The Court made the observation while granting divorce to a man whose wife had filed multiple criminals cases against him and his family members and also prevented him from meeting their minor daughter.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently emphasized that a mother instructing her child to speak negatively about their father is a grave issue and constitutes cruelty towards the man.
In a case where a man sought divorce due to his wife filing numerous criminal cases against him and his relatives, and obstructing his access to their minor daughter, a division bench comprising Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vinay Saraf made this remark.
Though it refrained from commenting on the wife’s criminal complaints due to pendency of those cases, the bench said that the “wife crossed all barriers in levelling allegations against husband and his family members”.
Based on the evidence presented, the Court discovered that upon the birth of their daughter in 2014, the husband was denied access to her, prompting him to initiate legal proceedings for custody.
Despite the Family Court’s directive instructing the wife to facilitate visitation between the father and the child, she persistently disregarded the order, as acknowledged by the Court.
Given this context, the Court referenced recent observations from the Delhi High Court and Kerala High Court regarding parental alienation, highlighting that influencing a child against a parent constitutes psychological cruelty.
“In view of above, pronouncement of Delhi and Kerala High Courts and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be safely observed that in present case also wife has tried to keep away husband from minor daughter and tutored her to speak against her own father. This is serious matter and definitely caused mental cruelty to husband,” the bench said.
In the current scenario, the husband initiated a custody petition at the family court in Jabalpur, seeking custody of his minor child due to allegations of the wife obstructing his visitation rights with their daughter. On May 18, 2017, the court ruled in favor of the husband’s petition.
Furthermore, during the divorce proceedings, the court repeatedly instructed the wife to arrange meetings between the daughter and her father. By 2020, the family court had noted the wife’s persistent reluctance to facilitate such interactions.
Initially, the appellant-husband filed for divorce on grounds of mental cruelty and desertion in the district court. Subsequently, the Supreme Court transferred the case to the Principal Judge of the Family Court in Jabalpur. The petition was dismissed on October 13, 2020, leading to the current appeal before the High Court.
The High Court observed that the wife’s actions had inflicted mental cruelty upon her husband. She vacated the matrimonial home shortly after their marriage. Although the husband and his family anticipated her return, she never did, resulting in a lack of cohabitation thereafter, as noted by the Court.
Furthermore, the Court observed that all attempts at mediation between the couple had failed, and multiple legal cases had been filed by both parties against each other.
…marriage has irretrievably broken down due to multiple FIRs and complaints lodged by wife. Dissolution of marriage will relieve both sides of pain and anguish…Even if this court refuses decree of divorce to appellant husband, there are hardly any chances of respondent wife leading a happy life with appellant husband because a lot of bitterness created by conduct of respondent wife, which amounts to cruelty,” it said.
Considering these factors, the appeal was upheld, and the husband was granted a divorce.
The Court refrained from making any remarks on the substance of the cases filed by both the husband and wife against each other, as they remain unresolved.
“So far as lodging of FIRs and filing of various criminal cases are concerned, all cases are still pending and any comment on merits of pending cases may prejudice interest of parties and create obstacle in just disposal of cases by competent courts, therefore this court refrains from giving any finding touching the merits of pending criminal cases,” it observed.
