A couple got married on March 3, 1990, following Hindu rituals and welcomed a son on October 3, 1997. Unfortunately, their relationship soon turned sour. The husband alleged that his wife’s conduct during during their marriage was persistently cruel. He stated that she didn’t want to live in a joint family and often left the matrimonial home without his consent, spending long stretches at her parent’s place. There were times when they had to involve local panchayats to convince her to come back home.
The husband also claimed that starting 2008, particularly after Karwa Chauth that year, she withdrew from marital relations, declined to cohabit as husband and wife, and subjected him to humiliation and indignity. It was alleged that she often misbehaved in an abusive and degrading manner, including throwing footwear at him, forcing him to perform household chores, and even slapping his mother once.
Moreover. he claimed that she pressured him and his family to transfer property to her name, and when they refused, she not only stopped fulfilling her conjugal obligations but also threatened to frame them in false criminal cases. Additionally, she reportedly showed a lack of concern for his family, ignoring the health and well-being of his parents and failing to maintain cordial relations with them.
Based on these allegations, the husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. He pointed out that although she had not made any police complaints before 2008, she initiated multiple criminal cases after he filed for divorce in 2009.
Specifically, she lodged First Information Reports - namely FIR No. 118/2010 (under Sections 323/354/506/34 of the IPC5 ), FIR No. 110/2011 (under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC), and FIR No. 89/2015 (under Sections 354A/506/509 of the IPC) against him and his family members.
The husband claimed that these FIRs were filed in retaliation, as a counterblast to the divorce proceedings, and intended solely to harass him and his family. The Family Court, vide the Impugned Judgment, accepted the husband’s version and held that the she had withdrawn from marital relations since 2008 without any just cause, had frequently stayed away from the matrimonial home, and had filed multiple criminal complaints only after the divorce petition was initiated. The Family Court determined that these circumstances, taken cumulatively, constituted cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and this granted a divorce decree.
Upset by the divorce ruling, the wife appealed before the Delhi High Court.
The wife's lawyers argued before the Delhi High Court that it was the husband and his family who inflicted cruelty upon her, which caused the rift between them and ultimately led to the absence of physical relations; they also pointed out that the Family Court overlooked this crucial aspect and wrongly blamed the wife for the withdrawal of cohabitation.
Her lawyers argued that the husband’s claims, like her unwillingness to live in a joint family or occasional quarrels with in-laws, even if assumed to be true, do not in law amount to cruelty but fall within the ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life. They pointed out that she was always willing to continue with the marriage, and even stayed in the matrimonial home with her son even after the divorce petition was filed, which clearly contradicts the claims of her desertion or voluntary withdrawal from their marital relations.
Additionally, her lawyers submitted that the conclusion about the denial of conjugal relationship is based on a misreading of the husband’s own testimony, wherein he ackowldged that they had been living apart since 2008. Therefore, attributing the absence of marital relations solely to the wife’s actions was wholly untenable.
The husband insisted that that it was clear the wife had voluntarily and without any justifiable reason stopped having physical relations with him since 2008, particularly after Karwa Chauth that year. He argued that the long-term refusal of conjugal cohabitation amounts to mental cruelty, as recognized in law and judicial precedents.
The husband further urged that the wife not only withdrew from marital intimacy but also persistently pressured him and his family members to transfer property in her name, and when these demands were not accepted, she threatened to falsely implicate them in criminal cases, thereby aggravating the cruelty.
Before the Family Court, Tis Hazari, the husband's representative said to the court: “She was sexually hot but the petitioner (husband) was not so and was not able to satisfy her at every time as per her wishes and that is why she used to go her parental house at Haryana against the wishes of petitioner (husband) and his parents and after the birth of the child on October 3, 1997, she left with the newly born child to her parental house and gave beatings to petitioner (husband) and his mother and also threw 'Chappal' at him. She also declared the petitioner as impotent and unable to procure any child in the presence of the entire family and neighbours.”
On September 19, 2025, the Delhi High Court granted divorce to the husband. While announcing this judgement, the Delhi High Court said:
“The prolonged denial of marital intimacy, the series of complaints instituted against the Respondent (Husband), the deliberate alienation of the minor child, and the indifference towards the Respondent’s(Husband) parents collectively demonstrate a sustained neglect of marital responsibilities. These actions have caused the Respondent (Husband) and his family considerable emotional suffering, thereby constituting cruelty of such gravity as to justify dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
The Husband was represented by Advocates: Sudhir Tewatia, Sahil Gandhi, Aman Gahlot, Himani Verma, Kavya and Vivek.
