Madhya Pradesh High Court On Forcing A Married Woman To Live In Her Parental Home Is Cruelty

Judgement Given On : 22/06/2021

Background of the Case

In a noteworthy legal pronouncement, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the case of Amar Singh v. Smt. Vimla, delivered a resounding judgment underscoring that coercing a married woman to reside in her parental home constitutes an act of cruelty. The High Court, in its ruling on June 22, 2021, also upheld the Family Court’s decision to grant maintenance to the woman, reinforcing the importance of protecting the rights and dignity of women in matrimonial disputes.

Marriage and Dowry Allegations:

The case revolved around Smt. Vimla (the respondent), who had filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), alleging harassment and abuse by her husband, Amar Singh (the applicant), and his family due to dowry-related issues. According to her, their marriage, conducted in accordance with Hindu rituals, had taken place on May 25, 2013. Vimla detailed how she had been subjected to physical and mental torment, culminating in her eviction from the matrimonial home in September 2017. She sought maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month, asserting that her destitute parents could not afford her expenses.

Applicant’s Defense:

In response, Amar Singh denied the allegations of dowry-related harassment and challenged Vimla’s character. He claimed that Vimla had treated his parents cruelly and questioned his virility in society, rendering their marital life unbearable. Amar Singh further contended that Vimla was financially self-sufficient, running her parental home independently, and that her parents insisted he reside with them as a “Gharjamai” (son-in-law living with his wife’s parents). He argued that Vimla had filed a false case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against him and his family.

Family Court’s Decision

The Family Court, in its judgment, concluded that Vimla had reasonable grounds for residing separately. It also noted that Amar Singh, being an able-bodied individual, had failed to substantiate his allegations against Vimla. Given Vimla’s inability to support herself and the presumption of Amar Singh’s financial stability, the court awarded her Rs. 7,000 per month as maintenance.

Applicant’s Appeal to the High Court

Challenging this order, Amar Singh filed an application with the Madhya Pradesh High Court, seeking a revision of the decision.

High Court’s Detailed Analysis and Ruling

  1. Serious Allegations vs. Lack of Substantiation: The High Court, in its analysis, began by acknowledging the serious allegations made by Amar Singh against Vimla and her parents. However, it highlighted that Amar Singh had failed to substantiate these allegations in court. Consequently, the court affirmed that Vimla’s decision to live separately was reasonable and not without cause.
  2. Desertion by Applicant: Moreover, the High Court emphasized that it was not Amar Singh who had attempted to bring Vimla back to their matrimonial home, revealing that he had effectively deserted her. Amar Singh’s inaction in this regard precluded him from taking advantage of his own wrongdoing.
  3. Coercion as Cruelty: Crucially, the court declared that coercing a married woman to reside in her parental home constituted an act of cruelty. It cited the case of Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, which established the legal obligation of husbands to support their wives if they are healthy and able-bodied.
  4. Maintenance from Date of Application: On the matter of maintenance, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. Distt. Judge, Dehradun, which established the principle that maintenance could be awarded from the date of the application. In light of this, the court upheld the Family Court’s decision to grant Vimla maintenance from the date of her application.
  5. Adjustment of Interim Maintenance: The High Court also addressed the issue of interim maintenance previously awarded to Vimla by the Family Court. It directed that the amount paid as interim maintenance should be adjusted against the arrears of the maintenance amount.

Conclusion

In summary, the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment in Amar Singh v. Smt. Vimla unequivocally affirms that compelling a married woman to live in her parental home constitutes cruelty. It underscores the duty of husbands to support their wives and the importance of safeguarding women from harassment and humiliation within the matrimonial sphere. This landmark judgment reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights and dignity of women, setting a significant precedent in matrimonial disputes. It also serves as a stark reminder that cruelty within a marriage will not be tolerated by the courts, particularly when it involves compelling a woman to live separately without valid reason.