Ideal Hindu Wife Stays Rooted In Dharma Even If Deserted; Keeps Mangalsutra & Sindoor As Marriage Is Indelible Sacrament: MP High Court

The Court noted that, according to the Hindu concept, marriage is "a sacred, eternal and indissoluble union” and that “an ideal Indian wife, even when deserted by her husband, continues to embody strength, dignity and virtue.”

The Court said her conduct is rooted in dharma, cultural values and the sanctity of the marital bond.

The Bench observed:

"Despite the pain of abandonment, she remains rooted in her dharma as a wife…she upholds her self-respect and dignity. She neither begs for her husband's return nor maligns him, but lets her quiet endurance and noble conduct speak up for her strength".

The Court also observed that in matrimonial cases, it is not concerned with ideal husbands or ideal wives, but with the particular man and woman before it, noting that an ideal couple would likely never have occasion to approach a matrimonial court.

A Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi made these remarks while upholding the judgment of a family court in Indore, wherein the Husband's plea to dissolve the marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was dismissed.

The case in brief

Briefly, the parties got married in November 1998 in Indore district, and a son was born in December 2002. The wife continues to reside in the joint family home with her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. The husband serves as a Constable in the Special Armed Force posted at Bhopal.

The Husband first moved an application before a family court seeking divorce, wherein he alleged that the wife disliked him, accused him of consuming liquor and of having relationships with other women. He also claimed that his wife refused marital relations and even declined to live with him at his place of posting.

He further alleged that she deserted him in 2006 without sufficient cause, which amounted to cruelty and desertion.

The wife, on the other hand, refuted these allegations as she asserted that she was always ready to fulfil her marital obligations. She claimed that she had remained respectful towards her husband and his family and that the divorce petition was filed on false grounds.

She further alleged that her husband had concocted false grounds to file a divorce petition to get rid of her. She also alleged that her husband had developed a romantic relationship with a lady colleague.

Importantly, the wife strongly argued that despite her husband's altogether different attitude, she did not leave the matrimonial house. It was lastly submitted that had she been of a petulant nature or a lady not respectful towards her in-laws, she might not have adjusted in the matrimonial family.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the Court took into account the facts of the case as well as the wife's conduct to note that she had ensured that neither her maika (natal family) nor sasural (in-laws) was ever tarnished by her words or deeds.

The Court noted that she continued to serve her father-in-law and mother-in-law with care and affection “as she would have, if her husband was present”, thereby reinforcing her moral stature.

"She does not use her sufferings for gain of sympathy, instead she channeled it inward, reflecting the Hindu ideal of the woman as Shakti - not weak, but submissive and powerful in her endurance and grace. Even when she left alone, she does not forsake, the Mangalsutra, the Sindoor or the symbols of her marriage status as her marriage to her is not a contract, but a Sanskara - an indelible sacramant", the Court stressed.

Against this backdrop, the bench called the case 'unique' and said that the wife's decision to remain in her matrimonial home despite the husband's desertion was unusual since in most disputes, wives leave to live separately or with their parents.

The Court noted that the husband's claim that she was unwilling to fulfil marital obligations was 'falsified' by the fact that their son was born out of the wedlock and now lives with her and other family members.

On the allegation of illicit relations, the Court noted that in the peculiar facts, this could not constitute mental cruelty under the HMA, particularly when the husband had not lived with her for nearly 19 years and the statement was made in frustration in a written statement to refute his accusations.

The Court also noted that none of the husband's own family members had supported his claims. On the other hand, the Court observed, the wife's conduct showed "level of tolerance, respectful and helpful attitude (and had) revealed her strong determination and character which a typical Indian woman/wife has".

Furthermore, relying on the maxim "nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" (no one can take advantage of their own wrong), the Court held that the appellant could not be permitted to benefit from his own neglect and disrespectful behaviour.

Therefore, it concluded that nothing had come out that could form a basis for inferring cruelty on the part of the wife; rather, the Court added, it was the husband who deserted the wife and meted out cruelty of a false degree against her.

Thus, finding no error of law or fact in the Family Court's decision, the Bench dismissed the appeal as devoid of substance. 

Case Title: H v W 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 173

Case number: First Appeal 1283 of 2018