Also read: Husband and two sons to pay Rs 21,000 maintenance to estranged wife living separately from 2015, Madras High Court order
Family Court said this
According to the judgement of the Family Court, Tis Hazari, here’s what the court said:
The family court said that the allegations of cruelty show that the wife deviated from the normal standards of conjugal relationship and the misconduct attributed to the wife was such that it tantamount to making the life of the husband miserable.
The family court said that from the evidence which has emerged on the record, the cumulative effect of the instances of cruelty lead to the fair inference that the husband was subjected to mental cruelty and there is reasonable apprehension in the mind of husband that it would be harmful to his mental and psychological well-being to continue with the marital life with the wife, regard being had to the social strata to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by their social status.
Family Court said: “The conduct alleged certainly amounts to cruelty and is more than the ordinary wear and tear of married life. Accordingly, the petitioner (husband) is able to prove his case that he was treated with cruelty by the respondent (Wife) after the solemnization of his marriage. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent(wife).”
Also read: Supreme Court: Husband can use secretly recorded calls of wife as evidence in divorce case
Delhi High Court answers what is mental cruelty
Delhi High Court in the judgement (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 & CM APPL. 4523/2022) dated September 19, 2025 said that to know what can be deemed as mental cruelty we need to refer to the Supreme Court judgement in Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh 2007 4 SSC 511.
The Delhi High Court said that in that judgement, the Supreme Court elaborated upon the concept of ‘mental cruelty’ and, upon examining judicial precedents across various jurisdictions, held that the withdrawal by one spouse from maintaining emotional or physical relations with the other would squarely fall within the ambit of mental cruelty and constitute a valid ground for seeking dissolution of marriage.
The Delhi High Court said that the Supreme Court in its judgement in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337, held that ‘mental cruelty’ is conduct which causes such mental pain and suffering that it becomes impossible for the aggrieved spouse to reasonably be expected to live with the other. The determination of cruelty must depend on the social and educational background of the parties, their manner of life, and the context of the allegations made.
Also read: Employee with ‘Highly Valued’ rating in appraisal got termination letter with words ‘malicious conduct’, he fights back and wins case in Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court said that the Supreme Court in its judgement, in Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi (2010) 4 SCC 476, while dealing with the definition of “cruelty” held that the notion of cruelty is incapable of precise definition and its determination must necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Also read: Wife files case 24 years after husband's death in govt job; Rajasthan High Court orders pension, gratuity payout with interest
Delhi High Court analysis of facts
The Delhi High Court said that the wife’s lawyers had placed reliance upon a specific paragraph (8) of the husband’s divorce petition to contend that the requisite pleadings necessary to support the evidence were absent, and in fact, the said paragraph was inconsistent with the evidence subsequently led. Particular reliance was placed on paragraph 8 of the divorce petition, which reads as follows:
“8. That the respondent (wife) was/is very hot sexually as well as temperamentally but the petitioner (husband) was/is not so much hot sexually to satisfy the respondent(wife) at every time as per her wishes and that is why, the respondent (wife) used to go to her parental house at Haryana frequently against the wishes of the petitioner and his parents and without their consent. The respondent (wife) used to go to her parental house as per her wishes and sweet will without caring about her social and matrimonial responsibility and obligations and used to stay there 7-8 months. a year. It was a routine life for the respondent up to the month 05 June/July, 1995.”
Also read: Delhi High Court reprimands wife for filing false Section 498A, 406, 34 cases against husband’s family
Delhi High Court said: “However, this Court also takes note of paragraph 17 of the divorce petition, wherein the Respondent (husband) specifically alleged denial of physical relations by the Appellant (wife), thereby setting out pleadings consistent with the evidence led.”
The Delhi High Court said that in the present case, it stands admitted that the wife withdrew from all forms of physical intimacy with the husband since 2008. Even prior thereto, she frequently absented herself from the matrimonial home and had to be persuaded through family and panchayats to return.
Also read: Delhi Customs seize man’s Rolex watch upon arrival from Dubai; High Court allows him to retrieve it after paying redemption fine
The Delhi High Court said that from the Karwa Chauth of 2008 onwards, her refusal to engage in marital relations became absolute, marking a clear abandonment of conjugal obligations.
