The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled that a mother tutoring her child to speak against her father constitutes cruelty. This decision came while granting a divorce to a man whose wife had filed multiple criminal cases against him and his family, and had prevented him from seeing their daughter.
A division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vinay Saraf noted that the wife had crossed all boundaries by leveling numerous allegations against her husband and his family. Although the court did not comment on the wife’s pending criminal complaints, it acknowledged the serious nature of her actions.
The case revealed that after the couple’s daughter was born in 2014, the wife denied the husband access to her, forcing him to file a civil suit for custody. Despite a Family Court order directing the wife to allow the father to meet their child, she refused to comply.
The High Court referred to recent Delhi and Kerala High Court observations on parental alienation, emphasizing that manipulating a child against a parent amounts to mental cruelty. The bench stated, “The wife has tried to keep the husband away from their daughter and tutored her to speak against her father. This is a serious matter and definitely caused mental cruelty to the husband.”
In 2017, the husband filed a custody petition, which was granted by the family court. However, the wife continued to obstruct his access to their daughter. In 2020, the family court noted her reluctance to facilitate meetings between the father and daughter.
Initially, the husband filed for divorce on grounds of mental cruelty and desertion in district court. The Supreme Court later transferred the case to the Family Court in Jabalpur, which dismissed the petition in 2020. This led to the current appeal before the High Court.
The High Court found that the wife’s conduct had caused significant mental cruelty to her husband. She left the matrimonial home shortly after their marriage and never returned, despite the husband’s hope for reconciliation. Multiple cases filed by both parties against each other further complicated the situation.
The court observed, “The marriage has irretrievably broken down due to multiple FIRs and complaints lodged by the wife. Dissolution of marriage will relieve both sides of pain and anguish.” The appeal was allowed, and the divorce was granted.
Regarding the pending criminal cases, the court refrained from commenting to avoid prejudicing the parties’ interests and obstructing the fair disposal of these cases by competent courts.
