Forcing wife to quit job constitutes cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhopal: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that forcing a wife to leave her job to conform to her husband’s preferences and lifestyle constitutes cruelty, thereby providing grounds for divorce.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Sushrur Dharmadhikari clarified that neither spouse has the right to dictate the other’s employment decisions based on personal choices. The Bench noted that the decision to live together must be mutual and devoid of coercion.
The judgment arose from an appeal filed by a wife against the decision of the Family Court in Indore, which had dismissed her divorce petition on the grounds of insufficient evidence, absence of police complaints, and lack of corroborating witnesses.
The couple married in April 2014, and the wife, employed as an Assistant Manager with LIC Housing Finance Limited since 2017, alleged that her unemployed husband coerced her into leaving her government job and living with him until he secured employment. She claimed this, coupled with mental and emotional harassment, forced her to live separately and seek divorce.
The wife further argued that her husband filed a petition under s. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, only after she initiated divorce proceedings. She contended that this was a counter-tactic rather than an effort for reconciliation.
The High Court observed that the Family Court had overlooked critical aspects of the wife's testimony, including her allegations of coercion and her earlier request for mutual divorce due to compatibility issues. The Bench also noted that the husband’s refusal to consent to a mutual divorce, despite the wife's clear intentions, amounted to cruelty.
In its order dated November 13, the High Court dissolved the marriage and overturned the Family Court's 2022 decision, granting the appellant a divorce. Advocate Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi represented the appellant.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Diljit Dosanjh challenges liquor policy, calls for a dry nation movement
Ahmedabad: Renowned Punjabi singer Diljit Dosanjh has sparked a debate on liquor policies across India, calling for a nationwide prohibition on alcohol. Performing at a concert in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, on November 17, Dosanjh declared that he would stop singing songs about alcohol if liquor sales were banned nationwide.
The singer, who is currently on his Dil-Luminati India Tour, criticised the double standards of authorities who have often targeted him for promoting alcohol through his songs. He cited Bollywood’s widespread use of alcohol themes in movies and songs, questioning why similar scrutiny is not applied to the film industry. He also took a jibe at Bollywood celebrities, pointing out that unlike them, he doesn't endorse or advertise alcohol.
Dosanjh’s remarks came after the Telangana government issued a notice ahead of his Hyderabad concert, asking him to avoid performing songs that promote alcohol, drugs, or violence. Responding to this, he altered his popular tracks Lemonade and 5 Taara during the concert but expressed frustration over what he called selective enforcement.
At the Ahmedabad concert, he highlighted Gujarat's dry state status and said, “If all states close liquor shops, I will stop singing songs about alcohol. During the pandemic, everything was shut down except liquor stores. You can’t fool the youth.”
Dosanjh also offered to refrain from singing about alcohol in concerts held in dry states or on dry days declared by the government. He called upon his audience to support a movement advocating a dry nation.
The singer emphasised his versatility as an artist, noting that he has released numerous devotional songs but continues to face criticism primarily for his tracks that mention alcohol, such as Patiala Peg. “Tweaking songs is easy for me, but the focus should be on broader societal changes,” he said.
Dosanjh also pointed out the disparity in how Indian and international artists are treated. “If an international artist performs, there are no restrictions. But when an Indian artist sings, it becomes an issue,” he remarked.