The Delhi High Court said that the learned Family Court rightly relied upon her own cross-examination, wherein she candidly admitted, “I and the respondent are not having physical relations as husband and wife with each other since 2008”, and further, “it is correct that since last more than 10 years, I have no relationship with my husband”. She also admitted that the last Karwa Chauth was observed in 2008 and that she has not resided in the matrimonial home since 2016. These unequivocal admissions fortify the husband’s case and leave little room for doubt.
Also read: Six years after receiving arrears of salary, employees were asked to pay it back—but Supreme Court says no need, and here’s why
The Delhi High Court said that they are mindful that such conduct cannot be viewed in isolation but must be tested against established judicial precedent. A Coordinate Bench of Delhi High Court in Mrs. Rita Nijhawan v. Mr. Bal Kishan Nijhawan AIR 1973 Del 200, categorically held that cohabitation is the very essence of marriage, without which the marital bond cannot endure.
The Delhi High Court said that the Supreme Court in Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit (2006) 3 SCC 778 , went even further to underscore that “marriage without sexual relations is an anathema”. The Supreme Court observed that the absence of harmonious intimacy not only undermines the marriage but also inflicts emotional harm, often resulting in depression and frustration. These pronouncements directly resonate with the facts before us.
Also read: Teacher got Rs 3.5 lakh cash gift from daughter; Tax dept sent notice, she fought back and won case in ITAT Delh
Delhi High Court: Persistent deprivation of conjugal companionship constitutes an extreme form of cruelty
The Delhi High Court said that in the light of various judicial precedents, principles, they are of the considered view that the parties before them, by the husband’s assertion and the wife’s admission, have scarcely cohabited or sustained their matrimonial relationship.
The wife repeatedly absented herself from the matrimonial responsibilities without consent and denied marital intimacy since 2008. Such persistent deprivation of conjugal companionship constitutes an extreme form of cruelty, as consistently recognized by the Supreme Court.
Also read: Mental cruelty: Wife pressured husband to abandon mother, sister; Delhi High Court grants divorce to husband on this ground
Delhi High Court said: “It is axiomatic that cohabitation and discharge of marital duties form the bedrock of marriage; their persistent denial not only demonstrates an irretrievable breakdown of the union but also amounts to cruelty warranting judicial intervention.”
The Delhi High Court said that while it is well recognized that the mere absence of physical intimacy, by itself, may not constitute sufficient grounds for granting a decree of divorce, the Court must necessarily evaluate this factor in conjunction with other attendant circumstances.
The overall conduct of the parties, the cumulative impact on the marital relationship, and whether such conduct has crossed the threshold of cruelty envisaged under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, must be carefully assessed. The judicial inquiry, therefore, is not confined to a single incident or omission but extends to examining whether the quality of marital life has been so eroded that the matrimonial bond is rendered unsustainable.
Delhi High Court notes all FIRs were filed by wife after husband filed divorce petition
Delhi High Court said: “In this context, we take note of the specific submission advanced by learned Counsel for the Respondent (husband) that the allegations of molestation against the father-in-law and brother-in-law, cruelty by the Respondent (husband), and non-return of stridhan, as raised by the Appellant (wife), must be viewed with circumspection. Significantly, all the FIRs in this regard were lodged only after the institution of the husband’s divorce petition.”
The Delhi High Court said that the timing of these complaints (FIRs), filed subsequent to the divorce proceedings, cannot be ignored in evaluating their credibility and context. It is further pertinent that copies of these FIRs were themselves brought on record by the Appellant (wife), who examined witnesses also in support thereof.
Delhi High Court said: “In this backdrop, the Appellant’s (wife) contention that the learned Family Court exceeded the pleadings by considering these materials is untenable, as the record itself establishes that the Appellant (wife) introduced and relied upon these documents during trial before the learned Family Court.”
The Delhi High Court said that when viewed in light of this chronology, it becomes evident that the criminal complaints and allegations were initiated only after the divorce petition had been filed. This sequence lends support to the husband’s argument that such complaints were, in essence, a counterblast, aimed at exerting pressure in the matrimonial dispute rather than reflecting genuine, contemporaneous grievances. Equally significant is the absence of any record indicating that the Appellant (wife) lodged similar complaints at any point prior to the initiation of the divorce proceedings.
The Delhi High Court said that it is equally well settled that events occurring subsequent to the filing of a divorce petition are not irrelevant and may be taken into account to discern a continuing pattern of cruelty. The Supreme Court in A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur (2005) 2 SCC 22 authoritatively enunciated this principle.
