Husband Forcing Wife To Leave Job And Live As Per His Wish, Style Amounts To Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court In Divorce Case

Allowing a woman's plea for dissolving her marriage to a man, the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that in the case at hand the the husband compelling his wife to leave her government job till he gets the job, and to "live as per his wish and style" amounts to cruelty. 

In doing so the court underscored that whether husband or wife want to live together or not is their "wish" however none of them can force the other to either do a job or not do a job as per the spouse's choice.

In the present case the court noted that the marriage took place in April 2014 and before they got married the parties were known to each other and were in love. The appellant wife was appointed as Assistant Manager in LIC Housing Finance Limited in 2017 and by that time the respondent husband was doing nothing.

A division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Sushrut Dharmadhikari in its order said, "This was the reason he compelled the appellant to leave the job and stay with him and till he gets the job, appellant should not do any job".

Undisputedly, the court noted, the respondent-husband filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights at the Family Court in January 2020 after filing of the divorce petition by the appellant wife. 

The bench thereafter said, "It is also not in dispute that after dismissing the divorce petition filed by the appellant, respondent-husband withdrew Section 9 petition on 20.10.2022.Whether husband or wife wants to live together, it is their wish. Neither husband nor wife can force other side not to do job or do any job as per the choice of the spouse. In the present case, the husband compelled his wife to leave the government job till he gets the job. In this manner, forcing the wife to leave the job and live as per his wish and style, it amounts to cruelty". 

The court was hearing an appeal moved by the wife against the family court's order dismissing her divorce plea which she sought on the ground of cruelty. The family court made the decision after observing that the woman had not filed any complaints of cruelty with the police and no independent witnesses corroborated her claims of mistreatment. Further her earlier notice regarding divorce with mutual consent negated the claims of cruelty and minor quarrels cannot constitute cruelty in legal terms.

The wife had argued that her husband's coercive behaviour along with lack of compatibility and discord amounted to grounds for divorce.

The bench pointed out that family court erred in their judgement and stated that the wife filed for mutual consent divorce not only due to the job issue but also the compatibility issue. Further, the bench stated that the fact that the respondent didn't want the appellant to get a divorce itself amounted to cruelty.

“The learned Family Court has not considered the statement made by the appellant-wife, who specifically stated that due to the reason that respondent-husband compelled her to leave the job and stay with him, she filed the divorce petition and before that since there was compatibility issue…The respondent-husband never wanted that appellant should get divorce, this itself amounts to cruelty," the bench underscored. 

The bench thereafter allowed the woman's plea and dissolved the marriage. The decree by the family court was set aside by the high court. 

Case title: X v Y

Click Here To Read/Download Order

 Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 299