The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently granted divorce to a man after finding that his wife had falsely accused him of intoxication and contested his divorce plea despite being determined not to resume marital life.

A Division Bench of Justices Vishal Dhagat and Anuradha Shukla observed that the attitude of the wife to persistently ridicule her husband as an alcoholic in his social circle is a serious affair, amounting to mental cruelty.

"In the case on hand, the wife, in order to avoid marital obligations, has made unfounded allegation of habit of intoxication against the appellant/husband and has thus exposed him to social sham and contempt by compromising his social position of a public servant. Her act of baseless accusation definitely has a decisive impact on the future relationship of the parties..."

The couple married in 2004 and have two children. However, they have been living separately since 2017. The wife had earlier filed a petition under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against the husband, but it was later closed.

The husband filed for divorce in 2018, alleging that her behaviour towards him was cruel and that she used to make false allegations against him. However, the wife contested the plea, stating that she was subjected to cruelty and that a compromise had been reached only after her husband had apologised.

In 2021, a family court rejected the divorce plea, holding that the husband was a habitual drinker and had harassed his wife. The husband then moved the High Court with the present appeal.

The High Court found that the documents, particularly the compromise relied upon by the family court to give its finding on the alleged liquor addiction of husband, did not have any evidentiary value.

"...In none of these documents, it is mentioned that the appellant/husband had any habit of taking liquor. The last document was Ex. D/4, which was a complaint given to Police Paramarash Kendra on 24.02.2015 by respondent/wife, but it appears that police did not take any follow-up action on its basis. Thus, whatever wicked deeds were confessed by appellant/husband in the year 2011, under Ex.-D/2, had evidently no recurring episodes in subsequent years of his marital life. Further, whatever was stated by the wife regarding this habit to intoxication, the same was rebutted by appellant-husband in his statement given on oath," the Court found.

Thus, it concluded that the allegations of the husband's liquor addiction was not duly proved by the wife. The trial court committed error in holding that the husband was a habitual drinker, the Bench found.

Taking note of the couple's jobs, the Court found that the wife was determined to humiliate him in the social circles.

"In the present case, wife has shown no hesitation in declaring that her husband/appellant was alcoholic and was thus given to intolerable habits. Admittedly, appellant/husband is a class IV employee while respondent/wife is in the Officer cadre, but both are serving in public sector. We have no hesitation in observing that normal bickering and quarrels between the parties, happening in their day to day life, can not be taken as a matter of grave concern, but a persistent resolved attitude of respondent-wife to see that her husband is ridiculed and humiliated in his social circle as an alcoholic is definitely a serious affair. "

Accordingly, the Court allowed the husband's appeal for divorce.

Advocate Pradeep Kumar Naveria represented the husband.

Advocate Jagadish Prasad Kanojia represented the wife.

[Read Judgment]