The Delhi High Court said that at the same time, to augment, it is apposite to refer to the judgment by the Co-Ordinate Bench of Delhi High court in Preeti v. Vikas 2023 DHC 6387 DB wherein it has been held that mere lodging of an FIR, in the absence of substantive proof, cannot by itself establish allegations of cruelty or dowry harassment. The court further emphasized that such allegations must be supported by cogent and reliable evidence. Where complaints are filed immediately after the institution of divorce proceedings, such conduct has often been regarded as a counter-blast to the petition, reflecting their use as a weapon against the opposite party and his family.
The Delhi High Court said that in the present case, the wife's conducts, which include her prolonged refusal to cohabit, persistent denial of conjugal relations, repeated absences from the matrimonial home, and subsequent institution of multiple complaints, taken together, reflect a continuous and deliberate pattern of behavior causing mental suffering to the husband, thereby satisfying the requirements of “cruelty” under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Such sustained neglect of marital obligations, coupled with acts designed to exacerbate discord, eroded the very foundation of the matrimonial bond.
Delhi High Court: deliberate alienation of a child from one parent constitutes mental cruelty
The Delhi High Court found it relevant to refer to the husband’s cross-examination dated April 12, 2018, wherein he detailed his failed attempts to maintain contact with the minor child, despite visitation orders.
The Delhi High Court said that in the context of parental alienation, guidance may be drawn from the judgment of Delhi High Court in Sandhya Malik v. Col. Satender Malik 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6099., where it was held that the deliberate alienation of a child from one parent, thereby depriving the parent of love and affection, constitutes mental cruelty.
The Delhi High Court said that parental alienation occurs when one parent psychologically manipulates a child against the other, often by unjustified negativity, thereby damaging the child‟s relationship with the estranged parent. A child has a right to the love and affection of both parents, and any act intended to deprive a parent of such affection amounts to cruelty. The custodial parent owes a duty to foster respect and affection for the non-custodial parent, and deliberate failure to do so constitutes an egregious breach of that duty. Nothing is more painful than seeing one‟s own child alienated, which amounts to mental cruelty of the gravest kind.
The Delhi High Court said that in the present case, as per the record, the husband’s access to his son was systematically frustrated by the wife, despite his continued endeavors. This deliberate alienation of the minor child from the husband is a serious form of psychological cruelty.
Delhi High Court said: “The use of a child as a tool in matrimonial conflict not only injures the affected parent but also corrodes the child’s emotional well-being, striking at the very root of familial harmony.”
Delhi High Court: Indifference towards husband’s parents is cruelty
The Delhi High Court said that it cannot ignore the wife’s categorical admissions in her cross-examination dated December 6, 2019, wherein she professed complete ignorance regarding the age and health of her mother-in-law, including her inability to walk and the fact of having undergone hip replacement surgery in 2012.
The Delhi High Court said that given the facts and circumstances of the present matter, such indifference towards the husband’s aged parents, who are an integral part of the Joint Hindu Family, unmistakably reflects disregard for the essential obligations of marriage in the Indian familial context.
The Delhi High Court said that it is a natural and legitimate expectation that a spouse, upon entering matrimony, would demonstrate care and concern for the health and dignity of the elders in the household. The studied apathy and want of sensitivity displayed by the wife towards her in-laws, particularly when their advanced age and health conditions required compassion, cannot be treated as trivial. This conduct inflicted avoidable anguish on the husband and his family, thereby amounting to another facet of cruelty within the scope of matrimonial law.
The Delhi High Court said that they do not concur with certain observations of the learned Family Court regarding alleged cruelty arising from the husband being compelled to perform household chores, the cumulative effect of the wife’s behaviour cannot be ignored.
Delhi High Court said: “The prolonged denial of marital intimacy, the series of complaints instituted against the Respondent (husband), the deliberate alienation of the minor child, and the indifference towards the Respondent’s parents collectively demonstrate a sustained neglect of marital responsibilities. These actions have caused the Respondent and his family considerable emotional suffering, thereby constituting cruelty of such gravity as to justify dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
Delhi High Court final judgement
Judgement:
The husband also claimed that starting 2008, particularly after Karwa Chauth that year, she withdrew from marital relations, declined to cohabit as husband and wife, and subjected him to humiliation and indignity. It was alleged that she often misbehaved in an abusive and degrading manner, including throwing footwear at him, forcing him to perform household chores, and even slapping his mother once.
