The Delhi High Court has granted a decree of divorce to a husband, ruling that the occurrence of pregnancy or temporary reconciliation cannot erase antecedent acts of cruelty. The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Renu Bhatnagar observed that cruelty must be judged from the entirety of circumstances rather than isolated episodes, setting aside a Family Court judgment that had dismissed the husband’s petition.
In the case titled Mat. App. (F.C.) 173/2025, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the husband against the judgment dated March 20, 2025, passed by the Family Court. The Family Court had dismissed the petition seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). The High Court held that the husband successfully established the ground of cruelty and that the marriage had “irretrievably broken down.”
Background of the Case
The parties were married on March 1, 2016, according to Hindu rites and customs. The Appellant-husband filed for divorce on March 24, 2021, alleging that the Respondent-wife subjected him to mental cruelty through a series of acts. Specifically, the husband alleged that the wife:
- Disclosed on December 16, 2016, that the marriage was against her will and she desired another man.
- Threatened suicide on July 17, 2017, when the husband resisted her insistence to live separately from his aged parents.
- Threw a cup of tea at him on August 18, 2018, regarding a demand for a new house.
- Made repeated abusive references to his mother, calling her “langdi,” and threatened to leave if he continued contact with her.
- Refused physical relations since October 10, 2019.
- Left the matrimonial home with valuables on January 17, 2020.
The wife contested the petition, alleging demands for dowry, harassment by in-laws, and an attempt by the Appellant’s father to molest her. She relied on documents including a list of dowry articles and subsequent proceedings initiated after the divorce petition was filed, including an FIR and a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Family Court had dismissed the husband’s petition, concluding that he failed to prove cruelty and was disentitled to relief for approaching the court with “unclean hands” regarding the dowry allegations.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the Appellant argued that the Family Court failed to appreciate the “uncontroverted and consistent evidence” of the Appellant regarding the wife’s sustained pattern of mental cruelty. It was submitted that the trial court erred in isolating incidents rather than considering their cumulative effect on the Appellant’s mental peace. The Appellant further contended that the principle of “clean hands” was wrongly invoked based on mere allegations of dowry demand in the written statement without independent evidence.
Per contra, the counsel for the Respondent-wife supported the impugned judgment, arguing that the Appellant sought divorce to evade his own misconduct. It was contended that the wife faced continuous harassment and that her departure from the matrimonial home was a consequence of “unbearable cruelty and insecurity,” including the alleged molestation attempt by her father-in-law.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court observed that the scope of interference in an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act extends to cases where findings are perverse or based on a misreading of evidence.
On Cruelty Relaying on Supreme Court precedents in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, the Court noted that cruelty must be determined by the cumulative effect of behavior. The Bench observed that the husband’s testimony regarding verbal abuse, suicide threats, and withdrawal from cohabitation “remained consistent and largely unshaken in cross-examination.”
Regarding the wife’s allegations, the Court noted:
“The Respondent’s allegations of dowry demand and of an attempted molestation by the Appellant’s father are devoid of contemporaneous support. Notably, no complaint, FIR, or protective action was initiated at any point prior to the filing of the Appellant’s divorce petition on 24.03.2021.”
Citing the Supreme Court decision in A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, the Court held that post-litigation initiation of criminal proceedings indicated the allegations were “reactive, embellished, or incomplete.”
On Miscarriage and Reconciliation The High Court rejected the Family Court’s reliance on the wife’s miscarriage in early 2019 to infer harmonious relations. The Bench stated:
“The occurrence of pregnancy or temporary reconciliation cannot erase antecedent acts of cruelty, particularly when the record demonstrates that the Respondent’s abusive conduct, threats, and denial of cohabitation persisted thereafter.”
On the “Clean Hands” Doctrine The Court clarified the application of Section 23(1)(a) of the HMA, citing Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey. The Bench held that the provision applies only when the petitioner’s conduct constitutes a matrimonial offense or contributes directly to the breakdown. The Court ruled that the Family Court’s conclusion on “unclean hands” rested on “conjecture rather than proof,” as the wife’s allegations remained unsubstantiated.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the Appellant established cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA. The Court also took serious note of the wife’s allegation against her father-in-law:
“It is also significant that the Respondent herself has alleged attempted molestation by her father-in-law. Even assuming such an allegation to be true for the sake of argument, cohabitation thereafter becomes virtually impossible, for such a foundational claim strikes at the very root of mutual trust between the families.”
Declaring that the marital bond had “eroded beyond repair,” the Court allowed the appeal and dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce.
