Wife’s anger no excuse for baseless allegations of infidelity against husband: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently granted divorce to a man who was falsely accused of infidelity by his wife.

The Division Bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Anurdha Shukla  refused to accept the wife’s argument that she had made the allegations out of anger.

“The other aspect of cruelty relates to aspersions cast about the immoral character of appellant/husband and for this aspect we do not have to check merely the oral testimony of the parties as these allegations have documentation and were prominently made in Exs.-P/13 and P/14 which are the petitions filed by respondent/wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 12 of the Act of 2005. It is claimed in cross-objection that wife initiated the proceeding of Section 12 of the Act of 2005 in anger but this explanation would not absolve her of the liability incurred by making baseless allegations against husband regarding his moral character,” the Court said. 

In the present case, the couple married in 2002 and have a child. However, they had been living separately at least for past three years. 

The husband filed for divorce in 2021 but the family court in 2024 granted him a lesser relief of a decree of judicial separation. He then moved the High Court. The wife also objected to the family court decision, stating that she was always keen to resume the marital ties.

In the judgment dated September 25, the High Court noted that the trial court had decided not to give any conclusive finding on the issue of cruelty committed by husband but restricted its finding only to the fact that wife was cruel with husband.

“Appellant/husband had raised the ground of desertion by claiming that he was deserted by wife since 04.02.2019 but the impugned judgment reflects that the trial Court was not convinced with the aforesaid date of desertion, as for it parties continued their relationship in 2020-2021 and even thereafter and, thus, minimum two years period of desertion was not complete when the divorce petition was filed in the year 2021,” it added.

Considering the oral evidence, the Court said it was difficult to arrive on any clear finding that behaviour of wife towards husband and his mother was un-becoming and offensive, or had a habit of squandering money to the extent of constituting cruelty for the husband. 

However, the Court said that it was established that the wife had made very serious allegations about her husband’s illicit relationship and hopelessly failed to prove the same.

“Making baseless and false allegations of the nature of moral turpitude not only cause mental agony to the other party of marriage but it brings the marital relationship to its doom. We accede that if allegations were true then nothing should have been spared by wife to establish what was being claimed by her repeatedly or we may say that the burden to prove these grave allegations was heavily on her. As nothing worth credence has been proved by her, we find no exaggeration in the compliant of husband that he has suffered great agony on account of these allegations and has therefore been subjected to cruelty,” the Court said.

The Court further found that the wife had taken the act of tarnishing the husband’s image a step further by claiming to have “clicked some photographs regarding vulgar chatting of her husband, his intimacy with other women and also of carrying condoms on his solo foreign visits.”

However, the Court found the evidence in this regard to be inadmissible. 

“The documents relating to chatting and photographs were not considered as admissible evidence by trial Court and we do not find any reason to differ with that finding as the alleged chatting marked as Ex.-D/3 are photo copies produced in evidence without any certificate about the sources and the process through which they were generated. Photographs showing condom lying over a bag do not connect with appellant/husband nor establish any fact regarding his alleged sin. Even the other photographs do not have any vulgar contents or show any intimate relationship,” it said.

Thus, the Court ruled the trial court committed no wrong in holding that wife was cruel towards the husband. Consequently, it proceeded to grant divorce to the husband.

“We are aware that relationship between the parties had gone so bitter that neither of them was having any empathy for the other, but even this kind of relationship cannot be an excuse to make false allegations regarding the moral character of the other party. Thus, on this ground of cruelty, husband deserves a decree of divorce and there is no reasoned justification in the impugned judgment for not allowing the decree of divorcee despite holding that husband was being subjected to cruelty,” it said.

The Court, however, refused to grant divorce on the ground of desertion, noting that though there was no physical relationship between the parties since 2019, they were meeting frequently and enjoying family time with their daughter. 

“This behaviour of the parties is not in coherence with any intention to permanently withdraw from the company of other spouse. The trial Court was therefore justified in dismissing the divorce petition on the ground of desertion,” it said.

Thus, it allowed the husband’s appeal and passed the following order:

“In the result, the appeal filed by appellant/husband is allowed on the ground of cruelty and the cross-objection filed by respondent/wife is dismissed. Consequently, the marriage solemnized between the parties on 08.12.2002 is declared to be dissolved on the ground of cruelty.”

Advocate Ajay Kumar Ojha represented the husband.

Advocate Vaibhav Tiwari represented the wife.

[Read Judgment]