HUSBAND CANNOT TOLERATE WIFE’S VULGAR CHATS WITH OTHER MEN: MP HIGH COURT:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently rejected a woman’s appeal challenging a family court's decision, which had granted her husband's petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The Court upheld the lower court’s ruling, affirming that the husband's allegations against the wife were sufficient to establish mental cruelty.

A division bench comprising Justices Vivek Rusia and Gajendra Singh took serious note of the allegations that the wife had engaged in explicit and inappropriate conversations with her male friends, including discussions about her sex life. The Court emphasized that after marriage, both spouses are expected to uphold the sanctity of their relationship and refrain from indulging in undignified or indecent interactions with others. It further observed that such behaviour could cause significant emotional distress to the other spouse and amount to cruelty, thereby justifying the grant of divorce.

“No husband would tolerate that his wife is in conversation through mobile by way of these type of vulgar chatting. After marriage husband and wife both have freedom to have a conversation by way of mobile, chatting and other means with friends but the level of conversation should be decent and dignified, especially when it is with an opposite gender, which may not objectionable to the life partner,” it said.

The Court further elaborated that marriage is built on mutual trust, respect, and commitment, and any behavior that undermines these principles can lead to emotional distress and mental agony for the affected spouse. It emphasized that if a husband or wife continues to engage in inappropriate or indecent interactions with others, despite the objections of their partner, it could severely damage the marital relationship and amount to mental cruelty.

The Court reasoned that such actions not only breach the sanctity of marriage but also create an environment of insecurity, humiliation, and emotional turmoil for the aggrieved spouse. It stressed that when one partner persistently disregards the concerns and feelings of the other, despite being made aware of the distress caused, it constitutes a valid ground for divorce. The judges highlighted that in such cases, the suffering spouse cannot be expected to endure continued mental harassment, and the law must step in to provide relief.

The couple got married in 2018, with the husband, who is partially deaf, disclosing his condition to the wife before their marriage. However, the husband alleged that soon after the wedding, the wife began mistreating his mother, and within a month and a half, she left the matrimonial home.

Additionally, the husband accused his wife of maintaining contact with her former lovers through mobile conversations even after their marriage. He claimed that their WhatsApp chats contained vulgar exchanges, which he presented as evidence of her misconduct.

In contrast, the wife denied having any such relationships with the men in question. She argued that her husband had hacked her mobile phone and fabricated the messages to falsely implicate her. She further contended that her right to privacy had been violated when her husband accessed and retrieved her private chats. Additionally, she alleged that her husband subjected her to physical abuse and demanded a dowry of Rs.25 lakh. However, the High Court found that the woman’s father herself had admitted that his daughter was in the habit of talking to male friends.

“The learned family court has observed that father of the appellant is a practicing lawyer having 40-50 years standing in the Bar but he did not enter into the witness box to deny the his statement given to the police. Ex.A/4 & A/6, the printout of the chatting of this appellant with Vinod and others, are not a decent conversation. There is no counter blast by way of FIR or complain of the Domestic violence etc. against the respondent, which establishes that the allegations of the respondent against wife are correct,” it said.

Therefore, the Court fully upheld the family court's decision to grant the husband a divorce.

“The respondent has certainly make out the case by way of evidence that the appellant committed mentally cruelty upon him. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the family court, hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed,” it said, while dismissing the appeal.