The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted a divorce to a man on grounds of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), noting that his wife had “in a moment of despair” set herself on fire and subsequently blamed his relatives, without producing any credible evidence.
While overturning the family court’s order, the High Court observed that the wife never filed a criminal case against the husband’s relatives for the alleged incident. The Court held that such a “dreadful act” was, in itself, sufficient to establish mental cruelty toward the husband, and that the family court had failed to properly assess the clear facts of the case.
A division bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Anuradha Shukla observed; “In the overall perspective we find that respondent/wife suffered a painful incident sustaining burn injuries for which she holds the relatives of appellant/husband responsible, but she has not produced any reliable evidence on this point and had also failed to initiate any criminal proceedings against the wrong doers. The excuse given for this slumbering approach is not appealing either, as the concerned respected members of society were not produced as witness before the trial Court nor were approached privately to get the dispute settled through them. On the other hand, appellant/husband has been consistent through facts and evidence to establish that the incident of burning was the result of self immolation and we do not have any reason to disbelieve this testimony and taking such a drastic step by a spouse is sufficient in itself to cause dread and fear in other spouse to avoid any bonding in matrimonial relationship“.
It further said: “In the present case the facts established reveal that in a moment of despair, respondent/wife set herself on fire and later put a blame on the relatives of the husband. This dreadful act itself is sufficient to hold that she has committed mental cruelty with appellant/husband and the trial Court was in error in not appreciating the facts evident on record and was even more so in replacing them with his own perceived notions, therefore, a good case of interference in the impugned judgment and decree has been made out. Accordingly, we allow this first appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree”
Background
The High Court delivered the order in the husband’s appeal against the trial court’s decision, which had denied a divorce on the grounds of cruelty.
The husband contended that since their marriage in April 2003, his wife had harbored a “strong dislike” for him. He alleged that she mistreated and threatened him over trivial matters. It was further claimed that she once set her clothes on fire, an act that was successfully extinguished by him and his family. Additionally, he stated that when she became pregnant, she insisted on being sent to her parents’ home.
The husband further stated that in the eighth month of her pregnancy, he “forcibly brought her back for institutional delivery” and admitted her to a nursing home, where she gave birth to a daughter. After a month, she returned to her parents’ home with the child.
He alleged that when he visited his in-laws to request her return, his wife attempted to set herself on fire by pouring kerosene on June 20, 2005. She was subsequently hospitalized for a month. Following this incident, the husband filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty.
The wife, opposing the divorce petition, claimed that she had been harassed by her husband and his family since their marriage. She argued that the allegation of attempting suicide by setting her saree on fire was false and made merely to counter claims in a criminal case. She further stated that after the birth of their child, the husband and his relatives became hostile toward her. She also alleged that the husband’s mother, brother, and sister-in-law poured kerosene on her and set her on fire, and that she was rescued by neighbors and taken to a hospital.
Additionally, the wife asserted that, following the advice of respected members of society, she chose not to pursue criminal proceedings. She requested the dismissal of the divorce petition, claiming that the husband was attempting to end the marriage after her physical appearance had changed due to burn injuries.
Findings
The bench dismissed the wife’s claims of being rescued by neighbors, observing that “she did not examine any neighbor to support her assertion.”
Additionally, the bench dismissed the wife’s justification for not filing an FIR, noting that her “explanation would have been of some value if the relationship between the parties normalized” after the incident, but the circumstances became much worse.
Furthermore, the bench took objection to the Family Court recording the couple’s conduct during mediation in the order sheet. Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Motiram and Another vs. Ashok Kumar and Another (2011), the bench reiterated that, “mediation proceedings are strictly confidential and mediator should send the settlement agreement signed by the parties to the Court only when mediation is successful and should not mention what transpired during the mediation proceedings“.
The High Court held that the Family Court’s findings should have been thoroughly examined “strictly within the ambit of the facts and evidence available on record and nothing beyond that.
The High Court allowed the appeal and granted him a divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.