The Madhya Pradesh High Court has noted that a wife's refusal to engage in a physical relationship with her husband constitutes cruelty towards him.

A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani) made this observation while affirming a family court's decision to grant the husband's divorce application under Section 13-1 (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Case Brief: 

In January 2018, the husband filed a divorce petition before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna, citing cruelty and desertion by his wife. He stated that their marriage, conducted according to Hindu customs and rites on May 26, 2013, was troubled from the start. On their wedding night, the wife refused to establish physical relations with him, expressing that she did not like him and had only married under her parents' pressure.

On May 29, 2013, the wife's brothers came to the husband's house and took her with them, purportedly so she could appear in her final exams scheduled for the next day. However, when the husband's family went to her parents' house to bring her back, her parents refused to send her, and since then, the wife has not returned to her matrimonial home.

On the other hand, the wife claimed that her marital relations with her husband were maintained until May 28, 2013. After that, she alleged that her husband and his family began harassing her by demanding Rs. 1,50,000 and an Alto car as dowry.

She claimed that her exams were scheduled until June 2013, preventing her from returning to her matrimonial home with her husband and his father. As a result, her in-laws became angry and renewed their dowry demands. Subsequently, her husband never came to take her back to her matrimonial home.

She also stated that she is willing to live with her husband at her matrimonial home, but the dowry demands have kept her separated from him. Based on these grounds, she requested the dismissal of the divorce petition filed by her husband.

The Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna, framed the issues based on the parties' pleadings and recorded their statements. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence presented, the judge granted the husband's application and issued a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Challenging the order, the wife appealed to the High Court, arguing that due to the dowry demands and ill-treatment by her husband and his family, she was compelled to stay with her parents. She contended that this demonstrated she did not leave her husband's company voluntarily.

The husband maintained that his wife falsely accused him of dowry harassment. He stated that after their marriage, she stayed at her matrimonial home for only three days and then left without a valid reason. Since then, they have lived separately, supporting the family court's decision as appropriate.

Upon reviewing the case records and considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Court observed that the wife had acknowledged staying at her matrimonial home for only three days following the marriage. Despite requests from the husband's family to return, she chose not to do so. Additionally, the Court took note of her admission before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi (M.P.), where she stated that no physical relationship had occurred between herself and her husband.

Therefore, the Court concluded that the husband's assertion was substantiated that the wife refused to engage in a physical relationship with him on their first night together. In light of this, the Court affirmed that the wife's denial of physical intimacy constituted cruelty towards the husband.

Against this backdrop, the Court observed that it was established that the wife stayed at her in-laws' house for only 3 days after marriage, during which no cohabitation occurred between the parties. Subsequently, the wife and husband have lived separately for over 11 years.

In light of these circumstances, considering the prolonged separation of the parties and the husband's filing of a divorce petition, the Court found no legal flaw in the judgment and order of the Family Court. Therefore, the wife's appeal was dismissed.

Case title - SANCHITA VISHWAKARMA vs. YOGENDRA PRASAD VISHWAKARMA