Depending On "Facts Of Case" Wife Terminating Pregnancy Without Husband's Consent May Be Termed Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld a family court's order dissolving the marriage of a couple under Hindu Marriage Act, while noting that depending on the "facts of the case", a wife opting to terminate her pregnancy without her husband's consent "may" be termed as cruelty. 

A division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi observed, “Learned Court below has recorded the finding that termination of pregnancy without consent of husband also comes under the purview of cruelty. With regard to the aforesaid finding, this Court is of the view that termination of pregnancy may come under the term 'cruelty' depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case". 

The court thereafter said that the family court had committed no factual or legal errors in its order. It thereafter upheld the Judgment and decree passed by the family court below on the twin grounds cruelty and desertion observing that the same is based on "cogent and reliable evidence" and needs no interference. 

"It is only the wife, who has ruined her family life by her own misdeeds as mentioned hereinabove, which became a ground for decree of divorce. Consequently, this appeal sans merits, fails and is hereby dismissed," the bench said. 

Background

The observation came in the wife's appeal against the family court's order which had dissolved her marriage, after the husband moved a petition seeking divorce. The husband had claimed that his wife had falsely accused him and his family of cruelty and dowry demands, leading to a criminal case in which he and his family were acquitted. The Family Court, after considering the evidence presented, granted the divorce. Notably, the wife, despite service of summons did not turn up for filing her defence and therefore, she was proceeded ex parte. 

As per the facts of the case, after some time of solemnization of marriage, appellant wife started misbehaving with respondent husband, and his parents. It was claimed that she was always threatening to implicate them in a false case of demand of dowry. Further it was claimed that she got her pregnancy terminated without his consent and on her own will went to reside with her parents without any sufficient reason.

For the first time, it was claimed that, she lived only for 15 days in the matrimonial house and came back in October 2017, but after 15-20 days she again left the matrimonial house despite. Then on November 12, 2017 she lodged a "false FIR" against the respondent / husband, his sister, mother and father on the grounds of cruelty and dowry demand. It was claimed that the wife had deserted the husband for over three years and deprived him for cohabitation; on these grounds he moved a divorce plea before the family court. 

Contentions

Before the high court the wife in her appeal argued that she was not given an opportunity to participate in the proceeding. The family court has committed "grave error of law and facts in not properly appreciating the evidence", the wife said. She said that  after proceeding ex parte on July 14, 2022, the divorce decree was passed on September 3, 2022 in an "exceptional hurry". She claimed that the  allegations raised by the husband are "absolutely frivolous and vexatious" which do not find support from the evidence adduced. She contended that she had never misbehaved with the respondent husband or his family members. 

Meanwhile the husband said that the judgment and decree passed by the family court was based on due appreciation of evidence available on record. Ground of cruelty as mentioned under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act had been duly proved by him by adducing cogent and reliable evidence, which was agreed to by the court below. He further argued that the wife could not rebut the factum of her summons through registered AD (acknowledgement due) mode on her, therefore, she cannot raise any complaint against the ex parte proceeding drawn by the Court below.

Findings

The high court in its order said that the term 'cruelty' encompasses in its purview mental and physical cruelty for the purpose of Section 13 of the Act. The bench referred to various Supreme Court judgments elaborating as to what type of acts may come under purview of cruelty. 

The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988), Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi (2010), N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975) wherein its was emphasized that cruelty is subjective and must be understood in the context of the individuals involved and their relationship dynamics. The bench further referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Samar Ghosh Vs Jaya Ghosh (2007) on what may constitute "mental cruelty". The apex court had in this case said that where on facts there has been irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the party opposing the divorce and not letting go the other party free of the matrimonial bond, would be causing mental cruelty to the other party. 

The bench thereafter said, "The findings recorded by the learned Court below are impregnable and infallible. The second ground of decree for divorce is under Section 13(1)(i a) and 13(1)(i b) on the ground of desertion for a period of one or more year, that they have not been able to live together". 

The high court noted the husband's statement on affidavit where he had asserted that his wife, after solemnization of marriage came to matrimonial house only for twice and lived there only for 12-15 days and "on being pregnant without informing him went to her parental house and refused to come back", adding that she had been living with her parents since 2017.

The high court further noted the husband's contention that even after having knowledge of the matter, she did not appear before the court.

"The evidence tendered for substantiating the ground of desertion has also been proved by unrebutted evidence of the appellant (wife)," the bench added while dismissing the woman's appeal. 

Case Number: FA-683-2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 203

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment