The Delhi High Court has warned that “procrastination is the greatest assassin of matrimonial litigation,” while upholding a husband’s divorce decree against his wife for mental cruelty. The Bench said that years of delay, false police complaints, and emotional pressure to leave one’s parents destroy both families and faith in the justice system.
NEW DELHI: In a powerful judgment that resonates beyond the courtroom, the Delhi High Court has declared that “procrastination is the greatest assassin of matrimonial litigation — it breeds bitterness, emotional fragmentation, and aggravates the suffering of parties.”
The ruling came in Puja Pasricha v. Aishwarya Pasricha (MAT.APP. (F.C.) 138/2023), decided on 16 September 2025, where the Court upheld a husband’s divorce granted on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar not only reaffirmed what constitutes mental cruelty in marriage but also issued a strong warning against delay tactics and misuse of legal process in family courts.
Background of the Case
The parties, Puja Pasricha and Aishwarya Pasricha, were married in 2007 in Delhi and had a son in 2008. Soon after marriage, tensions arose. The husband alleged that his wife repeatedly refused to live with his widowed mother and divorced sister, created public scenes, and frequently called the police to humiliate him.
The Family Court dissolved the marriage in January 2023, finding her conduct amounted to cruelty. The wife appealed, claiming she was denied a fair hearing and that her absences were due to illness.
Court’s Observations
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, speaking for the Bench, upheld the Family Court’s findings and delivered several strong remarks on both cruelty and judicial delay.
“The record clearly demonstrates that the matrimonial bond has irretrievably broken down by virtue of the cruelty committed by the Appellant.”
The Court noted that the wife had been given repeated opportunities to appear and present her evidence but consistently sought adjournments. Despite multiple “last and final” chances, she failed to participate, forcing the Family Court to close her evidence.
Calling out such behaviour, the High Court observed:
“No party can be permitted to abuse the process of the Court, thereby prolonging disposal and adding to the staggering pendency of cases. Such conduct contributes to an avoidable gradual erosion in the faith reposed upon the judicial system.”
The Court’s Warning to Family Courts
In an unusually candid reflection on India’s slow-moving matrimonial cases, the Bench cited earlier Supreme Court precedents such as Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015 6 SCC 353) and Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh (2018 1 SCC 1), underscoring that justice delayed in family matters is justice denied.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s language, the Bench reiterated:
“Procrastination is the greatest assassin of matrimonial litigation. It not only gives rise to more family problems but also gradually builds unthinkable bitterness.”
The Court reminded all Family Court judges that delay breeds distrust, intensifies emotional pain, and turns reconciliation impossible.
Cruelty: The Emotional and Ethical Dimension
While discussing the wife’s conduct, the Bench observed that forcing a man to abandon his aged mother and divorced sister amounts to mental cruelty. Referring to Narendra v. K. Meena (2016 9 SCC 455), it held:
“In a Hindu society, it is a pious obligation of the son to maintain his parents… Persistent efforts to constrain the husband to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband and constitute cruelty.”
The Court also noted that denying the father emotional access to his son and repeatedly calling police to the matrimonial home were acts beyond the ordinary wear and tear of marriage. It emphasized that apathy toward parents and deliberate alienation of children cause “immeasurable mental agony.”
Judicial Message: No Room for Endless Litigation
The Bench made it clear that the justice system must not be weaponized to perpetuate emotional warfare.
“No litigant can misuse procedure to indefinitely stall justice.”
“Procrastination in matrimonial cases destroys families faster than cruelty itself.”
It urged Family Court judges to balance empathy with firmness, observing that reconciliation must have time limits and cannot become a tool for endless delay.
Why This Judgment Matters
This ruling carries two powerful messages — one moral and one procedural.
- On Family Ethics: A spouse cannot demand that a partner abandon parents or family ties. Compassion toward elders is a virtue, not a marital fault. Neglecting them is cruelty.
