The Delhi High Court has upheld a decree of divorce granted to a man on the ground of cruelty, holding that repeated defamatory complaints made by the wife to her husband’s employer constituted mental cruelty. The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar dismissed the appeal filed by the wife and affirmed the findings of the Family Court which had dissolved the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Case Background
The couple were married in May 1989 and have two children. The wife alleged that her husband abandoned her and their children in 2011 after selling the matrimonial home without notice or financial support. She claimed to have raised the children alone, incurring substantial debts and enduring harassment through litigation initiated by the husband.
The husband filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty, alleging that the wife had made multiple false and defamatory allegations, including charges of adultery, and had filed numerous complaints against him with various authorities and his employer.
The Family Court granted the divorce, which the wife challenged in appeal.
Wife’s Submissions on Appeal
It was argued on behalf of the wife that the Family Court erred in relying on unproven and vague allegations. She contended that the complaints were genuine attempts to seek redress due to neglect and cruelty, and that the husband’s allegation of adultery against her was itself an act of cruelty.
She also argued that the Family Court improperly admitted CDs into evidence without compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Precedents cited included Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja (2017) 14 SCC 194 and N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326, to assert that filing complaints does not amount to cruelty if done with just cause.
High Court’s Observations
The High Court rejected these contentions and upheld the Family Court’s findings.
It was noted that the wife had made multiple complaints not only to the police and National Commission for Women, but also to the Prime Minister of India, the Chief Justice of India, and particularly to the husband’s employer. In one such complaint, she alleged an illicit affair between her husband and a colleague.
The Court found no evidence supporting these claims. It observed that the wife did not deny filing the complaints and instead justified them as a natural response from a “scorned wife.”
Rejecting that argument, the Bench observed:
“Making such derogatory and defamatory remarks in the form of complaints to the employer of the spouse are nothing but cruelty.”
The Court cited Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021) 3 SCC 742 and Avneshwar Singh v. Monika 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2335, which held that defamatory complaints to a spouse’s employer—even if true—may amount to cruelty if intended to damage reputation or career.
As to allegations of physical and verbal abuse, the Court upheld the Family Court’s reliance on medical records and audio recordings. It affirmed that under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, such material can be admitted even if not formally proved under the Indian Evidence Act.
Long Separation Also Considered
The Court also noted that the parties had been living separately since 2010–2011. Citing Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023) 17 SCC 433, the Bench emphasized that prolonged estrangement resulting in bitterness amounts to cruelty.
“A marriage which has broken down irretrievably… spells cruelty to both the parties,” the Court stated, quoting from Supreme Court precedent.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed. The High Court concluded that the Family Court had correctly found the allegations of cruelty to be substantiated and upheld the decree of divorce.
“In view of the foregoing discussion of facts and law, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment,” the Court held.
All pending applications were disposed of as infructuous.