Moreover. he claimed that she pressured him and his family to transfer property to her name, and when they refused, she not only stopped fulfilling her conjugal obligations but also threatened to frame them in false criminal cases. Additionally, she reportedly showed a lack of concern for his family, ignoring the health and well-being of his parents and failing to maintain cordial relations with them.
Based on these allegations, the husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. He pointed out that although she had not made any police complaints before 2008, she initiated multiple criminal cases after he filed for divorce in 2009.
Specifically, she lodged First Information Reports - namely FIR No. 118/2010 (under Sections 323/354/506/34 of the IPC5 ), FIR No. 110/2011 (under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC), and FIR No. 89/2015 (under Sections 354A/506/509 of the IPC) against him and his family members.
The husband claimed that these FIRs were filed in retaliation, as a counterblast to the divorce proceedings, and intended solely to harass him and his family. The Family Court, vide the Impugned Judgment, accepted the husband’s version and held that the she had withdrawn from marital relations since 2008 without any just cause, had frequently stayed away from the matrimonial home, and had filed multiple criminal complaints only after the divorce petition was initiated. The Family Court determined that these circumstances, taken cumulatively, constituted cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and this granted a divorce decree.
Upset by the divorce ruling, the wife appealed before the Delhi High Court.
The wife's lawyers argued before the Delhi High Court that it was the husband and his family who inflicted cruelty upon her, which caused the rift between them and ultimately led to the absence of physical relations; they also pointed out that the Family Court overlooked this crucial aspect and wrongly blamed the wife for the withdrawal of cohabitation.
Her lawyers argued that the husband’s claims, like her unwillingness to live in a joint family or occasional quarrels with in-laws, even if assumed to be true, do not in law amount to cruelty but fall within the ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life. They pointed out that she was always willing to continue with the marriage, and even stayed in the matrimonial home with her son even after the divorce petition was filed, which clearly contradicts the claims of her desertion or voluntary withdrawal from their marital relations.
Additionally, her lawyers submitted that the conclusion about the denial of conjugal relationship is based on a misreading of the husband’s own testimony, wherein he ackowldged that they had been living apart since 2008. Therefore, attributing the absence of marital relations solely to the wife’s actions was wholly untenable.
The husband insisted that that it was clear the wife had voluntarily and without any justifiable reason stopped having physical relations with him since 2008, particularly after Karwa Chauth that year. He argued that the long-term refusal of conjugal cohabitation amounts to mental cruelty, as recognized in law and judicial precedents.
The husband further urged that the wife not only withdrew from marital intimacy but also persistently pressured him and his family members to transfer property in her name, and when these demands were not accepted, she threatened to falsely implicate them in criminal cases, thereby aggravating the cruelty.
Before the Family Court, Tis Hazari, the husband's representative said to the court: “She was sexually hot but the petitioner (husband) was not so and was not able to satisfy her at every time as per her wishes and that is why she used to go her parental house at Haryana against the wishes of petitioner (husband) and his parents and after the birth of the child on October 3, 1997, she left with the newly born child to her parental house and gave beatings to petitioner (husband) and his mother and also threw 'Chappal' at him. She also declared the petitioner as impotent and unable to procure any child in the presence of the entire family and neighbours.”
On September 19, 2025, the Delhi High Court granted divorce to the husband. While announcing this judgement, the Delhi High Court said:
“The prolonged denial of marital intimacy, the series of complaints instituted against the Respondent (Husband), the deliberate alienation of the minor child, and the indifference towards the Respondent’s(Husband) parents collectively demonstrate a sustained neglect of marital responsibilities. These actions have caused the Respondent (Husband) and his family considerable emotional suffering, thereby constituting cruelty of such gravity as to justify dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
The Husband was represented by Advocates: Sudhir Tewatia, Sahil Gandhi, Aman Gahlot, Himani Verma, Kavya and Vivek.
Also read: Husband and two sons to pay Rs 21,000 maintenance to estranged wife living separately from 2015, Madras High Court order
Family Court said this
According to the judgement of the Family Court, Tis Hazari, here’s what the court said:
The family court said that the allegations of cruelty show that the wife deviated from the normal standards of conjugal relationship and the misconduct attributed to the wife was such that it tantamount to making the life of the husband miserable.
