The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that compelling a wife to leave her job in order to adhere to her husband's preferences and lifestyle amounts to cruelty, qualifying as a ground for divorce.
A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Sushrur Dharmadhikari, asserted that neither spouse has the right to impose their personal choices regarding employment on the other.
The Court further clarified that the decision to live together should be a mutual one, based on the consent of both partners.
“Whether husband or wife wants to live together, it is their wish. Neither husband nor wife can force other side not to do job or do any job as per the choice of the spouse. In the present case, the husband compelled his wife to leave the government job till he gets the job. In this manner, forcing the wife to leave the job and live as per his wish and style, it amounts to cruelty,” the Court said.
The judgment stemmed from an appeal filed by the wife, challenging the family court's decision to dismiss her divorce petition. The family court had rejected her plea, citing the absence of police complaints, a lack of corroborating witnesses, and insufficient evidence to support her claims of cruelty.
The couple had married in April 2014, and the wife, employed as an Assistant Manager with LIC Housing Finance Limited since 2017, alleged that her unemployed husband pressured her to leave her government job and live with him until he found employment. She claimed that his constant coercion, coupled with ongoing mental and emotional harassment, led her to live separately and file for divorce.
The wife also pointed out that her husband had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, only after she had already initiated divorce proceedings. She argued that this move was a mere legal maneuver to counter her divorce plea and did not reflect a genuine desire for reconciliation.
In its analysis, the Court noted that the family court had failed to consider the wife’s statement, in which she explicitly mentioned that her decision to seek divorce was driven by her husband’s coercion to leave her job and live with him. Furthermore, the Court observed that the wife had previously issued a notice requesting mutual divorce, citing compatibility issues, but the husband’s refusal to consent to it amounted to cruelty in itself.
The High Court, in its order dated November 13, overturned the family court’s 2022 ruling and granted the wife a divorce, dissolving the marriage.
Advocate Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi represented the appellant.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy