Wife Cannot Claim 'Victim Card' For Cruelty Over Character Aspersions When Unchallenged Findings Show Her In Adulterous Act: MP High Court

"In that judgment she herself has been found to be involved in voluntary sexual activity with a person, other than her spouse and that too after solemnization of her marriage and we are inclined to observe that if any conversation was held between her and respondent on this episode, she cannot claim a victim card." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a recent ruling, held that a wife cannot seek a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty based on alleged false aspersions on her character when unchallenged judicial findings demonstrate her involvement in a consensual extramarital relationship.

A division bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla observed that the appellant-wife voluntarily engaged in an adulterous act, thereby barring her from taking advantage of her own wrong under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The appellant-wife approached the High Court challenging the judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivpuri, dated March 8, 2022. The Family Court had dismissed her divorce petition filed under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She had originally sought dissolution of her 2015 marriage on the grounds that her husband subjected her to physical cruelty, demanded dowry, and forced her to leave the matrimonial house.

The primary question before the court was whether the husband's alleged aspersions on the wife's character amounted to cruelty, given her proven involvement in a consensual extramarital relationship. The court was also called upon to determine if the wife was legally barred from seeking a divorce decree by virtue of taking advantage of her own wrong.

Omnibus Allegations Lack Corroboration

The court first examined the wife's claims regarding physical violence and dowry demands. It noted that the allegations were entirely omnibus and lacked any corroborative strength, whether ocular or documentary. The bench highlighted that no FIR was ever lodged by the appellant regarding the alleged dowry harassment, and the divorce petition was completely silent on specific details such as the articles demanded or the dates of physical violence.

Unchallenged Findings Of Criminal Court

Addressing the wife's core argument that she was subjected to mental cruelty through false aspersions on her character, the bench referred to the findings of a related criminal trial. The wife had previously lodged an FIR under Sections 343, 376, and 506/34 of the IPC against three persons. The Sessions Court acquitted all accused on November 7, 2023, specifically holding that the wife was a "consenting party" who had established physical relations with one of the accused.

No Right To Claim Victim Card

The High Court observed that the findings of the Sessions Court had attained finality, as there was nothing on record to show that the acquittal was challenged before any higher forum. The bench emphasized that these unchallenged facts entirely exposed the vanity of her allegations regarding false imputations on her character. The court categorically stated that since she was voluntarily involved in sexual activity with another person after her marriage, any confrontational conversation by the husband on this issue would not constitute cruelty.

"Section 23(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 bars a relief to a petitioner, who is in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief."

Bar Against Taking Advantage Of Own Wrong

Applying the statutory framework, the court relied on Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This provision strictly bars granting equitable relief to a petitioner who attempts to profit from their own misconduct. The bench concluded that the wife was unequivocally involved in an adulterous act and had left her matrimonial home on her own volition, bringing her squarely within the ambit of this statutory bar.

Failure To Prove Desertion

On the issue of desertion, the court noted that the wife's own cross-examination and her sworn affidavit revealed she left the matrimonial house without any compulsion or torture. The bench pointed out that she departed with her brother, who was deliberately never produced as a witness in court to corroborate any claims of her being forced out. Consequently, the ground of desertion was also found to be completely unsubstantiated.

Finding no error in the Family Court's meticulous appreciation of evidence, the High Court held that none of the grounds for divorce were proved against the respondent-husband. The court accordingly dismissed the first appeal, confirming the lower court's refusal to grant a decree of divorce to the appellant-wife.

Date of Decision: 8 July 2026