- On Judicial Integrity: The High Court’s stinging warning against procrastination calls for urgent reforms in Family Court functioning. Matrimonial trials dragging for a decade, as in this case, defeat the purpose of law and deny closure to both parties.
The judgment, therefore, bridges emotional justice with judicial efficiency — asserting that fairness to families also requires speed and sincerity in the courts themselves.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s words echo far beyond one divorce petition. When it said “Procrastination is the greatest assassin of matrimonial litigation,” it spoke to every couple trapped in years of courtroom delay and emotional fatigue.
By condemning both cruelty in relationships and delay in justice, the Court has turned this case into a dual reminder:
- that marriage is not a license to abandon parents, and
- that justice delayed is cruelty compounded.
Explanatory Table of All Laws and Sections Mentioned
| Law / Case / Provision | Citation / Section | Explanation / Relevance in the Case |
| Family Courts Act, 1984 | Section 19 | Provides the right of appeal from a Family Court judgment to the High Court. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 13(1)(ia) | Ground for divorce based on cruelty — includes mental, emotional, and psychological cruelty. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 28 | Provides for appeals in matrimonial cases. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 21B | Mandates speedy trial and disposal of matrimonial petitions. The Court cited this to criticize delay. |
| Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) | Section 151 | Empowers courts to act in the interest of justice when delay or misuse of process occurs. |
| Narendra v. K. Meena | (2016) 9 SCC 455 | Supreme Court held that a wife’s persistent effort to make her husband live separately from his parents constitutes mental cruelty. Relied upon by the Bench. |
| K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa | (2013) 5 SCC 226 | Supreme Court observed that false police complaints and vindictive behaviour by one spouse amount to “extreme mental cruelty.” |
| A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur | (2005) 2 SCC 22 | Defined mental cruelty as behaviour causing “immeasurable mental agony and torture,” even without physical violence. Cited in analysis. |
| Kanwal Kishore Girdhar v. Seema Girdhar | 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1468 | Delhi HC precedent holding that parental alienation by one spouse is an “extreme act of cruelty.” Relied upon for alienation of the child. |
| Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena | (2015) 6 SCC 353 | Supreme Court criticized delays in matrimonial cases; coined the expression “procrastination is the greatest assassin of matrimonial litigation.” Quoted directly. |
| Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh | (2018) 1 SCC 1 | Reaffirmed that Family Courts must aim for speedy settlement of family disputes and not let cases “meander endlessly.” |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | — | Mentioned as one of the proceedings initiated by the wife, showing multiple litigations between the parties. |
Case Summary
| Category | Details |
| Case Title | Puja Pasricha v. Aishwarya Pasricha |
| Court | High Court of Delhi at New Delhi |
| Bench | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar |
| Date of Judgment Reserved | 25 August 2025 |
| Date of Judgment Pronounced | 16 September 2025 |
| Case Number | MAT.APP. (F.C.) 138/2023 & CM APPL. 68819/2024 |
| Impugned Order | Judgment dated 21 January 2023 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Central District, Tis Hazari, Delhi (HMA Petition No. 5861631/2016, Old No. 192/2012) |
| Statutory Grounds | Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Cruelty |
| Law Invoked for Appeal | Section 19, Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 |
| Date of Marriage | 27 March 2007 |
| Child | Son — Aditya Pasricha (born 8 January 2008) |
| Result | Appeal dismissed; Divorce decree upheld |
| Key Observation | “Persistent pressure to sever familial bonds certainly is mental cruelty.” |
| Core Quote of Judgment | “Procrastination is the greatest assassin of matrimonial litigation. It breeds bitterness, emotional fragmentation, and aggravates the suffering of parties.” |
Legal Significance
This judgment goes beyond the husband–wife dispute. It:
- Establishes that emotional apathy and alienation from parents can constitute cruelty under matrimonial law.
- Reinforces the judicial intolerance for delay tactics in family courts.
- Embeds a moral message in Indian jurisprudence — that family ties and justice both collapse under procrastination.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advise.