In a most significant and consequential development, the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has as recently as on April 12, 2022 in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Parag Pandit vs Smt Sadhana in First Appeal No. 905 of 2014 dismissed the appeal preferred by Appellant/husband for grant of divorce, holding that being a husband and a father, he could not run away from the responsibility by simply taking divorce on the ground that he wants to serve his mother and father for the remainder of his life or that he and his wife were not living together for many years. Very rightly so! While elucidating the concept of marriage according to Hindu law, the Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Amar Nath Kesharwani observed that:
Based on Hindu law, marriage is a sacred tie and the last of ten sacraments that can never be broken. Also, it is a relationship that is established by birth to birth. Also, it is not only considered as sacred but it is also a holy union. The main objective of marriage is to enable a woman and a man to perform their religious duties. Along with this, they also have to beget progeny. Based on ancient writings, a woman is considered half of her husband and thus completes him. While a man is also considered incomplete without a woman.

To start with, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Justice Vivek Rusia for an Indore Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising of himself and Justice Amar Nath Keshwarwani first and foremost sets the ball rolling by putting forth in the opening para that:
The appellant/‘Husband’ filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Family court Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 07.05.2014 passed in H.M.A. No.622/2012, whereby the learned Family Court declined to grant the decree of divorce.

While dwelling on the facts of the case in short, the Division Bench then states in para 1 that:
The marriage of appellant/husband and respondent/'Wife' was solemnized on 19.11.1999 under the Hindu ritual and customs. Out of the said wedlock, the respondent/wife gave birth to a son on 04.05.2001 named Sujal, who is at present aged about 21 years and residing with the respondent/wife.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 2 that:
After the marriage, they started living in Indore for 5-6 months and during this period differences arose between them, she went to her parent's house in Ujjain. The appellant/husband jumped to Family Court by filing a petition under Section 13 (1) (1-A) of Hindu Marriage Act on 13.10.2000 seeking divorce and the said case was registered as HMA No.414/2000. The respondent/wife applied Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 09.12.2000 and lodged an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. on 17.11.2000. She also filed an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights on 13.12.2000. Vide judgment dated 30.11.2001, the appellant/husband has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C.

As it turned out, the Bench then reveals succinctly in para 3 that:
During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, a compromise arrived between the parties on 03.01.2002, the appellant/husband brought the respondent/wife into his house in Indore. They lived together for some time. Thereafter, the respondent/wife went back to her parents’ house. The appellant/husband again approached the Family court on 23.06.2008 by filing a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was registered as HMA No.445/2008. Again on 19.05.2010, a compromise arrived between them and they decided to live together.

As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 4 that:
They lived together for some time, then again respondent/wife went back to Ujjain as her son wanted to live in Ujjain and thereafter, she got admitted him to school in Ujjain. In the month of March 2011, again the appellant/husband brought back to respondent/wife in his house. According to the husband, the behaviour of his wife towards his father-in-law and mother-in-law was not good, he had to take a rented house in Vaibhav Nagar and started living with her there in November 2011. He made all efforts to keep her happy but no improvement was shown which caused mental cruelty to him. He lost his mental imbalance and had to leave his Job too in the Month of December 2011. Finally, on 05.04.2012, the respondent/wife called her father, mother and brother and went back to Ujjain along with luggage and son. The husband wrote a letter dated 22.04.2012 and requested her to come back and discharge the marital obligation. She gave a reply dated 05.05.2012 and put a condition which was not possible to fulfill. Due to losing employment, the appellant/husband suffered financial crunches in his life. He has suffered mental agony and cruelly meted him to his wife and had no option but to approach Family court again by filing the present petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 14.07.2012.

Briefly stated, the Bench then mentions in para 5 that:
Notices were issued. The respondent/wife has appeared in the proceedings. Both were sent to Paramarsh Kendra for mediation but the appellant/husband declined to keep her as respondent/wife. The respondent/wife filed a reply denying the allegations made in the petition and made counter-allegations against the husband. According to the respondent/wife, on 05.04.2012, they both shifted to the house situated Sarvasampan Nagar where all other flats were vacant, there was no guard, therefore under the fear to live alone, she went back to her parents’ house. She has never misbehaved or committed any cruelty to the appellant/husband. The Father of the appellant has got published in the Newspaper that his daughter-in-law is a mentally sick lady due to which she suffered lots of embracement. Even then she is ready to forgive and still ready to live with him after completion of academic session 2012-13.

Furthermore, the Bench then remarks in para 6 that:
In support of his claim, the appellant/husband examined himself as PW-1. The husband has also examined neighbours Ravi Saxena (PW2) and Arun Kumar Mishra (PW-3) and got exhibited six documents. The wife examined herself as DW-1, her father Jaynarayan (DW-2) mother Shakuntala (PW-3) and son Sujal (DW-4).

Be it noted, the Bench then notes in para 7 that:
After evaluating the evidence that came on record, the learned Family Court has held that the matrimonial dispute between appellant/husband and respondent/wife was on petty issues, cannot be termed as cruelty, hence, appellant/husband is not entitled to dissolution of marriage. Hence, present first appeal before this Court.

Simply put, the Bench then observes in para 8 that:
In order to make efforts to resolve the dispute between the parties by way of counselling, vide order dated 24.03.2022, this Court has directed both the parties to remain present before this Court. The respondent/wife is present with her son and has shown her willingness to live with the appellant/husband. The appellant/husband has shown his adamant attitude and straightway declined to take her back. Hence, we heard the learned counsel of the parties finally.

