The Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the divorce petition of a husband who alleged cruelty by his wife. The Court held that small quarrels, fights, and disagreements between husband and wife are normal parts of married life and cannot be treated as “cruelty” under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Facts of the Case
Marriage & Children: Jitendra Jani (husband) and Bhumi Jani (wife) married in 2007. They have two sons, born in 2009 and 2019.
Allegations by Husband:
-
- Wife refused to stay with his parents and disrespected family traditions.
- She often went to her parental home for long periods without informing him.
- She threatened suicide and false dowry cases against him and his family.
- She denied cohabitation and ultimately left the matrimonial home in March 2024 with children and belongings.
Legal Action: The Family Court dismissed his divorce petition. He appealed to the High Court.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 13(1)(ia), HMA, 1955 – Divorce on ground of cruelty.
- Section 13(1)(ib), HMA, 1955 – Divorce on ground of desertion (minimum 2 years).
- Section 23(1), HMA, 1955 – Burden of proof always on petitioner.
Arguments
Husband’s Side:
- Claimed he was mentally and emotionally harassed.
- Stated that wife’s conditional willingness to return home was proof of cruelty and lack of genuine intention.
- Said his testimony was unrebutted since the wife never appeared in court.
Wife’s Side:
- Did not appear before the High Court.
- Earlier, in her legal reply, she denied allegations and said she was ready to return, provided her husband treated her and the children with care and fidelity.
Court’s Observations
- On Desertion: Since the wife left only in March 2024 and petition was filed in July 2024, the required period of 2 years for desertion was not fulfilled.
- On Cruelty:
- The incidents narrated by the husband were ordinary disputes of married life, not cruelty.
- Occasional refusal of cohabitation or fights cannot be stretched to mean cruelty.
- Wife’s reply letter was not cruelty, but a reasonable expectation from husband.
- Both husband and wife earlier expressed willingness to reconcile, which means the marriage had not completely broken.
Conclusion of Judgment
The High Court held that the husband failed to prove cruelty under law. His appeal was dismissed, and the marriage remains legally valid.
Comments from the author of this website
This case shows how the legal system continues to ignore the suffering of men in marriages. Whenever a husband raises complaints of harassment, humiliation, or threats of false cases, the courts often dismiss them as “ordinary wear and tear.” But when a wife alleges harassment, the same courts take it as serious cruelty.
Here, the husband clearly narrated incidents like:
- Being threatened with false dowry cases,
- Being denied marital relations,
- Being forced to live away from his parents,
- His wife is leaving the matrimonial home with the children.
Yet, the Court said these are just “normal disputes.” Imagine if the genders were reversed — the outcome would likely be very different.
The deeper issue is that the threshold for proving cruelty by a wife is kept so high that it becomes almost impossible for husbands to succeed in divorce petitions. Men are expected to silently tolerate insults, humiliation, and threats because the judiciary treats them as “part of married life.”
This one-sided approach leaves men trapped in broken marriages, with no respect for their pain or dignity. Even when the wife did not appear in court, the husband was still burdened to prove every detail to the harshest standard. His unrebutted testimony was brushed aside, showing how men’s voices are easily ignored in family law.
The ruling also reflects a social bias — a man’s suffering is minimised, while a wife’s conditional willingness to return is portrayed as her goodwill. This creates a legal imbalance where women’s words are valued, but men’s pain is devalued.
Final Thoughts
This judgment highlights the challenges faced by husbands in India’s family courts. Men are often left without effective remedies even when they face emotional abuse, threats of false cases, or desertion. Unless family laws are applied more fairly and gender-neutrally, many men will continue to remain trapped in toxic relationships, with little hope for justice.
Marriage laws must recognize that men too can be victims of cruelty and deserve equal protection. Until then, judgments like this will only deepen the frustration and helplessness of countless men struggling in silence.
Read Complete Judgement Here