HMA | Not Supporting Wife After Her Rape, Remarrying During Subsisting Marriage Constitute Cruelty, Desertion: MP High Court

A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh observed:

"Therefore, trial Court erred in fact in not accepting the fact of desertion and cruelty because after having a valid and subsisting marriage marrying another woman as admitted by the appellant also amounts to cruelty and desertion."

The husband had challenged the Family Court's judgment granting divorce to the wife on the ground of cruelty. The marriage had been solemnised on June 21, 2017, at an Arya Samaj Mandir. Since the marriage was opposed by both families, the couple initially lived in a rented accommodation.

According to the wife, the husband later asked her to return to her parental home on the ground that his parents had not accepted the marriage. Although he later took her back to the rented house, he frequently came home drunk, abused and assaulted her, and expressed regret over marrying her as it had estranged him from his family. Eventually, the wife returned to her parental home.

The wife further alleged that she was raped by another person after the marriage. She stated that despite seeking help from her husband, he extended no support. According to her, the husband abandoned her, subjected her to continuous abuse, demanded dowry, and later married another woman during the subsistence of their marriage. She also alleged that he was in a relationship with another woman.

The Family Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty but declined to hold that desertion had been established.

Before the High Court, the husband's counsel argued that the evidence did not establish cruelty and contended that his failure to execute the decree for restitution of conjugal rights could not be treated as an instance of cruelty.

The wife's counsel, on the other hand, submitted that after she was raped, the husband failed to support her and instead abandoned her, forcing her to live with her parents. It was also argued that the husband's conduct was motivated by the fact that the marriage was an inter-community marriage and that he subsequently married another woman.

After examining the evidence, the High Court found that the allegations of physical and mental cruelty had been proved. It noted that the husband had not denied in cross-examination that he failed to help the wife after she was raped and had also not rebutted evidence regarding his marriage to another woman. The Court further observed that despite obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the husband never made any effort to resume cohabitation with the wife.

The Bench held that the Family Court ought to have also accepted the ground of desertion, observing that marrying another woman during the subsistence of a valid marriage constituted both cruelty and desertion.

Referring to Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511], the Court reiterated that there can be no straitjacket formula for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial disputes and that each case must be assessed on its own facts and circumstances.

Holding that the wife had successfully established cruelty and desertion, the High Court dismissed the husband's appeal and upheld the decree of divorce.