The family court said that from the evidence which has emerged on the record, the cumulative effect of the instances of cruelty lead to the fair inference that the husband was subjected to mental cruelty and there is reasonable apprehension in the mind of husband that it would be harmful to his mental and psychological well-being to continue with the marital life with the wife, regard being had to the social strata to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by their social status.
Family Court said: “The conduct alleged certainly amounts to cruelty and is more than the ordinary wear and tear of married life. Accordingly, the petitioner (husband) is able to prove his case that he was treated with cruelty by the respondent (Wife) after the solemnization of his marriage. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent(wife).”
Also read: Supreme Court: Husband can use secretly recorded calls of wife as evidence in divorce case
Delhi High Court answers what is mental cruelty
Delhi High Court in the judgement (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 & CM APPL. 4523/2022) dated September 19, 2025 said that to know what can be deemed as mental cruelty we need to refer to the Supreme Court judgement in Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh 2007 4 SSC 511.
The Delhi High Court said that in that judgement, the Supreme Court elaborated upon the concept of ‘mental cruelty’ and, upon examining judicial precedents across various jurisdictions, held that the withdrawal by one spouse from maintaining emotional or physical relations with the other would squarely fall within the ambit of mental cruelty and constitute a valid ground for seeking dissolution of marriage.
The Delhi High Court said that the Supreme Court in its judgement in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337, held that ‘mental cruelty’ is conduct which causes such mental pain and suffering that it becomes impossible for the aggrieved spouse to reasonably be expected to live with the other. The determination of cruelty must depend on the social and educational background of the parties, their manner of life, and the context of the allegations made.
Also read: Employee with ‘Highly Valued’ rating in appraisal got termination letter with words ‘malicious conduct’, he fights back and wins case in Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court said that the Supreme Court in its judgement, in Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi (2010) 4 SCC 476, while dealing with the definition of “cruelty” held that the notion of cruelty is incapable of precise definition and its determination must necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Also read: Wife files case 24 years after husband's death in govt job; Rajasthan High Court orders pension, gratuity payout with interest
Delhi High Court analysis of facts
The Delhi High Court said that the wife’s lawyers had placed reliance upon a specific paragraph (8) of the husband’s divorce petition to contend that the requisite pleadings necessary to support the evidence were absent, and in fact, the said paragraph was inconsistent with the evidence subsequently led. Particular reliance was placed on paragraph 8 of the divorce petition, which reads as follows:
“8. That the respondent (wife) was/is very hot sexually as well as temperamentally but the petitioner (husband) was/is not so much hot sexually to satisfy the respondent(wife) at every time as per her wishes and that is why, the respondent (wife) used to go to her parental house at Haryana frequently against the wishes of the petitioner and his parents and without their consent. The respondent (wife) used to go to her parental house as per her wishes and sweet will without caring about her social and matrimonial responsibility and obligations and used to stay there 7-8 months. a year. It was a routine life for the respondent up to the month 05 June/July, 1995.”
Also read: Delhi High Court reprimands wife for filing false Section 498A, 406, 34 cases against husband’s family
Delhi High Court said: “However, this Court also takes note of paragraph 17 of the divorce petition, wherein the Respondent (husband) specifically alleged denial of physical relations by the Appellant (wife), thereby setting out pleadings consistent with the evidence led.”
The Delhi High Court said that in the present case, it stands admitted that the wife withdrew from all forms of physical intimacy with the husband since 2008. Even prior thereto, she frequently absented herself from the matrimonial home and had to be persuaded through family and panchayats to return.
Also read: Delhi Customs seize man’s Rolex watch upon arrival from Dubai; High Court allows him to retrieve it after paying redemption fine
The Delhi High Court said that from the Karwa Chauth of 2008 onwards, her refusal to engage in marital relations became absolute, marking a clear abandonment of conjugal obligations.
The Delhi High Court said that the learned Family Court rightly relied upon her own cross-examination, wherein she candidly admitted, “I and the respondent are not having physical relations as husband and wife with each other since 2008”, and further, “it is correct that since last more than 10 years, I have no relationship with my husband”. She also admitted that the last Karwa Chauth was observed in 2008 and that she has not resided in the matrimonial home since 2016. These unequivocal admissions fortify the husband’s case and leave little room for doubt.
Also read: Six years after receiving arrears of salary, employees were asked to pay it back—but Supreme Court says no need, and here’s why
The Delhi High Court said that they are mindful that such conduct cannot be viewed in isolation but must be tested against established judicial precedent. A Coordinate Bench of Delhi High Court in Mrs. Rita Nijhawan v. Mr. Bal Kishan Nijhawan AIR 1973 Del 200, categorically held that cohabitation is the very essence of marriage, without which the marital bond cannot endure.
The Delhi High Court said that the Supreme Court in Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit (2006) 3 SCC 778 , went even further to underscore that “marriage without sexual relations is an anathema”. The Supreme Court observed that the absence of harmonious intimacy not only undermines the marriage but also inflicts emotional harm, often resulting in depression and frustration. These pronouncements directly resonate with the facts before us.
Also read: Teacher got Rs 3.5 lakh cash gift from daughter; Tax dept sent notice, she fought back and won case in ITAT Delh
Delhi High Court: Persistent deprivation of conjugal companionship constitutes an extreme form of cruelty
The Delhi High Court said that in the light of various judicial precedents, principles, they are of the considered view that the parties before them, by the husband’s assertion and the wife’s admission, have scarcely cohabited or sustained their matrimonial relationship.
The wife repeatedly absented herself from the matrimonial responsibilities without consent and denied marital intimacy since 2008. Such persistent deprivation of conjugal companionship constitutes an extreme form of cruelty, as consistently recognized by the Supreme Court.
Also read: Mental cruelty: Wife pressured husband to abandon mother, sister; Delhi High Court grants divorce to husband on this ground
Delhi High Court said: “It is axiomatic that cohabitation and discharge of marital duties form the bedrock of marriage; their persistent denial not only demonstrates an irretrievable breakdown of the union but also amounts to cruelty warranting judicial intervention.”
The Delhi High Court said that while it is well recognized that the mere absence of physical intimacy, by itself, may not constitute sufficient grounds for granting a decree of divorce, the Court must necessarily evaluate this factor in conjunction with other attendant circumstances.
The overall conduct of the parties, the cumulative impact on the marital relationship, and whether such conduct has crossed the threshold of cruelty envisaged under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, must be carefully assessed. The judicial inquiry, therefore, is not confined to a single incident or omission but extends to examining whether the quality of marital life has been so eroded that the matrimonial bond is rendered unsustainable.
Delhi High Court notes all FIRs were filed by wife after husband filed divorce petition
Delhi High Court said: “In this context, we take note of the specific submission advanced by learned Counsel for the Respondent (husband) that the allegations of molestation against the father-in-law and brother-in-law, cruelty by the Respondent (husband), and non-return of stridhan, as raised by the Appellant (wife), must be viewed with circumspection. Significantly, all the FIRs in this regard were lodged only after the institution of the husband’s divorce petition.”
The Delhi High Court said that the timing of these complaints (FIRs), filed subsequent to the divorce proceedings, cannot be ignored in evaluating their credibility and context. It is further pertinent that copies of these FIRs were themselves brought on record by the Appellant (wife), who examined witnesses also in support thereof.
Delhi High Court said: “In this backdrop, the Appellant’s (wife) contention that the learned Family Court exceeded the pleadings by considering these materials is untenable, as the record itself establishes that the Appellant (wife) introduced and relied upon these documents during trial before the learned Family Court.”
The Delhi High Court said that when viewed in light of this chronology, it becomes evident that the criminal complaints and allegations were initiated only after the divorce petition had been filed. This sequence lends support to the husband’s argument that such complaints were, in essence, a counterblast, aimed at exerting pressure in the matrimonial dispute rather than reflecting genuine, contemporaneous grievances. Equally significant is the absence of any record indicating that the Appellant (wife) lodged similar complaints at any point prior to the initiation of the divorce proceedings.
The Delhi High Court said that it is equally well settled that events occurring subsequent to the filing of a divorce petition are not irrelevant and may be taken into account to discern a continuing pattern of cruelty. The Supreme Court in A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur (2005) 2 SCC 22 authoritatively enunciated this principle.
The Delhi High Court said that at the same time, to augment, it is apposite to refer to the judgment by the Co-Ordinate Bench of Delhi High court in Preeti v. Vikas 2023 DHC 6387 DB wherein it has been held that mere lodging of an FIR, in the absence of substantive proof, cannot by itself establish allegations of cruelty or dowry harassment. The court further emphasized that such allegations must be supported by cogent and reliable evidence. Where complaints are filed immediately after the institution of divorce proceedings, such conduct has often been regarded as a counter-blast to the petition, reflecting their use as a weapon against the opposite party and his family.
