Wife's Anger Doesn't Entitle Her To Tarnish Husband's Reputation With False Allegations Of Infidelity: MP High Court Grants Divorce

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that making baseless and false allegations of moral turpitude against one's spouse amounts to cruelty and can be a ground for divorce. The court also said that wife's anger does not entitle her to tarnish her husband's image by making baseless allegations and thus granted divorce to the husband, setting aside trial court decree which had granted judicial separation but not divorce. The bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Anuradha Shukla observed; "it is established that respondent/wife was making very serious allegations about the illicit relationship of appellant/husband and she has hopelessly failed in establishing any grain of truth in those allegations. Making baseless and false allegations of the nature of moral turpitude not only cause mental agony to the other party of marriage but it brings the marital relationship to its doom. We accede that if allegations were true then nothing should have been spared by wife to establish what was being claimed by her repeatedly or we may say that the burden to prove these grave allegations was heavily on her. As nothing worth credence has been proved by her, we find no exaggeration in the compliant of husband that he has suffered great agony on account of these allegations and has therefore been subjected to cruelty".The court said that the trial court was right in holding that the wife's behaviour towards her husband was cruel specially when she could not prove her husband's alleged "immoral character" despite making allegations. It added."We are aware that relationship between the parties had gone so bitter that neither of them was having any empathy for the other, but even this kind of relationship cannot be an excuse to make false allegations regarding the moral character of the other party. Thus, on this ground of cruelty, husband deserves a decree of divorce and there is no reasoned justification in the impugned judgment for not allowing the decree of divorcee despite holding that husband was being subjected to cruelty".The couple got married in 2002 but were living separately since 2019. Per the divorce petition filed by the husband, the wife neglected their child and was repulsive towards the in-laws. She had also instituted proceedings against the husband under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act 2005.Wife on the other hand claimed that she was denied entry in matrimonial home and that her husband had illicit relationships with other women.Aggrieved by family court order only granting judicial separation, the husband approached the High Court claiming that the impugned order was passed without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The wife also challenged the decree of judicial separation through cross-objection as she was still vying for the restoration of marital ties. The bench noted that the explanation that the wife, in "anger", initiated proceedings under DV Act, would not absolve her of her liability incurred by making baseless allegations against the husband regarding his moral character and "tarnishing" his image.The court noted that the photographs and chats produced by the wife regarding the illicit relationship of her husband with other women were not proven, since the evidence produced was photocopies without any certificate about the sources. Thus, the court held that the husband deserved a decree of divorce, observing the lack of any justified reason for not allowing the same despite holding that the husband was subjected to cruelty. However, the court concurred with the Trial Court's decision of rejecting the ground of desertion as the behaviour of the couple was not in coherence with any intention to permanently withdraw from the company of the other spouse. Thus, the division bench directed; "In the result, the appeal filed by appellant/husband is allowed on the ground of cruelty and the cross-objection filed by respondent/wife is dismissed. Consequently, the marriage solemnized between the parties on 08.12.2002 is declared to be dissolved on the ground of cruelty". Case Title: X v Y [FA-930-2024]Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 219For Appellant: Advocate Ajay Kumar OjhaFor Respondent: Advocate Vaibhav TiwariClick here to read/download Order

Wife's Anger Doesn't Entitle Her To Tarnish Husband's Reputation With False Allegations Of Infidelity: MP High Court Grants Divorce

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Wife's Anger Doesn't Entitle Her To Tarnish Husband's Reputation With False Allegations Of Infidelity: MP High Court Grants Divorce

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers