'Tutored Daughter To Speak Against Her Own Father', MP High Court Holds Wife Depriving Husband Of Child's Affection Counts As Mental Cruelty

Madhya Pradesh High Court recently iterated in a matrimonial dispute that just like a child has the right to the love and affection of both parents, parents too have a right to receive the love and affection of their child.

When the parent who has custody of the child does any act intending to deny such affection to the other parent, such alienation amounts to mental cruelty, the court clarified by relying on previous judgments.

The Division Bench of Justices Sheel Nagu and Vinay Saraf observed,

“…it can be safely observed that in present case also wife has tried to keep away husband from minor daughter and tutored her to speak against her own father. This is serious matter and definitely caused mental cruelty to husband”.

The court also held that the husband is entitled to the decree of dissolution of marriage on account of baseless allegations levelled by the wife against him and his family members, which also amounts to mental cruelty. The court then went on to note that the other ground of desertion by the wife also stood proved since the wife refused to reply to the restitution notice issued by the husband. Instead, she chose to file numerous cases against him without valid grounds, the court added.

The husband had filed a petition before Family Court, Jabalpur for the custody of the minor child after the wife allegedly prevented him from meeting his daughter. On 18.05.2017, this petition was allowed by the court. Moreover, in the divorce petition, the court had issued directions repetitively to present the daughter before the court so that the father could meet her. In 2020, the family court itself observed that the wife was reluctant to let the daughter meet her father.

In the appeal preferred by the husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1985 r/w Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the bench sitting at Jabalpur noticed that the wife had deliberately kept the minor daughter away from the husband's reach despite Family Court orders in favour of the husband. Reference was also made to the Delhi High Court decision in Sandhya Malik v. Col. Satender Malik, 2023 wherein it was held that parental alienation by psychologically manipulating a child against the estranged parent amounts to mental cruelty.

As held in a judgment by the Kerala High Court in Prabin Gopal v. Meghna, 2021 SCC Online 2193., parents also have a right to receive the love and affection of their child and it cannot be denied to another by one of the parents, the court held.

Background & Preliminary Issues

The marriage, solemnised as per Sikh rights and rituals in Maharashtra, turned acrimonious barely after five months though the parties have a nine-year-old daughter out of the wedlock.

The appellant had originally preferred a divorce petition under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) for inflicting mental cruelty and desertion before VI Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan. Later, the Supreme Court transferred the case to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur. It was dismissed on 13.10.2020.

Similarly, about the issue of maintainability, it was held by the court that since an earlier petition was founded on a different cause of action, filing a fresh petition without withdrawing the earlier petition before another judge wouldn't adversely affect the present appeal arising out of the fresh petition. The erstwhile petition sought dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty whereas the starting point of the current trail of litigation had added desertion as an additional ground.

“…Withdrawal of earlier petition without liberty does not amount to condonation of cruelty and effect of withdrawal of earlier petition without any liberty would be to the extent of non-consideration of allegations of cruelty leveled by husband, committed during stay of wife in matrimonial home as alleged in earlier petition and in present petition/appeal only subsequent event of cruelty and desertion are considerable”, the court accordingly noted in its judgment.

Initially, while agreeing with the findings of the family court, the Division Bench had added that no act of cruelty allegedly committed by the wife during the period of stay at the matrimonial home was sufficiently proved. Even so, such allegations about cruelty allegedly inflicted by the wife during her stay at the matrimonial home cannot be raised in this appeal due to issues of maintainability, the court observed.

While hearing the matter, the court also noted that an appeal cannot be dismissed for non-payment of an interim alimony order passed in other proceedings before the trial court; it only matters that no order of interim alimony has been passed by the High Court in the appeal, it was clarified.

Court's Further Observations

The court refused to make any comments as to the merits of cases filed by the husband and wife against each other since all of them are still pending. However, the court took note of the factum that the husband's family members were exonerated from proceedings under the D.V. Act.

The Division Bench also deduced from the records that the wife has improved her allegations in every subsequent pleading and complaint in cases pending before the trial courts. The court underscored that the wife crossed all barriers by levelling unfounded allegations against the husband and his relatives, which amounts to the infliction of mental cruelty, contrary to the finding of the family court.

The court further inferred that the husband's family was involved in the case 'without any substance', as observed by the High Court previously while quashing the proceedings in JFMC under the D.V. Act and Section 498-A IPC.

“…If any family member is roped in criminal litigation, without any basis and later on exonerated by competent court or case is quashed against him, it amounts to malicious prosecution and can become cause for mental cruelty to husband and his family members”, the court observed.

The court also inferred that the factum of separation is undisputed since the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home of her own volition in 2014 to live in Jabalpur. She left the home without any reasonable cause and her act is not attributable to any animus deserendi; ever since that, both parties have been living separately, the division bench concluded.

“…Wife has not filed any application for Restitution of Conjugal Rights and straightway filed complaint under D.V. Act with relief to issue direction to husband for bringing him at Jabalpur, which shows the intention of wife…”, the court held.

For Appellant: Adv. Sankalp Kochar

For Respondent: Adv. Rajesh Maindiretta

Case Title: Karandeep Singh Chawla v. Gurshish Karandeep Chawla

Case No: First Appeal No. 712 of 2020

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 40

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment