Bench: Justices Vivek Russo and Amar Nath (Kesharwani)
Citation: 2016 First Appeal No. 417
Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that minor differences cannot be termed as cruelty between husband and wife.
A bench of Justice Vivek Russo and Justice Amar Nath was hearing the appeal filed by the wife. Section 19 of the Family Court Act challenges the judgment passed by the Family Court in which the marriage between husband and wife was dissolved on the ground of cruelty.
In this case, the appellant (wife), respondent (husband) and their family met and solemnized their marriage. After marriage, the husband came to know that some wrong information like date of birth and qualification has been given in the wife's resume.
The wife created the scene and misbehaved with the respondent's mother over trivial matters. The wife left her in-laws' house with all her jewelery and threatened to implicate all the family members in a criminal case.
The Respondent approached the Family Court, Indore, 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the mother to dissolve the marriage on the ground of cruelty.
The Family Court Judge has found that the conduct of the wife accused by the husband has been proved which constitutes mental cruelty to her. Since he has suffered mental cruelty, he is entitled to a decree of divorce and, accordingly, the solemnized marriage is dissolved.
The issue of consideration before the bench was:
Was the decision passed by the family judge in accordance with the law or not?
The bench said that since the husband has agreed to the marriage, the husband cannot be allowed to spoil the life of the wife without any fault without any reason. Minor differences cannot be termed as cruelty between husband and wife. One should not expect overnight change in husband and wife. Both should give time to each other to transfer into married life as wife and husband.
The High Court held that after the marriage, the appellant/wife lived with the respondent/husband for hardly six months and thereafter she left him and the law does not permit it. Neither mental cruelty nor physical cruelty has been established in the present case.
In view of the above, the bench allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.