The Delhi High Court delivers a seismic verdict, holding that a wife’s persistent denial of marital intimacy, alienation of the child, and retaliatory FIRs amount to mental cruelty. The judgment is being hailed by men’s-rights advocates as a bold stand against emotional and legal abuse of husbands.
Denial of Sex False FIR and Child Alienation Is Mental Cruelty: After 35 years of endurance, humiliation, and relentless legal warfare, Satish Kumar finally walked free. In a ruling that has electrified men’s-rights circles, the Delhi High Court upheld his divorce from his wife Dhan Vati, declaring that a wife’s sustained denial of marital relations, false criminal cases, and deliberate alienation of the child amount to extreme mental cruelty.
The Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the wife’s appeal and affirmed the Family Court’s decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, calling the wife’s conduct a “sustained pattern of cruelty of such gravity as to justify dissolution of marriage.” After decades of endurance, humiliation, and relentless legal battles, Satish Kumar has finally been vindicated. In a landmark judgment dated 19 September 2025, the Delhi High Court upheld the decree of divorce granted to Satish, the husband, by the Family Court in Dhan Vati v. Satish Kumar, calling the wife’s conduct “a sustained pattern of cruelty of such gravity as to justify dissolution of marriage.”
The couple married on 3 March 1990 and had a son in 1997. From 2008, after Karwa Chauth, the wife completely withdrew from marital intimacy. She threw footwear at her husband, slapped his mother, called him impotent, and demanded property transfer in her name threatening false cases if refused. She later alienated their son, turning him against the father. Only after the husband filed for divorce in 2009, she launched three FIRs each viewed by courts as retaliatory counterblasts:
- FIR 1 under Sections 323/354/506/34 IPC
- FIR 2 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC
- FIR 3 Sections 354A/506/509 IPC
The Family Court found her actions malicious and vindictive, in a sense that that the wife had withdrawn from conjugal relations without cause, filed FIRs with malafide intent, and mentally tortured the husband. Divorce was granted on 30 September 2021, which the wife challenged before the High Court.
The Division Bench relied on Supreme Court precedents namely, Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337, and Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi (2010) 4 SCC 476 to reaffirm that mental cruelty includes denial of marital intimacy, false accusations, and sustained emotional neglect.
“Persistent deprivation of conjugal companionship constitutes an extreme form of cruelty. Marriage without cohabitation erodes the very foundation of the matrimonial bond.”
The Court noted that Dhan Vati admitted under cross-examination: “I and the respondent have not had physical relations since 2008.” Citing this, the Bench ruled:
The Court also held that turning the child against the father amounted to psychological cruelty, quoting from Sandhya Malik v. Col. Satender Malik (2023 SCC OnLine Del 6099) that “using a child as a weapon in matrimonial conflict causes emotional injury of the gravest kind.”
Further, the Bench condemned the wife’s indifference to her aged in-laws, calling it a violation of “essential familial duties under Indian social ethos.”
“The prolonged denial of marital intimacy, the series of complaints instituted against the husband, the deliberate alienation of the minor child, and the indifference towards the husband’s parents collectively demonstrate a sustained neglect of marital responsibilities,” the Bench declared.
The Bench further cited Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit (2006), holding that “marriage without sex is an anathema.”
Explanation table of laws & sections Mentioned / Relevant
| Section/ Case law | Provision (What it covers) | Why it matters in this case |
| Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Divorce on grounds of cruelty. | The foundation of the husband’s divorce plea. |
| Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) | Defined mental cruelty to include denial of intimacy and emotional neglect. | Delhi HC applied this principle. |
| V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) | Mental cruelty causes such pain that cohabitation becomes impossible. | Helped assess the cumulative impact. |
| Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit (2006) | Held that “marriage without sexual relations is an anathema.” | Used to highlight the importance of physical intimacy. |
| Sandhya Malik v. Col. Satender Malik (2023) | Alienating a child from one parent = cruelty. | Applied to the wife’s deliberate alienation of son. |
| Preeti v. Vikas (2023 DHC 6387 DB) | Retaliatory FIRs after divorce petition are counterblasts. | Cited to reject wife’s criminal allegations as harassment. |
Case Title: Dhan Vati v. Satish Kumar
Case Details
- Court: Delhi High Court
- Case No.: MAT.APP. (F.C.) 8/2022 & CM APPL. 4523/2022
- Judgment Date: 19 September 2025
- Law Applied: Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- Family Court Judgment: 30 September 2021 (Tis Hazari Courts)
- Statutory Provision Applied: Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Divorce on the ground of cruelty
Bench: Division Bench, Delhi High Court
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Key Procedural Background & Timeline:
- 1990: Marriage solemnized under Hindu rites.
- 1997: Birth of son.
- 2008: Wife withdrew from marital intimacy after Karwa Chauth.
- 2009: Husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia).
- 2010 – 2015: Wife filed three FIRs — all after the divorce petition.
- 2021: Family Court grants divorce to husband.
- 2025: Delhi High Court upholds decree; appeal dismissed.
Key procedural backgrounds
- Wife’s denial of physical intimacy since 2008 amounted to mental cruelty.
- Retaliatory FIRs filed after the husband’s divorce petition were acts of harassment.
- Alienating the minor son from the father caused deep psychological cruelty.
- Indifference toward aged in-laws reflected disregard of essential marital duties.
- Outcome: Appeal dismissed; Family Court’s decree of divorce affirmed.
- Result: Marriage dissolved — marking a men’s-rights milestone on recognizing emotional, sexual, and legal cruelty faced by husbands.
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 advised