In a significant judgment delivered on October 15, 2025, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, in the case of First Appeal No. 334 of 2021 (FA-334-2021), set aside a Family Court’s decision and granted a decree of divorce to a husband, citing cruelty by the wife. The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Shri Justice Vishal Dhagat and Hon’ble Smt. Justice Anuradha Shukla, found that the wife’s unfounded allegations of alcoholism and her implacable refusal to resume cohabitation amounted to mental cruelty.
The Background of the Case
The appellant/husband challenged the judgment and decree dated February 24, 2021, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandla, which had rejected his divorce petition. The husband sought divorce on the twin grounds of desertion and cruelty .
-
Marriage and Children: The couple were married on June 23, 2004 , and have two children.
-
Public Servants: Both the appellant and respondent are public servants .
-
Separation: The parties have been living separately since 2017 , with the wife residing in a separate house since June 5, 2017 .
-
Prior Legal Action: The wife had previously filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act of 2005), which was settled through a compromise .
Key Findings by the High Court
The High Court meticulously examined the evidence and the trial court’s findings, ultimately concluding that the marriage could not be sustained.
1. Desertion: Mandatory Period Not Complete
The Court quickly dismissed the ground of desertion. The husband’s divorce petition was filed on July 10, 2018. However, the husband himself admitted that the matrimonial relationship finally “snapped” on June 5, 2017. Since the mandatory period of two years of desertion was not complete as of the date the divorce petition was filed, this ground was deemed unavailable to the husband.
2. Cruelty: Baseless Allegations of Alcoholism
The core of the appeal centered on the issue of cruelty. The trial court had found the husband to be cruel, relying heavily on the wife’s allegation of his habitual consumption of liquor. The High Court, however, found this conclusion to be in error.
-
Evidence Analysis: The Court examined the compromise documents (Ex. D/1 to Ex. D/4) from the 2005 Act case. While Ex. D/2 showed the husband confessed to physically assaulting the wife on “trivial matters” and neglecting his obligations in 2011 , the Court noted that none of these documents mentioned any habit of taking liquor .
-
Lack of Proof: Crucially, the Court found that the wife had not duly proved the allegations of alcoholism. It was also noted that the trial court had wrongly relied on the testimony of the wife’s brother regarding a related incident, as no pleadings were available in the written reply of the wife about this, making the evidence “beyond the scope of pleadings.”
3. Mental Cruelty by the Wife
The High Court found that the wife’s actions, which included making the unfounded allegation of intoxication and her implacable attitude toward resuming marital ties, constituted mental cruelty against the husband.
-
Social Humiliation: Given that both are public servants (the husband being a Class IV employee and the wife an Officer), the wife’s persistent, resolved attitude to see her husband “ridiculed and humiliated in his social circle as an alcoholic” was deemed a serious affair .
-
Compromising Social Position: The wife’s actions of making “unfounded allegation of habit of intoxication” exposed the husband to “social sham and contempt by compromising his social position of a public servant.”
-
Refusal to Cohabit: Citing previous Supreme Court rulings, the High Court emphasized that the wife’s desire to live separately while continuing to make serious, false allegations was effectively a resolution to make the husband’s life “further miserable,” and this attitude was considered a definitive act of cruelty. The wife’s act of “contesting the divorce petition despite being resolute in not resuming the cohabitation” was also a ground for allowing the appeal.
The Verdict
The High Court ultimately concluded that the wife’s act of baseless accusation had a decisive impact on the future relationship of the parties, rendering the dismissal of the divorce petition illegitimate. The appeal was allowed on the ground of cruelty committed by the wife.
The marriage solemnized on June 23, 2004, was dissolved from the date of the High Court’s judgment, serving as a reminder that the persistent, unjustified humiliation of a spouse through false public allegations can be a valid ground for divorce based on mental cruelty.