The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling on matrimonial law, has affirmed a divorce decree, holding that the cumulative effect of a wife’s prolonged and unjustifiable withdrawal from physical intimacy, deliberate alienation of the child from the father, indifference towards aged in-laws, and the filing of multiple criminal complaints as a “counterblast” after the institution of divorce proceedings, amounts to mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed an appeal filed by the wife, challenging the judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Tis Hazari, dated 30.09.2021, which had granted a divorce to her husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.
Background of the Case
The parties were married on March 3, 1990, and have a son born on October 3, 1997. In November 2009, the husband filed a petition for divorce, alleging persistent cruelty by the wife.
The husband pleaded that the wife was unwilling to reside in a joint family, frequently left the matrimonial home for extended periods without his consent, and often required the intervention of panchayats to return. He further alleged that after Karwa Chauth in 2008, she completely withdrew from marital relations, humiliated him, threw footwear at him, and compelled him to perform household chores.
It was also asserted that the wife pressured him and his family to transfer property in her name and, upon their refusal, threatened to implicate them in false criminal cases. Following the filing of the divorce petition, the wife lodged three separate FIRs against the husband and his family members in 2010, 2011, and 2015, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including for molestation and dowry harassment.
The Family Court accepted the husband’s contentions, finding that the wife’s conduct, including the withdrawal from cohabitation and the filing of criminal cases post-litigation, constituted cruelty. Aggrieved, the wife appealed to the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Before the High Court, counsel for the Appellant-Wife argued that the Family Court’s decision was based on evidence that went beyond the pleadings. It was contended that the husband, not the wife, was less receptive to maintaining physical relations and that any occasional quarrels were part of the “ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life.” The wife’s counsel emphasized that she continued to reside in the matrimonial home even after the divorce petition was filed, which belied any claim of voluntary withdrawal from the marriage.
Conversely, counsel for the Respondent-Husband supported the Family Court’s judgment, arguing that the wife’s voluntary and prolonged refusal of conjugal relations since 2008 amounted to mental cruelty. It was submitted that the criminal complaints were a “clear counterblast” to the divorce petition, intended solely to harass him and his family.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court, after a careful perusal of the record and judicial precedents, upheld the findings of the Family Court. The judgment, authored by Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, highlighted the wife’s own admissions during cross-examination as a crucial factor. She had unequivocally admitted: “I and the respondent are not having physical relations as husband and wife with each other since 2008” and “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 she observed was in 2008.
The Court referred to landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007), which held that a “unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.” The bench also cited Vidhya Viswanathan v. Kartik Balakrishnan (2015), where the Apex Court held that persistent denial of sexual relations by one spouse, without justifiable cause, itself constitutes mental cruelty. The judgment noted, “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.”
Addressing the timing of the criminal complaints, the Court observed that all three FIRs were lodged only after the husband had initiated divorce proceedings. The Court stated, “This sequence lends support to the Respondent’s argument that such complaints were, in essence, a counterblast, aimed at exerting pressure in the matrimonial dispute rather than reflecting genuine, contemporaneous grievances.”
The judgment further identified parental alienation as a grave form of cruelty. The husband had testified that despite court orders, his attempts to meet his son were systematically frustrated, leading him to stop trying as it was “useless and expensive.” Relying on its previous decision in Sandhya Malik v. Col. Satender Malik (2023), the Court observed, “Nothing is more painful than seeing one’s own child alienated, which amounts to mental cruelty of the gravest kind… 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.”
Finally, the Court noted the wife’s “studied apathy and want of sensitivity” towards her aged and ailing in-laws, which she admitted in her cross-examination, as another facet of cruelty that inflicted “avoidable anguish on the Respondent and his family.”
Decision
Concluding that the wife’s cumulative conduct demonstrated a “sustained neglect of marital responsibilities,” the High Court found no perversity or error of law in the Family Court’s decision.
“The prolonged denial of marital intimacy, the series of complaints instituted against the Respondent, 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 HMA,” the Court concluded.
The appeal was dismissed, and the divorce decree granted by the Family Court was affirmed.
