MP High Court Upholds Divorce on Grounds of Mental Cruelty
MP High Court upheld a divorce decree on mental cruelty grounds, ruling that vulgar conversations outside marriage amount to cruelty. The Division Bench of Vivek Rusia and Gajendra Singh, JJ., dismissed the wife’s appeal.
Marriage and Disputes Leading to Divorce
The marriage between the appellant-wife and respondent-husband took place on December 15, 2018, as per Hindu customs in Chhatarpur. The husband, who is partially deaf, had disclosed his disability before marriage, and the wife consented to marry him despite knowing this fact. However, soon after marriage, she allegedly started misbehaving with her mother-in-law. After just 1.5 months, on April 5, 2019, she left for her parental home and refused to return.
Husband’s Allegations: Mental Cruelty and Indecent Conversations
The husband accused the wife of verbally abusing his mother, even after she suffered a fracture. He further alleged that she maintained contact with her past lovers and engaged in vulgar conversations with them over WhatsApp. The husband discovered indecent messages exchanged between his wife and two individuals. He also claimed that she threatened to falsely implicate him in legal cases. Concerned about these threats, he complained with the police. At the police station, a compromise was reached where the wife assured in writing that she would not create further issues. Her father, a practicing advocate, admitted in writing that his daughter’s actions had brought shame to the family.
Divorce Petition Under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Despite this, conflicts continued, leading the husband to file a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing mental cruelty. The wife opposed the petition, alleging that the husband had hacked her mobile to fabricate evidence, violated her privacy, demanded a dowry of ₹25 lakhs, and subjected her to domestic violence. However, after reviewing the evidence, the Family Court granted the decree of divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty.
High Court’s Observations on Mental Cruelty and Divorce
In the appeal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that the father’s admission before the police about his daughter’s behavior carried significant weight. It also observed that the exhibited WhatsApp conversations confirmed the inappropriate exchanges claimed by the husband. The Court further emphasized that the wife had not filed any counter-case, such as a domestic violence complaint or an FIR, which made the husband’s allegations more credible.
The Court stated, “It is not expected from a wife or husband to indulge in the undignified or indecent conversation by way of chatting with male or female friends as the case may be that too after marriage. No husband would tolerate that his wife is in conversation through mobile by way of these type of vulgar chatting.”
It considered the wife’s behavior to be inappropriate and objectionable, deeming her vulgar conversations with male friends post-marriage as intolerable for a husband, thereby justifying the dissolution of marriage.
Court’s Ruling: Vulgar Chats as Grounds for Divorce
The Court further remarked, “After marriage husband and wife both have the freedom to have a conversation by way of mobile, chatting and other means with friends but the level of conversation should be decent and dignified, especially when it is with an opposite gender, which may not objectionable to the life partner. If despite objection husband or wife continues with such activity of activities, then certainly it causes mental cruelty.”
Final Verdict: Divorce Affirmed
With these observations, the Court upheld the Family Court’s decision and affirmed the divorce decree granted on June 24, 2023. The case records were sent back to the Family Court for further proceedings.
This ruling reinforces that engaging in inappropriate conversations outside marriage can be grounds for divorce under mental cruelty, setting a significant precedent in Indian matrimonial law.
[Radha v. Sudhanshu, First Appeal No. 1605 of 2023, Decided on 05-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Yash Pal Rathore, Counsel for the Appellant
Shri Virendra Sharma, Senior Counsel with Shri Satish Yadav, Counsel for the Respondent
