Wife's Refusal To Have Physical Relations With Husband Amounts To Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court

It was his case that his marriage was solemnised with the appellant-wife on May 26, 2013, as per Hindu customs and rites, but on the first night itself, the appellant-wife refused to establish physical relations with him and also told that she did not like him and she got married under the pressure of her parents.

Thereafter, on May 29, 2013, the appellant/wife's brothers came to his house and took the wife with them to make her appear in the final exams, which were allegedly scheduled for May 30, 2013.

The next day, when the husband's family members went to the wife's house to take her to her matrimonial home, her parents refused to send the appellant-wife with him, and ever since, the appellant has not returned to her matrimonial home.

On the other hand, it was the case of the appellant/wife that her marital relations with her husband (respondent) were maintained from their marriage till May 28, 2013, and after that respondent-husband and his family members started to harass her by demanding Rs.1,50,000/- and an Alto car as dowry.

She claimed that since her exam was scheduled until June 2013, she could not go with the respondent and his father to her matrimonial home. Due to this, her in-laws got angry and again started demanding a dowry. After that, the respondent-husband never came to take her back to her matrimonial home.

It was also stated that she is ready to live with her husband at her matrimonial home, but due to the demand for dowry, she has been separated from marital relations. On these grounds, she prayed for the dismissal of the divorce petition filed by the husband.

The Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna, framed the issues on the parties' pleadings and recorded the statements adduced by parties. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence presented by parties, the judge allowed the application filed by the respondent/husband and passed the decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a), (i-b) of the “H.M. Act.”

Challenging the order, the wife moved the High Court arguing that on account of pressure of dowry demand and ill-treatment by the respondent-husband and his family members towards her, she joined the company of her parents and thus, it is clear that the appellant-wife did not leave the company of the respondent-husband voluntarily.

The husband consistently argued that his wife lodged a false dowry case against him. After the marriage, his wife resided at her matrimonial home for only three days. Subsequently, she left her matrimonial home without any cogent reason. Since then, they have been living separately, and hence, the family court's order was appropriate.

High Court's observations

Perusing the records of the case and the arguments advanced by the parties, the Court noted that the wife had admitted that after the solemnization of marriage, she stayed at her matrimonial house only for three days, and when the husband's family members asked her to come back, she did not.

The Court also noted that she had accepted the fact before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi (M.P.), that no physical relation had been established between the appellant and respondents (husband-wife).

Hence, the Court opined that the respondent-husband's averment was proved that on the first night, the appellant/wife refused to have a physical relationship with the respondent/husband.

In this regard, the Court asserted that the denial of the appellant/wife for making a physical relationship with the respondent/husband amounted to cruelty to the respondent.

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that it was admitted that the wife resided in her in-laws' house for only 3 days. During this period, there was no cohabitation between the parties, and since then, the appellant/wife and respondent/husband have resided separately for more than 11 years.

In view of this, noting that the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time, and the husband had filed a divorce petition, the Court found no illegality with the judgment and order of the Family court, and hence, the wife's appeal was rejected.