The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a wife’s refusal to engage in physical relations with her husband constitutes cruelty towards him. A bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani) made this observation while upholding a family court’s decision to grant the husband’s divorce petition under Section 13-1 (i-a) & (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The husband filed for divorce in January 2018 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna, citing cruelty and desertion by his wife. He stated that their marriage took place on May 26, 2013, according to Hindu customs, but on their first night, his wife refused to have physical relations and revealed that she did not like him and had married under her parents’ pressure. On May 29, 2013, the wife’s brothers took her to attend her final exams, allegedly scheduled for the next day. When the husband’s family went to bring her back, her parents refused to send her, and she never returned to her matrimonial home.
The wife, however, claimed that their marital relations were maintained until May 28, 2013, after which her husband and his family harassed her for a dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and an Alto car. She said she couldn’t go to her matrimonial home due to her exams until June 2013, which angered her in-laws, who resumed their dowry demands. She stated she was willing to live with her husband but was separated due to these demands, and she requested the dismissal of the divorce petition.
The Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna, evaluated the evidence and granted the husband’s divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a), (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Challenging this decision, the wife appealed to the High Court, arguing that dowry demands and ill-treatment forced her to leave her matrimonial home. She contended that she did not leave voluntarily.
The husband maintained that his wife falsely accused him of dowry demands and that she left their home without reason after only three days of marriage. Since then, they had lived separately, justifying the family court’s decision.
High Court’s Observations: After reviewing the case records and arguments, the High Court noted that the wife admitted to staying at her matrimonial home for only three days and had not returned despite requests. She also acknowledged in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi (M.P.), that no physical relationship occurred between them. Thus, the Court concluded that the husband’s claim was proven that the wife refused physical relations on their first night, constituting cruelty towards him. Considering the separation of over 11 years and the lack of cohabitation, the Court found the family court’s decision legally sound and rejected the wife’s appeal.
