Sanjeev Gupta v. Ritu Gupta

Author: Vanshuk Dhiman, Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.

A Division Bench of the Honorable High Court of Allahabad, consisting of Justice Shashi Kant Gupta and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, upheld the ruling of a trial court that granted a divorce to a woman under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, based on the grounds of her husband's commission of coercive unnatural sexual acts against her.

The court examined the grounds for divorce based on three specific allegations: first, whether the husband engaged in coercive unnatural sex with his spouse; second, whether she was subjected to physical abuse and derogatory remarks when she resisted; and third, whether he made demands for dowry. The Honourable Court determined that there is unequivocal evidence that these three acts represent distinct aspects of cruelty, which is one of the grounds for divorce. The act of sodomy and unnatural sexual conduct constitutes a criminal offence as well as a marital wrong, serving as a valid basis for seeking divorce under Section 13 of the HMA, 1955. Furthermore, such actions can be classified as cruelty. The primary question in this matter was whether a marriage could be terminated due to claims of coerced unnatural sexual acts involving the wife.

As per the respondent (petitioner), both partners were united in marriage according to Hindu customs and traditions on July 1, 2012. Before her marriage to the opposite party, she was previously wedded to Mr. Omkar, with whom she had two children. Following the tragic death of her husband, Omkar, in a road accident, she subsequently entered into marriage with the opposite party. It is also noted that the appellant (opposite party) was previously married to an individual named Priyambada; however, this marriage was terminated by a divorce order.

The woman (respondent) filed an FIR (First Information Report) against her partner (appellant), alleging violations of Sections 498A [Section 85-BNS], 323 [Section 115(2)-BNS], 504 [Section 352-BNS], and 377 [deleted in BNS] of the Indian Penal Code of 1860, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961. She subsequently submitted a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the HMA, claiming that her husband had engaged in forced unnatural sexual acts with her multiple times following their marriage. Upon her denial to meet his demands, he physically assaulted the wife (maar-peet) and threatened to harm their five-year-old daughter, indicating intentions of sexual misconduct towards her as well. Additionally, he sought a dowry of Rs. 40 lakhs and a vehicle after their marriage.

The situation became increasingly untenable for her due to the physical and mental abuse, as well as sexual exploitation she endured while living with him. Consequently, she moved to her parents' residence on August 14, 2012. Later, she discovered that the appellant-opposite party had exhibited similar behaviour towards his former wife, which ultimately led to her decision to divorce him. Due to his inhumane conduct, cohabitation with him was untenable as her life was at risk; consequently, this petition for divorce was submitted.

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate granted her divorce based on these allegations under Section 13 of the HMA. The appellant-husband faced charges, underwent trial, and was ultimately punished for offences under Sections 498-A/323/377 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code), in addition to Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Ghaziabad.

The husband contested the lower court's ruling through this appeal, asserting that there was a lack of evidence supporting claims of dowry demands, harassment, or unnatural sexual acts. He further contended that the medical evidence had been overlooked and that the trial court had placed undue weight on his wife's uncorroborated statement while disregarding inconsistencies within her own testimony. The reliance on the judgments of the Kerala and Karnataka High Courts was misplaced. An improper procedure was adhered to. Therefore, the appeal should be granted.

The learned court below identified the following issues:

1. Is the marriage between the parties, dated July 1, 2012, subject to dissolution based on the facts presented in the petition?

2. What relief is the petitioner entitled to receive?

   
   

The lower court, after considering the opposing arguments presented by both parties, determined that the lady sought a divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The court probed the issue of cruelty based on three specific points:a) The male partner allegedly engaged in forced unnatural sexual acts with the wife multiple times following their marriage and resorted to physical violence upon her refusal.b) Upon the wife's refusal to participate in unnatural sexual acts, the husband accused her of being immoral and threatened that if she continued to refuse, he would not hesitate to harm their five-year-old daughter and would also engage in sexual relations with her.c) The husband demanded a dowry of Rs. 40 lakhs and a car after their marriage.

The esteemed court appropriately determined that both parties are legally recognized as husband and wife, and that all matrimonial grievances occurred within the confines of their marital residence, with both parties being aware of these issues. Consequently, the availability of independent evidence may be limited. Regarding medical evidence, it is pertinent to note that the divorce petition was submitted significantly following the occurrence of the alleged incidents of unnatural sexual acts and sodomy, and no medical documentation exists to substantiate these claims. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that women in our society tend to be modest by nature, often feeling compelled to conceal such matters due to inherent shyness.

The act of sodomy and unnatural sexual conduct constitutes a criminal offence as well as a marital wrong, serving as a basis for pursuing divorce. Furthermore, such actions are considered a form of cruelty, which is an additional reason for divorce. Section 13 of the HMA states the following:13. Divorce (1): “Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party—”(ia) “has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or”Section 13 (2) (ii) states: “that the husband has, since the solemnization of the marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy, or bestiality; or”

The applicable burden of proof in matrimonial cases, as observed, was the preponderance of probability. The court's determination in this petition regarding the demands for dowry, dowry-related harassment, and allegations of unnatural sexual acts and sodomy is further supported by the ruling in the associated criminal case. Additionally, the Court acknowledged that the husband's first wife had sought divorce from him because of the same reasons, thereby lending credence to the wife's claims regarding unnatural sex.

Based on the preceding discussion, it is evident that the methodology employed by the lower court and the conclusions drawn in the contested judgment are both well-founded and grounded in legal principles, as well as a proper evaluation of the facts and evidence presented. The Honourable Allahabad High Court found no errors or illegality in this regard. It ruled that the appeal must be dismissed, and the contested judgment should be upheld.

