“Forcing the wife to leave the job and live as per his wish and style, amounts to cruelty’’ stated the division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadikhari of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Setting aside the judgment of the family court of Indore the bench granted the decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion and dissolved the marriage of the appellant and the respondent solemnized on 19.04.2014.

Recalling facts of the instant case, the appellant wife moved the court seeking a decree of divorce against her respondent- husband. Appealing against the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2022 of the Additional Principal Judge, Family court, Indore it was her submission that by not passing the decree of divorce, the trial court had erred both in law and fact. The appellant- wife argued that she was not served a notice of the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the respondent and was unaware of this until after a divorce petition was filed . In her submission she held that she held a government job in Indore and lived separately from him to remain in service. By compelling her to leave her job and live with him the respondent is subjecting her to cruelty and in the circumstances this cannot be deemed desertion . She also contended that the trial court failed to appreciate evidence, pleadings and facts placed before it that argued that she was forced to live separately also due to the respondent’s behaviour.

The bench recalled noting’s of the family court which state that the appellant did not file a complaint of cruelty with the police, also that no other witnesses were brought to support her claim of cruelty and the appellant’s desire for mutual divorce as adduced in her legal notice. It was also the family court’s reasoning that small quarrels did not amount to cruelty, and that since Section 9 petition filed by the respondent was pending, it is indicative of the respondent’s desire to continue to live with the appellant. It was also the trial court’s reasoning that desertion remains unproven since the appellant lived separately since 2017 due to her job in Indore.

The Bench in their observations stated that the appellant was an Assistant Manager in LIC Housing Finance Limited and the respondent at that time was unemployed, doing nothing. This was the reason the respondent impelled the appellant to leave her job and stay with him, ‘‘ till he gets the job, appellant should not do any job’’. The court also stated that the appellant’s reasons for living separately due to job compulsions does not imply voluntary desertion rather it became a necessity arising out of her professional life. ‘‘Neither husband nor wife can force other side not to do job or any job as per the choice of the spouse’’ held the court. Compelling the appellant to leave her job and stay with him amounts to cruelty on the part of the respondent asserted the court.

Observing that the, ‘‘respondent -husband never wanted that the appellant should get divorce, this itself amounts to cruelty’’ the bench also rejected the trial court’s order stating that the court did not adequately factor the appellant’s version of events, or her testimony that was vital in establishing that the respondent’s conduct and his coercion compelling her to leave her job are grounds of cruelty.

Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the family court the bench dissolved the marriage of the appellant and the respondent.

Case Details- Poonam v. Naveen, First Appeal No. 1462 of 2022

Advocate for Appellant- Raghavendra Sigh Raghuvanshi.