Wife Insulting Husband's Religion & Gods Amounts To Mental Cruelty: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the conduct of a wife in insulting religion of her husband, his religious beliefs and his Gods amounts to mental cruelty.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal referred to Hindu epics like Ramayana, Mahabharata and Manusmriti and held –
“In Hinduism, the wife is regarded as the "Sahadharmini" (Equal Partner in Dharma), meaning she shares in the spiritual duties and righteousness (dharma) alongside her husband. This concept underscores the wife's essential role in fulfilling religious obligations, particularly in the performance of rituals, where her presence is indispensable.”
Factual Background
The appellant wife and the respondent husband entered into marriage on 07.02.2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals, as both of them belonged to Hindu religion. After a few years, the husband filed an application under Sections 13(1-A) & 13(1-B) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce.
The husband alleged that the wife, though originally belonged to Hindu religion, subsequently abandoned the same and adopted Christianity. It was also averred that the wife did not follow Hindu rituals and threatened the husband to implicate him in false case.
The Family Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, granted the decree of divorce in favour of the husband on the ground that the wife converted herself from Hindu religion to Christian religion. Being aggrieved by such decree, the wife filed this appeal before the High Court.
Court's Observations
The Court observed that from the statement of the husband it is clear that he is an ardent follower of Hinduism and all Hindu rituals are performed in his house. However, his wife does not accompany him in any worship or religious programme, despite being 'Sahadharmini'. The husband also alleged that his wife called Hindu religion a hypocrisy and mocked it.
From the evidence of the wife, it was borne out that she was attending prayer meetings at the Church for the last ten years and she also admitted to have not done any Hindu puja for the last one decade. The brother of the wife also admitted that he along with his sister (the appellant-wife) used to visit Church and they have faith in Christian prayers.
“Close scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence and admission of appellant/wife in her statement makes it clear that she regularly visited the Church and since 10 years, she has not followed the Hindu religion and also did not take part in Hindu Puja,” it held.
The Court underscored that in Hinduism, a wife is deemed as equal partner in Dharma, which implies that she shares spiritual duties with her husband and any religious rites performed by the husband without wife is considered to be incomplete.
“This principle is deeply rooted not only in texts like the Mahabharata and Ramayana but also in the Manu Smriti, which explicitly states that a man cannot perform a yajna (यज्ञ) without his wife, as the yajna (यज्ञ) remains incomplete without her,” it added.
The Court noted that the wife not only refused to perform puja with the husband but also disrespected and defiled Hindu rituals, Gods and sacred prasad.
“The Respondent, being a devout Hindu and the elder son of his family, is obligated to perform several important rituals for himself and the members of his family. The Appellant/wife, by her own admission, has not engaged in any form of puja for the past 10 years and instead attends church for her prayers,” the Court observed.
In the present case, it was held, the wife demeaned the husband's religious beliefs and insulted his Gods. This conduct was considered to be a mental cruelty towards a devout Hindu spouse.
Accordingly, the Court found no fault with the order of the Family Court and upheld the decree of divorce in favour of the husband on the ground that the wife adapted to Christian religious rituals and beliefs. However, the Bench did not deem it fit to dissolve the marriage on the ground of mental cruelty as the husband did not challenge the trial Court's order regarding cruelty.
Case Title: X v. Y.
Case No: FA (MAT) No. 132 of 2023
Date of Judgment: October 25, 2024
Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. Meenu Banerjee, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. B.N. Mishra & Mr. Ganesh Ram Burman, Advocates