The Delhi High Court said that in the present case, the wife's conducts, which include her prolonged refusal to cohabit, persistent denial of conjugal relations, repeated absences from the matrimonial home, and subsequent institution of multiple complaints, taken together, reflect a continuous and deliberate pattern of behavior causing mental suffering to the husband, thereby satisfying the requirements of “cruelty” under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Such sustained neglect of marital obligations, coupled with acts designed to exacerbate discord, eroded the very foundation of the matrimonial bond.
Delhi High Court: deliberate alienation of a child from one parent constitutes mental cruelty
The Delhi High Court found it relevant to refer to the husband’s cross-examination dated April 12, 2018, wherein he detailed his failed attempts to maintain contact with the minor child, despite visitation orders.
The Delhi High Court said that in the context of parental alienation, guidance may be drawn from the judgment of Delhi High Court in Sandhya Malik v. Col. Satender Malik 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6099., where it was held that the deliberate alienation of a child from one parent, thereby depriving the parent of love and affection, constitutes mental cruelty.
The Delhi High Court said that parental alienation occurs when one parent psychologically manipulates a child against the other, often by unjustified negativity, thereby damaging the child‟s relationship with the estranged parent. A child has a right to the love and affection of both parents, and any act intended to deprive a parent of such affection amounts to cruelty. The custodial parent owes a duty to foster respect and affection for the non-custodial parent, and deliberate failure to do so constitutes an egregious breach of that duty. Nothing is more painful than seeing one‟s own child alienated, which amounts to mental cruelty of the gravest kind.
The Delhi High Court said that in the present case, as per the record, the husband’s access to his son was systematically frustrated by the wife, despite his continued endeavors. This deliberate alienation of the minor child from the husband is a serious form of psychological cruelty.
Delhi High Court said: “The use of a child as a tool in matrimonial conflict not only injures the affected parent but also corrodes the child’s emotional well-being, striking at the very root of familial harmony.”
Delhi High Court: Indifference towards husband’s parents is cruelty
The Delhi High Court said that it cannot ignore the wife’s categorical admissions in her cross-examination dated December 6, 2019, wherein she professed complete ignorance regarding the age and health of her mother-in-law, including her inability to walk and the fact of having undergone hip replacement surgery in 2012.
The Delhi High Court said that given the facts and circumstances of the present matter, such indifference towards the husband’s aged parents, who are an integral part of the Joint Hindu Family, unmistakably reflects disregard for the essential obligations of marriage in the Indian familial context.
The Delhi High Court said that it is a natural and legitimate expectation that a spouse, upon entering matrimony, would demonstrate care and concern for the health and dignity of the elders in the household. The studied apathy and want of sensitivity displayed by the wife towards her in-laws, particularly when their advanced age and health conditions required compassion, cannot be treated as trivial. This conduct inflicted avoidable anguish on the husband and his family, thereby amounting to another facet of cruelty within the scope of matrimonial law.
The Delhi High Court said that they do not concur with certain observations of the learned Family Court regarding alleged cruelty arising from the husband being compelled to perform household chores, the cumulative effect of the wife’s behaviour cannot be ignored.
Delhi High Court said: “The prolonged denial of marital intimacy, the series of complaints instituted against the Respondent (husband), the deliberate alienation of the minor child, and the indifference towards the Respondent’s parents collectively demonstrate a sustained neglect of marital responsibilities. These actions have caused the Respondent and his family considerable emotional suffering, thereby constituting cruelty of such gravity as to justify dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
Delhi High Court final judgement
Judgement:
- For the reasons elaborated hereinabove, this Court finds itself substantially in agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned Family Court. No infirmity, perversity, or error of law has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction.
- Accordingly, the decree of divorce granted by the learned Family Court vide the Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2021 is affirmed, and the present appeal stands dismissed.
- The present appeal, along with pending application(s), if any, is disposed of in the above terms.
- No order as to costs.
You may also like
"Those who abuse Lord Ram, they insult Lord Valmiki": CM Yogi Adityanath
BBC Breakfast star shares 'devastating' death announcement minutes into show
Morrisons selling hot 'jam' and 'custard' drinks and shoppers are loving them
Streatham Starbucks stabbing: Police update on horror 'with blood everywhere'
Strictly's Katya Jones hits out at BBC judges amid 'feud' rumours: 'It's week two!'
