The High Court of Delhi on Wednesday dismissed an appeal filed by a wife, thereby upholding a Family Court’s judgment and decree granting divorce to her husband on the grounds of mental cruelty.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar affirmed the finding that the wife’s sustained, unexplained communications with other men, coupled with her evasive testimony and a false, reckless allegation of forgery against the husband, cumulatively amounted to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
Background of the Case
The present appeal, filed by the Appellant-Wife, challenged the Judgment and Decree dated 19.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Central District, Tis Hazari Court.
The parties were married on 16.10.1991, and a daughter was born from the wedlock on 31.08.1992. In 2012, the Respondent-Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.
The husband alleged that the wife exhibited objectionable behaviour, neglected the household, and, most significantly, had developed extramarital relationships with two individuals.
The wife denied all allegations of cruelty. She contended that her interactions with the two men were “strictly professional” and aimed at securing business for the husband’s company. She counter-alleged that the husband was guilty of unauthorized financial withdrawals, neglect, and adulterous behaviour, evidenced by his profile on an online dating platform titled “American Singles.” She further alleged that the husband had subjected her to cruelty by forging her signatures to unlawfully remove her from the directorship of companies jointly managed by them.
The learned Family Court, in its 2022 judgment, allowed the husband’s petition. It rejected several of the husband’s allegations regarding hygiene, parties, and lack of care for the child. However, the Family Court concluded that the wife’s “continuous and unexplained communications” with the two individuals, her “evasive deposition and inconsistent statements,” and the obscene content of emails amounted to mental cruelty.
Furthermore, the Family Court found that the wife’s allegation of forgery was false, noting her own contradictory statements and an FSL report that confirmed her signatures were genuine. The Family Court held that “levelling false allegations that her signatures were forged… amounts to mental cruelty caused to petitioner.”
Contentions Before the High Court
On behalf of the Appellant-Wife: Learned Counsel for the wife argued that the husband failed to discharge the burden of proof for cruelty. It was contended that the finding of cruelty was unsustainable as it was based merely on phone bills registered in the husband’s own name and emails allegedly from a computer in his custody.
A key legal argument raised was that the alleged electronic evidence, such as chats and emails, was legally untenable and inadmissible, having been relied upon by the Family Court without the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The wife maintained her communications were strictly professional and that the Family Court had erred in overlooking the husband’s own financial and moral misconduct. It was also submitted that an adverse inference should have been drawn against the husband for his failure to implead the alleged adulterers as parties.
On behalf of the Respondent-Husband: Learned Counsel for the husband supported the Family Court’s findings, submitting that the marriage was irretrievably broken. The counsel argued that the principal ground of cruelty was proven by the wife’s “deliberate involvement in extramarital relationships,” which caused the husband “immense pain, agony, and mental distress.” It was argued that the wife’s “inconsistent and contradictory statements” and “evasive replies” during her testimony established her misconduct. The husband also contended that the wife committed further cruelty by filing “frivolous and vexatious proceedings” against him before the Company Law Board and the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police.
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court, in a judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, conducted a comprehensive examination of the material and evidence.
Finding on Cruelty: The Bench concurred with the Family Court’s “pivotal finding” regarding the wife’s “sustained and unexplained association” with the two individuals. The Court noted that the material indicated the wife “maintained an extraordinary degree of communication with these individuals… often during late-night or odd hours, without any credible or verifiable professional justification.”
The Court rejected the wife’s defence of a professional relationship, stating, “the Appellant failed to produce even a single document, such as a contract, invoice, email trail, or any other record, that could substantiate the existence of a genuine professional relationship with either of them.”
The judgment highlighted the wife’s evasive testimony, particularly her responses of “does not recollect” or “does not remember” when confronted with specific questions about staying with one of the men in hotels on specific dates. The Court held, “Far from being categoric denials, the evasive responses, given to direct and specific questions, naturally invite judicial suspicion…”
The High Court made a significant observation on the nature of proof required for such cruelty, stating:
“In our considered view, infidelity need not always be proved through direct or ocular evidence. Continuous conduct that perpetuates a situation wherein more than a mere reasonable apprehension of unfaithfulness or moral betrayal persists… constitutes mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.”
False Forgery Allegation as Cruelty: The High Court also affirmed the Family Court’s finding that the wife’s false allegation of forgery was an independent act of mental cruelty. The judgment noted:
“Another compelling aspect of mental cruelty arises from the Appellant-Wife’s unfounded and reckless allegation that the Respondent-Husband had forged her signatures… Such self-contradictory testimony exposes the falsity of the allegation and demonstrates a deliberate attempt to malign the Respondent’s character and integrity by imputing criminal conduct where none existed.”
On Admissibility of Evidence (Section 65B): The High Court decisively rejected the wife’s argument regarding the inadmissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The Bench invoked Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Section 14 states: “A Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).”
The Court held this provision “reflects a clear legislative intent to provide Family Courts with broad discretion” and that “the strict principles of admissibility of documents as provided under the Evidence Act are not relevant in such cases.”
On Non-Impleadment of Alleged Adulterers: The Court dismissed the wife’s contention that the two individuals should have been impleaded. It held they were “neither necessary nor proper parties,” as the husband’s case was founded on cruelty, not adultery.
“It is a well-settled proposition of law that where dissolution of marriage is sought on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, and not on the ground of adultery, the alleged paramour or third party is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings…”
Conclusion: Finding no infirmity in the Family Court’s decision, the High Court concluded that cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA was established.
“In view of the foregoing discussion and the material on record, we find no merit in the present Appeal,” the Bench held, affirming the judgment and decree of divorce. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
