assuming such a case exists), but rather the particular man and woman before it”, emphasizing that the court must consider the specific circumstances of the parties and not in the abstract the ideal of marital conduct and “Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi ( 1988),” in which the Supreme Court emphasized that abuse in matrimonial cases may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. Consideration must be given to the nature of the cruel treatment and its impact on the spouse, in particular whether it created a reasonable fear of harm.
“The question of mental cruelty must be considered in the light of the norms of marital relations of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social value, status and the circumstances in which they find themselves. As mentioned above, cruelty includes mental cruelty, which falls within the ambit of marital wrong. Cruelty is not necessarily Physical. If the same conclusion can be drawn from the spouse's conduct and/or it can be legitimately inferred that the spouse's treatment causes the other spouse to have concerns about his or her mental health, the conduct amounts to criminality to the point of cruelty in a marriage like that. In delicate human relationships, one must see the possibility of the case happening,” the court noted.
Ultimately, the Court held that there was no legal or factual error in the Family Court's decision in this case. “The findings recorded below by the learned court are indestructible and unmistakable,” the court said.
The court further stated that “it was only the wife's own behavior that ruined her family life.” The court found that the evidence provided was credible and the grounds for divorce were convincing.
As a result, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and abandonment.
