The Delhi High Court has upheld a divorce decree granted to a husband, ruling that the wife’s conduct, which included a physical altercation, levelling unsubstantiated allegations of adultery, and initiating multiple vexatious criminal proceedings, constituted extreme mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed an appeal filed by the wife against a judgment dated June 7, 2022, from the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Shahdara, which had dissolved the marriage on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.
Background of the Case
The appellant-wife and the respondent-husband were married on November 21, 1997, and have one son. The relationship deteriorated over time, leading to a series of complaints and legal actions.
The husband filed for divorce in May 2013, alleging cruelty and desertion. He claimed the wife was quarrelsome and suspicious, leading to his estrangement from his parents. He cited an incident on April 21, 2013, where he alleged the wife, along with her relatives, assaulted him at his clinic in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, causing injuries and property damage. He also pointed to a police complaint he filed on July 8, 2012, alleging the wife was abusive, violent, and had expelled him from their home.
The wife, in her defence, alleged continuous harassment for dowry, neglect, and ill-treatment. She claimed she was turned out of the matrimonial home during her pregnancy in 1998 and that her family had paid large sums of money to the husband on multiple occasions. She accused the husband of infidelity, filing a complaint on July 18, 2012, after allegedly seeing him with another woman. On April 21, 2013, she lodged FIR No. 217/2013 under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging assault and an illicit relationship between her husband and another woman.
The Family Court, after examining the evidence, granted the divorce on the ground of cruelty but rejected the husband’s plea of desertion. The wife then appealed this decision to the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant-wife argued that the Family Court erred, contending that the husband failed to provide “cogent, reliable, or corroborated evidence” to prove cruelty. Her counsel submitted that her legal actions were bona fide attempts to protect her matrimonial rights and that the mere filing of complaints does not constitute cruelty unless proven false and malicious. She further argued that the husband could not take advantage of his own wrongs, citing her allegations of dowry demands and neglect.
The respondent-husband supported the Family Court’s judgment, arguing that the wife’s conduct caused him “grave mental cruelty.” His counsel highlighted the physical assault at his clinic, the “series of complaints and multiple criminal proceedings,” including the FIR under Section 498A IPC, which he claimed subjected him to “immense harassment, mental agony, and social humiliation.” He contended that the wife’s “baseless and scandalous” allegations of dowry demands and illicit relationships themselves constituted mental cruelty.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and legal precedents on mental cruelty. The judgment, authored by Justice Shankar, noted that the core issue was whether the wife’s conduct amounted to cruelty justifying divorce.
The Court observed that the Family Court had correctly identified several acts of cruelty. It gave weight to the incident of physical violence on April 21, 2013, at the husband’s clinic, stating, “An act of violence by one spouse against the other spouse cannot be condoned.”
A significant part of the Court’s analysis focused on the “consistent pattern of aggressive litigation” initiated by the wife. The judgment lists multiple complaints and FIRs filed by the wife between 2012 and 2019, noting that they were “predominantly criminal in character” and lodged over a prolonged period when the parties were not cohabiting.
The Court found the wife’s allegations of the husband’s infidelity to be “sweeping, vague, and unsubstantiated.” It noted that documents like certificates and photographs were placed on record, but their authenticity was never established, and the husband was not cross-examined on them. The Court held that such actions reflected a “deliberate attempt to malign the Respondent’s reputation.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, the High Court stated:
“levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extramarital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife… Such aspersions… would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty…”
The Court also relied on Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja, where the Supreme Court held that lodging patently false complaints constitutes cruelty. The High Court observed:
“The making of false, reckless, and unsubstantiated allegations, coupled with the initiation of multiple vexatious litigations against the Respondent and his family members, reveals a vindictive intent on the part of the Appellant. Such conduct clearly amounts to extreme cruelty.”
Addressing the wife’s argument regarding “irretrievable breakdown of marriage,” the Court clarified that while it is not a statutory ground for divorce that the High Court can grant, it is a “very weighty circumstance” that can inform the finding of cruelty. The judgment states:
“A marriage which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by the court’s verdict, if the parties are not willing. … In the present matter, upon an appraisal of the relevant facts and circumstances which clearly establishes cruelty as also the fact that continuance of the relationship would only foist upon the parties unnecessary cruelty, further degrading the already cancerous state of affairs, the Courts would necessarily have to take a view which would ensure that the situation giving rise to such a scenario is brought to an end.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the cumulative effect of the wife’s conduct went “far beyond the ordinary wear and tear of conjugal life and constitutes grave cruelty.” The Court found that her actions had caused the husband immense mental agony and humiliation, making it unreasonable for him to continue the marital relationship.
The judgment concludes:
“In light of the foregoing analysis, this Court is satisfied that the learned Family Court correctly applied the legal principles governing cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA. When the Appellant’s conduct is viewed in its totality, it becomes evident that continued cohabitation was rendered unreasonable and intolerable…”
Finding the appeal “devoid of merit,” the Court affirmed the Family Court’s judgment and decree of divorce and dismissed the wife’s appeal.
