The Madhya Pradesh High Court dissolved a marriage where the wife had attempted self-immolation, holding that such conduct amounts to mental cruelty against the husband. The Court found the trial court’s reliance on mediation proceedings misplaced and clarified that grave acts threatening life and safety cannot be brushed aside as normal marital discord.
Brief Facts of the Case
- The parties married on 29.04.2003 and had a daughter.
- The wife allegedly displayed hostile behaviour soon after marriage, frequently threatening the husband.
- In June 2005, she attempted to set herself on fire with kerosene, sustaining severe burn injuries.
- The husband sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
- The trial court dismissed his petition. He appealed.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 13(1)(i-a) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce on grounds of cruelty.
- Section 13(1)(i-b) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce on grounds of desertion (requires 2 years of continuous separation).
Arguments of Petitioner (Husband)
- The wife’s behaviour was hostile and threatening from the beginning.
- The act of attempting self-immolation inflicted trauma and fear, making cohabitation impossible.
- The trial court erred by relying on mediation records instead of actual evidence.
Arguments of Respondent (Wife)
- She alleged that the husband’s relatives had set her on fire.
- Claimed she wished to continue living with her husband.
- Accused the husband of abandoning her because of her burn injuries.
Court’s Observations
- Desertion not proved: Since parties lived together till June 2005, continuous separation of two years before filing the petition (March 2006) was not met.
- Cruelty established:
- Wife alleged her husband’s family set her on fire but failed to produce any witnesses or file an FIR.
- Explanation of “social advice” for not pursuing criminal action was unconvincing.
- Attempting self-immolation itself is an act of cruelty that instils fear and insecurity in the spouse.
- Trial court wrongly relied on mediation proceedings, violating confidentiality principles.
- Relying on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), the Court held that conduct creating grave apprehension of danger to life constitutes mental cruelty.
Conclusion of the Judgment
The High Court set aside the trial court’s dismissal and granted divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The marriage was formally dissolved.
Comments from the author of this website
When I read this judgment, I could feel the weight of what it means for men caught in toxic and unsafe marriages. For years, the narrative has been one-sided—only men are accused of cruelty, while the suffering they endure is brushed aside as if their mental health and safety do not matter.
I imagine myself in the husband’s place: living every day in fear that my partner might take such an extreme step, and then being unfairly accused of causing it. That kind of constant tension eats away at a man’s peace of mind, his dignity, and even his sense of safety in his own home. Yet, in society and in many courts, men are expected to silently absorb everything, to “adjust” and “tolerate,” no matter how dangerous the situation becomes.
What struck me most here is how easily the wife shifted blame, alleging that the husband’s relatives set her on fire, without bringing a single independent witness or lodging a criminal case. If the roles had been reversed, no one would have accepted such a weak explanation from a man. This double standard is why many men feel abandoned by the very system that should protect them.
The trial court’s behavior made things worse. Instead of focusing on evidence, it leaned on confidential mediation records—violating the very sanctity of mediation. This shows how often men’s pain is dismissed with casual observations, rather than being acknowledged for the serious suffering it is.
This judgment finally acknowledges that mental cruelty is not confined to gender. A wife’s reckless and life-threatening act is not just a private mistake—it leaves scars on the husband too. It forces him to live in fear, to constantly second-guess his future, and to lose trust in the relationship. No man should be compelled to stay trapped in such circumstances simply because the law and society expect him to endure.
Final Thoughts
This decision is more than just a decree of divorce—it is a recognition that a husband’s trauma is real and valid. It affirms that extreme actions by a spouse, even if directed at themselves, can destroy the foundation of marriage and amount to cruelty.
For too long, men’s silent suffering has gone unspoken. This judgment is a step towards fairness, where courts weigh facts and evidence without bias, and where men are no longer invisible when they are the ones wronged. It is a reminder that marriage cannot be built on fear, and that dignity and safety must belong to both partners equally.
Read Complete Judgement Here