The concept of cruelty is not explicitly defined within the provisions of the HMA. Section 13(1)(ia) simply states, “treated the petitioner with cruelty.” The aim appears to be to provide a definition that is inclusive, capable of adequately addressing every specific action or behaviour without falling short in certain situations. Furthermore, due to the vast and varied nature of human actions, it is nearly unfeasible to anticipate a general definition that could be all-encompassing and consistently applicable in every instance.

In the case of Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad, 2007, the Supreme Court articulated that the term 'cruelty' as defined in Section 13 pertains to human behaviour concerning matrimonial responsibilities. Cruelty is characterized by a pattern of behaviour from one party that negatively impacts the other. This cruelty can manifest in either mental or physical forms, and it may be intentional or unintentional. When it comes to physical cruelty, the Court finds it relatively straightforward to assess. It becomes a matter of factual determination and degree. Conversely, mental cruelty poses more complex challenges. The inquiry must first address the nature of the cruel treatment, followed by an examination of its psychological impact on the affected spouse, specifically whether it created a justifiable apprehension of injury in cohabiting with the other party. Finally, the determination rests on inferences drawn from the type of behaviour and its repercussions on the aggrieved partner. However, there are instances when the behaviour in question is inherently wrongful or illegal. In such scenarios, it is unnecessary to investigate the impact on the other spouse, as the establishment of cruelty is sufficient if the conduct is proven or acknowledged.

The Court concurred with the perspectives established by the High Court of Kerala in Bini T. John v. Saji Kuruvila, 1997, and the High Court of Karnataka in Grace Jayamani v. E.P. Peter, 1981, asserting that acts of unnatural sex, including sodomy and oral sex, as well as sexual conduct contrary to the natural order and contrary to the wishes of a spouse, constitute a criminal offence as well as a marital wrong that amounts to cruelty, thereby providing valid grounds for the dissolution of marriage. Any action that subjects a wife to humiliation and inflicts both physical and psychological suffering constitutes cruelty. Coercive sexual acts, whether natural or unnatural, represent an unlawful violation of the wife's privacy and are considered a form of cruelty towards her.

In Bini T. John, it was held:“Sex plays an important role in matrimonial life. Therefore, the conduct of one among the parties towards the other in the matter of sex is an important factor in married life. Insistence on unnatural sex, continued compulsion for oral sex, sex through the anus causing pain and physical injury to make the wife concede to such unnatural sex will certainly amount to cruelty.”

Regarding the necessity for corroboration through independent evidence, the court concurred with the perspective of the High Court of Karnataka that the burden of proof in matrimonial cases aligns with that required in civil cases, specifically the preponderance of probability. In the matter at hand, the wife requested a divorce on the grounds that her partner compelled her to engage in unnatural sexual acts. She provided testimony to the trial court, stating that, contrary to her consent, her partner forced his genitalia into her mouth and anus. Similarly, in this case, the wife has reiterated these claims. The Karnataka High Court concluded:“Given these circumstances, we are convinced that the respondent engaged in sodomy with his wife, the petitioner, thereby establishing a valid case for the dissolution of their marriage. In the case of Lawson v. Lawson, 1955, Lord Goddard, CJ, articulated in the Court of Appeal that while corroboration of an accomplice's testimony is typically anticipated, the wife, not being a consenting party, does not occupy the role of an accomplice. Therefore, her testimony may be accepted without corroboration, provided it is credible.”

It can be inferred from the court’s decision that public policy, ethical standards, and societal interests necessitate that the institution of marriage be protected by comprehensive safeguards, with dissolution permitted solely in accordance with the procedures and grounds established by law. Divorce is neither promoted nor endorsed and is sanctioned only under grave circumstances. The court considered dowry demand as one of the forms of cruelty (along with acts of unnatural sex), although it is not mentioned explicitly in the HMA, 1955.

In order to deal with such similar cases in the future, the legislature must pay heed to the 91st report of the Law Commission of India (1983) on DOWRY DEATHS AND LAW REFORM, which suggests that an Explanation, articulated in a manner similar to the following, be incorporated into the sections of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, that address the provision of divorce on the basis of cruelty:“

Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, persistent demands for dowry shall be deemed to be an act of the husband treating the wife with cruelty, where the demands are made by the husband, or with his connivance or acquiescence.”

The Honourable Allahabad High Court held that sexual acts that are unnatural, including sodomy and oral sex, as well as any sexual conduct that contravenes the natural order or occurs against the will of a woman, wife, or any individual, constitute not only a criminal offense but also a violation of marital ethics. Such actions can be classified as cruelty, providing valid grounds for the dissolution of marriage. Any behaviour that subjects a wife to humiliation and inflicts physical or mental suffering is deemed cruel. Coercive sexual acts, whether natural or unnatural, represent an unlawful invasion of a wife's privacy and are considered a form of cruelty towards her. No relationship, including marriage, should offer protection against acts of violence.

1. 2019 SCC OnLine All 2255

2. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, § 13(1), No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India).

3. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, § 13(1)(ia), No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India).

4. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, § 13(2)(ii), No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India).

5. Bhumika Indulia, Sex against order of nature, against the wishes of wife – a criminal offence and marital wrong amounting to cruelty, which is a ground for dissolution of marriage, SCC ONLINE BLOG (Feb. 11, 2025, 6:07 PM), https://www.scconline.com/blog/.

6. Law Commission of India’s 91st report (1983) on DOWRY DEATHS AND LAW REFORM: AMENDING THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, AND THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872.