While making it indubitably clear that courts will no longer take filing of false dowry cases by wife lying down, the Division Bench of Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising of Hon'ble Shri Justice Anand Pathak and Hon'ble Shri Justice Hirdesh in First Appeal No. 1781 of 2023 that was reserved on 15-01-2025 and then finally pronounced on 21.01.2025 has confirmed a Family Court's decision of granting divorce to a man on grounds of cruelty by his wife under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HM Act). What also merits mentioning is that the Division Bench has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that the appellant-wife's consistent unwillingness to cohabitate with her husband without valid reasons, coupled with her alleged filing of dowry-related complaints, amounted to mental cruelty towards the husband. Over and above everything else, the Division Bench was most forthright in holding unequivocally that the woman was desperate to live on her own terms and conditions and confirmed the divorce decree finding it well-merited.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon'ble Shri Justice Hirdesh for a Division Bench of the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising of Hon'ble Shri Justice Anand Pathak and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The instant first appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act has been preferred by appellant (wife) challenging the judgment and decree dated 26th of July, 2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhind (MP) in Case No.156/2021 (HMA) whereby application filed by respondent (husband) under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act [in short HM Act] seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty has been allowed.

As we see, the Division Bench then specifies in para 2 stating that:
It is not in dispute that marriage of appellant with respondent was solemnized on 9th of June, 2011 at Welcome Garden, Bhind Road, Gwalior as per Hindu rites and rituals.

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 3 while elaborating on the facts of the case that:
The facts, in a nutshell, are that respondent submitted divorce application, inter alia, alleging that after marriage, as long as appellant stayed with him, efforts were made to keep her happy, all her wishes were fulfilled and she was never harassed, she was always willing to stay at her maternal home in Gwalior, due to which, no cohabitation took place. Appellant did not return from her maternal home even after conciliation held at Police Counselling Centre on 24-10-2017. It is further averred that he had filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of HM Act in which, a decree was passed in his favour on 13-12-2019, but appellant did not turn up. Then, he filed an agreement for execution of decree, in which, the said agreement was rejected on 25-03-2021, as appellant is not living with him even after mediation proceedings. Appellant deliberately does not want to live with him without any valid reason, due to which, he was bound to file divorce application.

As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 4 stating that:
In reply, appellant refuted allegations of respondent. It has been averred by her that she faithfully fulfilled all her marital duties as wife but respondent and his family members used to demand rupees two lac more as additional dowry everyday. They used to harass her physically and mentally and due to non-fulfillment of dowry, respondent used to deprive her of cohabitation, due to which she could not have any child. When she went to her in-laws house with her brother in compliance with decree passed on 13-12-2019 consequent to application for restitution of conjugal rights, they were not allowed to enter the house of respondent. Now, she is ready to live with her husband-respondent, but respondent does not want to keep her with him without any reason. The divorce application has been filed on the basis of wrong facts. Hence, prayed for its dismissal.

Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 5 that:
On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the Family Court framed issues and passed the impugned judgment and decree in favour of respondent by allowing divorce application filed by respondent under Section 13(1)(i-a) of HM Act on the ground of cruelty. Therefore, appellant is before us.

Do further note, the Division Bench notes in para 13 while citing the relevant case laws that:
Concept of mental cruelty has been elaborately discussed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane Vs. Mrs. Sucheta Narayan Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534 whereby relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

The question whether the misconduct complained of constitutes cruelty and the like for divorce purposes is determined primarily by its effect upon the particular person complaining of the acts. The question is not whether the conduct would be cruel to a reasonable person or a person of average or normal sensibilities, but whether it would have that effect upon the aggrieved spouse. That which may be cruel to one person may be laughed off by another, and what may not be cruel to an individual under one set of circumstances may be extreme cruelty under another set of circumstances.(1) The Court has to deal, not with an ideal husband and ideal wife (assuming any such exist) but with the particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a near-ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to a matrimonial court for, even if they may not be able to drown their differences, their ideal attitudes may help them overlook or gloss over mutual faults and failures. As said by Lord Reid in his speech in Gollins v. Gollins (2) ALL ER 966

In matrimonial cases we are not concerned with the reasonable man, as we are in cases of negligence. We are dealing with this man and this woman and the fewer a priori assumptions we make about them the better. In cruelty cases one can hardly ever even start with a presumption that the parties are reasonable people, because it is hard to imagine any cruelty case ever arising if both the spouses think and behave as reasonable people.

Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 14 that:
The above-said judgment of Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane (supra) still holds the field and is source of wisdom time and again in respect of mental cruelty. The aforesaid decision was referred to with approval in the cases of Praveen Mehta Vs. Inderjit Mehta AIR 2002 SC 2582, Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, Manisha Tyagi Vs. Deepak Kumar (2020) 4 SCC 339, Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Viswanath Agrawal (2012) 7 SCC 288 and U. Sree Vs. U. Srinivas (2013) 2 SCC 114.

It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 15 that:
Now, examining the case at the touchstone of principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above-cited cases, suffice to say that the evidence led by appellant-wife clearly demonstrates that after marriage between the couple in the year 2011, the appellant lived with her husband-respondent for a shorter period of time and most of time, she has been living at her parental home and left house of her husband in the year 2017 without any reason and did not turn back even after passing of decree during proceedings took place consequent to application under Section 9 of HM Act moved by respondent in respect of restitution of conjugal rights. Several opportunities were given to the appellant for turn home back, but she was adamant to live with her husband- respondent and as it appears from her evidence that she anyhow intends to live with her husband only on a condition that if respondent agrees to accompany her at separate home.

Due to rapture of marital cord, no child was born and respondent was tortured physically and mentally. Therefore, the Family Court after considering the evidence of both the parties, concluded that appellant did not intend to live with her husband- respondent. The meditation proceedings held in between the parties also could not bear fruitful result. Appellant anyhow was not seen to have established her marital relationship. The evidence of witnesses recorded by the Family Court also in one breath stated that allegation raising demand of dowry is totally absurd. In fact, the respondent made all possible efforts to bring back her wife-appellant but she was not agreed and levelled false and vague allegations to anyhow break her matrimonial fold.

Most significantly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 16 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that:
It is also a matter on record that at the first instance, when this Court passed an order on 21-12-2023 on mutual agreement of parties to reside together as husband and wife, the appellant did not obey the direction and avoided to come to her husband's house.

The affidavit filed on 27-12-2023 regarding unwillingness of appellant to join the hands of respondent has been filed by respondent, is on record. It was not the first instance, but thereafter on so many dates/occasions, the Court directed to settle the scores between the parties, but it appears that she denied the directions. The conduct of wife, therefore, is apparent that she does not want to live with her husband-respondent. She wants to live with her husband only on a condition that if respondent keeps her at separate place. The motive of appellant is apparent that she wants to live with her husband, not with her in-laws family. Her allegation, therefore, appears to be false regarding raising of demand of dowry and it seems that false story has been made with an intention to implicate her in-laws including husband in civil proceedings.

Equally significant is what is then laid down in para 17 holding that:
Taking all these narration of facts into consideration, prima facie, there appears that respondent has been subjected to mental cruelty at the hands of his wife- appellant and she was desperate to live on her own terms and conditions. The Family Court, therefore, cannot be said to have approached wrongly in recording a finding which is well-merited, calling no interference by this Court under appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 26th of July, 2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhind (MP) in Case No.156/2021(HMA) is affirmed. The instant first appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Finally and as a corollary, the Division Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 18 that:
In the conspectus of above discussion, where this first appeal preferred by appellant assailing the decree of divorce dated 26th of July, 2023 passed by the Family Court is dismissed, there is no question of allowing applications (IA No.1185 of 2024 & IA No.1183 of 2024) which have been moved on behalf of appellant seeking enhancement of maintenance amount as well as permanent alimony respectively. Both the applications are, therefore, rejected finding no merit.

In a nutshell, we thus see that the Division Bench of Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising of Hon'ble Shri Justice Anand Pathak and Hon'ble Shri Justice Hirdesh after hearing the Counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgment and decree, as well as documents available on record indubitably came to the ostensible conclusion that false dowry cases were filed by wife for living separately. The Division Bench thus while noting that the appellant-wife's consistent unwillingness to cohabitate with her husband without valid reasons, coupled with her alleged filing of false dowry-related complaints amounted to mental cruelty towards the husband and so confirmed the divorce decree finding it well-merited. Very rightly so!

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