The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently allowed a woman’s plea for divorce, observing that her husband’s coercion to make her quit her government job until he found employment and compelling her to “live as per his wish and style” constituted cruelty.
Right to Employment: A Personal Choice
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Sushrut Dharmadhikari, emphasized that whether a husband or wife wants to live together is their personal choice. However, neither spouse can force the other to pursue or leave a job according to their wishes.
The court stated, “Whether husband or wife wants to live together, it is their wish. Neither husband nor wife can force the other side not to do a job or to do a job as per the spouse’s choice. In the present case, the husband compelled his wife to leave the government job till he gets the job. Forcing the wife to leave the job and live as per his wish and style amounts to cruelty.”
Case Background
The couple married in April 2014 after a period of being in a relationship. The appellant wife began working as an Assistant Manager with LIC Housing Finance Limited in 2017, during which time the respondent husband was unemployed. He allegedly pressured her to quit her job and live with him until he secured employment.
The wife filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty, citing her husband’s coercive behavior, lack of compatibility, and repeated discord. The husband, in response, filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in January 2020, following her divorce petition.
Family Court’s Dismissal Overturned
The family court had earlier dismissed the woman’s plea, citing the absence of police complaints, lack of independent witnesses corroborating her claims, and a prior notice of divorce by mutual consent. The family court also ruled that minor quarrels did not constitute legal cruelty.
The High Court, however, disagreed, stating that the family court erred in its judgment. It held that the wife’s petition for mutual consent divorce was rooted not just in the job issue but also in compatibility problems, further aggravated by the husband’s refusal to let her divorce him.
High Court’s Observations
The High Court highlighted that the husband’s actions demonstrated a pattern of cruelty:
Forcing the wife to leave her job was a significant violation of her autonomy and independence.
The respondent’s opposition to the appellant’s divorce petition, despite evident discord and incompatibility, itself amounted to cruelty.
The bench observed, “The respondent-husband never wanted that appellant should get a divorce; this itself amounts to cruelty.”
Conclusion
The High Court set aside the family court’s decree and dissolved the marriage, allowing the appellant wife’s plea for divorce.
Case Title: X v. Y
Lawcutor 