Wife Blaming Husband's Family After Setting Herself Ablaze Amounts To Cruelty: MP High Court Grants Divorce

The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted divorce to a man sought on the grounds of cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act(HMA), observing that his wife had "in a moment of despair" set herself ablaze and later blamed his relatives for the same without being able to provide any reliable evidence. 

In doing so the high court, while setting aside the family court order, observed that the wife also never lodged a criminal case against the husband's relatives for the alleged act. It held that such a "dreadful act" itself was sufficient to hold that the wife had committed mental cruelty upon the husband and family court had failed to appreciating the facts which were evident. 

A division bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Anuradha Shukla observed;

"In the overall perspective we find that respondent/wife suffered a painful incident sustaining burn injuries for which she holds the relatives of appellant/husband responsible, but she has not produced any reliable evidence on this point and had also failed to initiate any criminal proceedings against the wrong doers. The excuse given for this slumbering approach is not appealing either, as the concerned respected members of society were not produced as witness before the trial Court nor were approached privately to get the dispute settled through them. On the other hand, appellant/husband has been consistent through facts and evidence to establish that the incident of burning was the result of self immolation and we do not have any reason to disbelieve this testimony and taking such a drastic step by a spouse is sufficient in itself to cause dread and fear in other spouse to avoid any bonding in matrimonial relationship". 

It further said:

"In the present case the facts established reveal that in a moment of despair, respondent/wife set herself on fire and later put a blame on the relatives of the husband. This dreadful act itself is sufficient to hold that she has committed mental cruelty with appellant/husband and the trial Court was in error in not appreciating the facts evident on record and was even more so in replacing them with his own perceived notions, therefore, a good case of interference in the impugned judgment and decree has been made out. Accordingly, we allow this first appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree"

Background

The high court passed the order in the husband's appeal challenging the trial court order which refused to grant divorce on ground of cruelty. 

The husband claimed that since their wedding in April 2003, the wife had harboured a 'strong dislike' for him. She allegedly ill-treated him and threatened him on trivial issues. The wife had allegedly 'set her clothes on fire', which was successfully put out by him and his family. It was claimed that when the wife became pregnant, she compelled the husband to send her to her parents' house. 

Additionally, the husband asserted that in the 8th month of pregnancy, he 'forcibly brought her back for institutionalized delivery' and admitted her to a nursing home, where she delivered a girl child. After one month, she went to her parents' house with the child.

The husband alleged that he visited his in-laws' house to request his wife to come back to her matrimonial house. He argued that his wife, on June 20, 2005, tried to burn herself by pouring kerosene oil. The wife was then admitted to the hospital for a month. The husband thereafter filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty. 

The wife, contesting the divorce petition, claimed that she was being harassed by her husband and in-laws since the marriage. It was argued that 'false allegation of suicide by setting her saree on fire was made with the intention to counter the allegation made in criminal case'. She further claimed that after the birth of their child, the husband and in-laws became 'hostile'. She also alleged that the mother, brother and sister-in-law of the husband poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. She claimed that she was rescued by the neighbours and taken to a hospital.

Additionally, the wife asserted that after 'advice of reputed members of society' she decided not to initiate any criminal proceedings. The wife also prayed for dismissal of the divorce petition, alleging that the husband was trying 'to wriggle out of this relationship' after changes in her physical appearance due to burn injuries. 

Findings

The bench rejected the wife's claims regarding being rescued by neighbours, noting that "no such neighbour was examined by her to give strength to her contention". 

 Additionally, the bench rejected the wife's arguments for not filing an FIR, observing that her "explanation would have been of some value if the relationship between the parties normalized" after the incident, but the circumstances became much worse.

Furthermore, it bench objected to the recording of the couple's conduct during mediation by the Family Court in the order sheet. Relying on Supreme Court's judgment in Motiram and another Vs. Ashok Kumar and another (2011) the bench reiterated, "mediation proceedings are strictly confidential and mediator should send the settlement agreement signed by the parties to the Court only when mediation is successful and should not mention what transpired during the mediation proceedings".

The high court held that the findings of the Family Court ought to have been examined "strictly within the ambit of the facts and evidence available on record and nothing beyond that".  

Allowing the appeal the high court granted him divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of HMA. 

Case Title: HM v R (FA-133-2007)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 185

Counsel For Appellant: Advocate Eshaan Datt

Click Here To Read/Download Order