A Division Bench comprising Justice Vishal Dhagat<\/strong> and Justice Anuradha Shukla<\/strong> was hearing an appeal filed by a husband whose wife had accused him of having illicit relations with other women. The Court refused to accept the wife\u2019s claim that she made the allegations \u201cin anger\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judges observed,<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe other aspect of cruelty relates to aspersions cast about the immoral character of appellant\/husband and for this aspect we do not have to check merely the oral testimony of the parties as these allegations have documentation and were prominently made in Exs.-P\/13 and P\/14 which are the petitions filed by respondent\/wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 12 of the Act of 2005. It is claimed in cross-objection that wife initiated the proceeding of Section 12 of the Act of 2005 in anger but this explanation would not absolve her of the liability incurred by making baseless allegations against husband regarding his moral character.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The couple was married in 2002<\/strong> and had one child. They had been living separately for the past few years. In 2021<\/strong>, the husband approached the family court seeking divorce, but was only granted judicial separation in 2024. Dissatisfied, he appealed to the High Court. The wife also challenged the order, saying she wanted to resume marital life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In its judgment dated September 25<\/strong>, the High Court noted that the lower court had avoided giving a definite finding on whether the husband was cruel, but had accepted that the wife had treated the husband cruelly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench further noted:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAppellant\/husband had raised the ground of desertion by claiming that he was deserted by wife since 04.02.2019 but the impugned judgment reflects that the trial Court was not convinced with the aforesaid date of desertion, as for it parties continued their relationship in 2020-2021 and even thereafter and, thus, minimum two years period of desertion was not complete when the divorce petition was filed in the year 2021.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court found no strong proof that the wife was rude to her husband or mother-in-law, or that she wasted money excessively. However, it found that she had made serious and false allegations<\/strong> about her husband\u2019s character.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judges observed,<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMaking baseless and false allegations of the nature of moral turpitude not only cause mental agony to the other party of marriage but it brings the marital relationship to its doom. We accede that if allegations were true then nothing should have been spared by wife to establish what was being claimed by her repeatedly or we may say that the burden to prove these grave allegations was heavily on her. As nothing worth credence has been proved by her, we find no exaggeration in the complaint of husband that he has suffered great agony on account of these allegations and has therefore been subjected to cruelty.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court further noted that the wife went to the extent of claiming that she had \u201cclicked some photographs regarding vulgar chatting of her husband, his intimacy with other women and also of carrying condoms on his solo foreign visits.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the High Court rejected this so-called evidence, stating that it was inadmissible:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe documents relating to chatting and photographs were not considered as admissible evidence by trial Court and we do not find any reason to differ with that finding as the alleged chatting marked as Ex.-D\/3 are photo copies produced in evidence without any certificate about the sources and the process through which they were generated. Photographs showing condom lying over a bag do not connect with appellant\/husband nor establish any fact regarding his alleged sin. Even the other photographs do not have any vulgar contents or show any intimate relationship.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Holding that the family court had erred in denying divorce, the Bench observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe are aware that relationship between the parties had gone so bitter that neither of them was having any empathy for the other, but even this kind of relationship cannot be an excuse to make false allegations regarding the moral character of the other party. Thus, on this ground of cruelty, husband deserves a decree of divorce and there is no reasoned justification in the impugned judgment for not allowing the decree of divorcee despite holding that husband was being subjected to cruelty.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n On the issue of desertion, the Court agreed with the trial court that since the couple had met several times and spent time with their daughter, there was no intention of permanent separation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis behaviour of the parties is not in coherence with any intention to permanently withdraw from the company of other spouse. The trial Court was therefore justified in dismissing the divorce petition on the ground of desertion.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Finally, the Court allowed the husband\u2019s appeal and issued a clear ruling:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn the result, the appeal filed by appellant\/husband is allowed on the ground of cruelty and the cross-objection filed by respondent\/wife is dismissed. Consequently, the marriage solemnized between the parties on 08.12.2002 is declared to be dissolved on the ground of cruelty.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Summary of the Verdict:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This ruling reinforces that false accusations of immoral conduct or infidelity<\/strong> can deeply harm one\u2019s reputation and mental peace \u2014 and therefore, constitute valid grounds for divorce under Indian matrimonial law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"Wife\u2019s](\"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Madhya-Pradesh-High-Court-1024x576.webp\" "\\"\\"")
Explanatory Table of Laws & Sections Mentioned<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/th> Statute<\/th> Purpose \/ Context in Case<\/th> Court\u2019s Observation \/ Relevance<\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Section 125 CrPC<\/td> Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/td> Provides for maintenance to wife, child, or parents.<\/td> Wife had filed a petition under this section making allegations about husband\u2019s immoral character.<\/td><\/tr> Section 12<\/td> Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/td> Allows an aggrieved woman to seek relief from domestic violence.<\/td> Wife filed this petition alleging cruelty and infidelity by husband; Court found her claims false.<\/td><\/tr> Section 19<\/td> Family Courts Act, 1984<\/td> Provides appeal provisions from judgments of Family Courts.<\/td> Husband\u2019s appeal was filed under this section challenging family court\u2019s refusal of divorce.<\/td><\/tr> Cruelty (Ground for Divorce)<\/td> Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a><\/td> Mental or physical cruelty is a ground for divorce.<\/td> Court held that false allegations of moral turpitude and infidelity amount to cruelty.<\/td><\/tr> Desertion (Ground for Divorce)<\/td> Section 13(1)(ib), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/td> Continuous separation with intent to end cohabitation for two years.<\/td> Court found desertion not proved as parties continued meeting and spending time with child.<\/td><\/tr> Evidence Act (Section 65B implied)<\/td> Indian Evidence Act, 1872<\/a><\/td> Digital evidence admissibility (requires certificate).<\/td> Court held photos and chats inadmissible as they lacked certification and credibility.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n