After hearing the learned counsel of the parties and perusing the record, the Bench then points out in para 11 that:
The main grievance of the appellant/husband is that whenever the respondent/wife lived in the matrimonial house, she used to pressurize to live with him separately from his parents. For 13 years of marriage, she lived only one and a half month with him. During this period, her behaviour was cruel, she was not interested in cooking the food and used to address them by using filthy language. She was not interested in serving his 81 years father and 72 years of the mother. They used to cook for themselves. He changed the house in the month November, 2011 where they lived for some period but without any reason, she called her parents and brother and went back to Ujjain. In cross-examination, he has admitted that in 2010, after the compromise, he has forgiven all her mistakes. He has also admitted that the reasons for the quarrel between them are only domestic issues. He was not permitted to meet his son. He has also admitted that he got published in the newspaper that the mental condition of his wife does not sound that was done on the advice of his counsel to make a ground for divorce. He is maintaining a car. The appellant has examined his neighbours viz Ravi Saxena (PW-2) who has stated that he was a neighbour, this couple was living at 11-A Residency D, Shiv Shakti Nagar. The respondent/wife was in habit of shouting and abusing her father-in-law and mother-in-law but he was not aware of the cause of the actual dispute. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he has only heard the raised voice during the period from April 2010 to March 2011. Likewise, Arun Kumar Mishra (PW-3) has said that he used to hear the voices of the respondent/wife but never seen fighting them physically.

It is worth noting that the Bench then lays bare in para 12 that:
So far as the respondent/wife is concerned, in her deposition, she has stated that the father and mother of the appellant/husband used to taunt her that she is not a good cook and came with less dowry. On 14.08.2000, her brother Rajesh came and took her to her parents' house. She received a call from a neighbour that the appellant/husband wants to divorce her. She was shocked to read the news published in Agniwan newspaper on 06.10.2000 that she suffering from a mental disorder. The said news was got published by her father-in-law. Despite the aforesaid, she did compromise with the appellant and started living with them but their behaviour towards her did not change. She used to try to console the appellant/husband by writing letters that everything would be fine and don’t think to commit suicide, therefore, it is clear from the aforesaid, there was no serious dispute between the appellant/husband and respondent/wife which could be termed as mental cruelty with the appellant. Whatever dispute was there that was very normal between appellant/husband and respondent/wife and in all the matrimonial houses in this country.

It cannot be glossed over that the Bench then discloses in para 13 that:
Twice, the appellant/husband filed a petition and a compromise arrived with the wife and they lived together. The father and mother of the respondent/wife have not made any allegation against the appellant/husband and wanted that they should live together. The son Sujal has also stated that this appellant/husband never came to Ujjain to meet him. He wanted to come and live with his father.

It cannot be lost on us that the Bench then hastens to add in para 14 that, Letters exchanged between the appellant/husband and wife are available in the record and the conversation between the parties reflects that there was no serious dispute between them and both were polite to each other. They both tried to mollify each other so that they can live together with little adjustment in life. Letter Ex.P/1 is a letter written by the appellant/husband to the respondent/wife. It appears that there was only one incident, she shouted and the neighbors heard the raised voice of the wife but after that appellant/husband compromised the matter and brought her twice. In reply to the aforesaid, she has stated that she does not like to live with her parents in Ujjain. Since she was not feeling safe in the new society where they shifted, therefore, she came back to Ujjain and requested to take the house to a safe place. She has also written that do not think about suicide.

Most significantly, the Bench then stipulates in para 15 that:
She appears to be a sensible lady, therefore some incident that took place 10-12 years back, which is normal between husband and wife, cannot be a ground for divorce. Their son reached the age of 22 years. The appellant/husband being a husband and father cannot run away from the responsibility towards his son by simply taking divorce on the ground that he wants to serve his mother and father for remaining his life. His son must be the same feeling to serve his father. The appellant has a responsibility toward his son and wife also, he cannot leave them alone at this stage of life.

Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 16 that:
We are of the affirm view that the appellant has failed to establish his case to get the decree of divorce. The decree of divorce cannot be granted merely on the ground that husband and wife are living separately since last so many years. The appellant has failed to establish the allegation levelled in the petition by leading evidence. Based on Hindu law, marriage is a sacred tie and the last of ten sacraments that can never be broken. Also, it is a relationship that is established by birth to birth. Also, it is not only considered as sacred but it is also a holy union. The main objective of marriage is to enable a woman and a man to perform their religious duties. Along with this, they also have to beget progeny. Based on ancient writings, a woman is considered half of her husband and thus completes him. While a man is also considered incomplete without a woman.

In view of the above, we pass the following order:-

1. The judgment dated 07.05.2014 passed in HMA No.622/2012 is hereby affirmed.
2. First Appeal filed by the appellant/husband is hereby dismissed.

Let the record of the trial court be sent back along with this judgment.

Certified copy as per Rules.
In summary, the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken a very principled and legal stand that a man can’t run away from responsibility towards son and wife by simply seeking divorce on the pretext of serving his parents. No doubt, it cannot be discounted that a man has certain legal liabilities towards his wife and children which cannot be abdicated on one pretext or the other. This is what the Court has made absolutely clear in this leading case also! Of course, it merits no reiteration that all the Courts must definitely abide by what has been laid down by the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in this leading case so very elegantly, eloquently and effectively!a

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh