In a ruling that has sparked widespread discussion on the boundaries of marital conduct, the Chhattisgarh High Court on September 3 upheld a family court’s 2019 decision to dissolve a marriage, holding that repeated name-calling, coercive behaviour, and pressure to sever ties with parents amounted to mental cruelty and desertion under matrimonial law.
A division bench comprising Justices Rajani Dubey and Amitendra Kishore Prasad dismissed the wife’s appeal, agreeing that her conduct such as referring to her husband as “paaltu chuha” (pet rat) for listening to his parents and insisting he leave them to live separately caused sustained mental anguish.
While affirming the divorce, the court directed the husband to pay ₹5 lakh as permanent alimony, noting the need to balance legal relief with financial security. The judgment underscores how courts increasingly view emotional abuse and familial coercion as serious violations of marital dignity within the Indian social context.
Words, Behaviour And Harmful Power
The case, originating from Raipur, brought into focus the lived realities of a marriage strained by conflicting expectations around family life. The husband alleged that soon after their 2009 marriage, his wife began provoking him against his parents, repeatedly demanding that he live separately from the joint family.
When he refused, she allegedly resorted to verbal abuse, including calling him a “pet rat” for obeying his parents, and displayed aggressive behaviour. According to court records, the husband submitted text messages, including one in which the wife explicitly told him to “leave your parents and stay with me”.
He also relied on testimonies from family members who stated that she frequently disrespected elders and resisted adapting to the joint family arrangement. The bench found that this evidence corroborated his claims, observing that consistent use of humiliating language and coercive pressure erodes trust and self-worth within a marriage.
The judges further noted allegations that the wife attempted to inflict self-harm during pregnancy and assaulted the husband in the presence of his mother, incidents that deepened the court’s view that the conduct went beyond ordinary marital discord and crossed into cruelty.
Desertion, Joint Family, Legal Reasoning
Beyond cruelty, the High Court closely examined the issue of desertion. It noted that the wife had largely stayed at her parental home for long stretches, returning to the matrimonial home only briefly in 2011, which satisfied the legal threshold for desertion.
Rejecting her plea for restitution of conjugal rights, the bench remarked that her own conduct undermined her case, as restitution requires a demonstrable willingness to resume marital life in good faith. Importantly, the judges placed the dispute within the broader Indian social milieu, where joint families remain common and caring for ageing parents is often seen as a moral and social obligation.
In this context, the court held that forcing a spouse to abandon parents or framing obedience to them as a flaw can amount to mental cruelty. While acknowledging that couples are entitled to choose their living arrangements, the bench clarified that such choices cannot be imposed through intimidation, ridicule, or emotional manipulation.
At the same time, the court sought to ensure fairness by directing the husband to pay ₹5 lakh as permanent alimony, recognising the wife’s right to financial support even as the marriage was legally dissolved.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
At The Logical Indian, we view this judgment as a reminder that marriages are sustained not merely by legal bonds but by everyday practices of respect, communication, and empathy. Name-calling, humiliation, and coercion often dismissed as “normal” domestic quarrels can leave deep psychological scars and should never be normalised.
At the same time, the case also reflects the complex negotiations couples face between personal autonomy and familial responsibility, especially in societies where joint families are deeply rooted. Courts can and must intervene when dignity is compromised, but lasting social change lies in fostering healthier ways to address conflict before it escalates into litigation. Encouraging premarital counselling, open conversations about expectations, and mutual sensitivity towards both partners’ families could prevent many such breakdowns.
