The Delhi High Court ruled that a wife pressuring her husband to cut ties with his widowed mother and sister amounts to mental cruelty. The Court upheld the husband’s divorce, calling her conduct beyond the “ordinary wear and tear” of married life.
Forcing Husband To Leave His Family Is Cruelty: The Delhi High Court has made a strong observation that if a wife continuously forces her husband to break relations with his family members, especially his mother and sister, it amounts to mental cruelty and becomes a valid ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar passed this order while hearing an appeal filed by a woman who challenged the Family Court’s decision that had dissolved her marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.
The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband took place on 27 March 2007 in Delhi, following Hindu rites and customs. The couple was blessed with a son on 8 January 2008. However, soon after marriage, serious disputes arose between them.
According to the husband, his wife continuously subjected him to cruelty. She did not want to live in a joint family setup and repeatedly insisted that he should divide the family property and live separately from his widowed mother and divorced sister.
He also claimed that she would often leave the matrimonial home, ignore household responsibilities, and refuse to cooperate in family matters. Because of this continued behavior, the husband approached the Family Court and filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The wife, on the other hand, told the High Court that she was the one who suffered harassment in her matrimonial home at the hands of her mother-in-law and sister-in-law.
She alleged that they interfered in her married life, insulted her on multiple occasions—including during her pregnancy—and denied her access to household resources. She also claimed that she was mentally and physically harassed and forced to obey unreasonable family expectations.
She further argued that her problems were not due to her unwillingness to stay in a joint family but because of the oppressive atmosphere created by the husband’s family members. She pointed out that she made efforts to save her marriage by seeking help from a Family Counselling Centre in 2010 and 2011. She had also filed cases under the Domestic Violence Act and a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restitution of conjugal rights, showing her intention to continue the marriage.
However, the husband stated that continuing this marriage had become unbearable. He informed the Court that he was suffering from serious medical issues and was already spending a large amount on his treatment. Prolonging this marriage, he said, would only worsen his physical and mental condition.
After hearing both sides, the Delhi High Court agreed with the Family Court’s conclusion. The Court found that the wife had consistently put pressure on her husband to separate from his mother and sister and demanded partition of the family property. The Bench clarified that simply wanting to live separately does not amount to cruelty, but in this case, it crossed the line.
The Court observed,
“Persistent and pressurising conduct to sever the Respondent’s bonds with his family certainly is cruelty.”
The Court also took note of specific incidents where the wife publicly humiliated her husband.
It said,
“In May 2009, following the Respondent’s refusal to accede to the Appellant’s demand for separation, she publicly berated him at his workplace in the presence of colleagues and superiors, accusing him of neglect and of failing to prioritise her happiness. Such conduct, characterised by repeated public humiliation and verbal abuse, amounts to mental cruelty.”
The Bench further remarked that the husband had proved a continuous pattern of emotional abuse. Upholding the lower court’s order, the High Court said,
“The Respondent has successfully demonstrated a sustained pattern of pressure, humiliation, threats, and alienation. Taken together, these acts go well beyond the ‘ordinary wear and tear of married life’ and constitute mental cruelty of such gravity that the Respondent cannot reasonably be expected to endure them.”
With these observations, the Delhi High Court dismissed the wife’s appeal and confirmed the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court.
Explanatory Table of Laws & Sections Cited
| Statute / Act | Section | Description / Relevance in This Case |
|---|---|---|
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 13(1)(ia) | Provides “cruelty” as a ground for divorce. Used by the husband to seek dissolution of marriage. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 9 | Restitution of conjugal rights — invoked by the wife to seek rejoining with the husband; became infructuous once divorce granted. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 28 | Lays down appeal provisions from decrees and orders under the Act. Used for filing the present appeal. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 21B | Mandates speedy trial and disposal of matrimonial cases within six months. The Court quoted this to emphasise delays in family litigation. |
| Family Courts Act, 1984 | Section 19 | Provides right to appeal from Family Court to the High Court. Used as enabling provision for the appeal. |
| Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Section 151 | The Appellant invoked this to seek reopening of evidence; her request was denied. |
| Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Order XVIII Rule 3 | The Appellant cited this claiming denial of opportunity for final oral submissions. |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | — | The wife filed a DV petition against the husband and in-laws; this was cited to show multiple litigations. |
| Supreme Court Precedents Cited | (2005) 2 SCC 22 – A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur | Defined cruelty as conduct causing “immeasurable mental agony and torture”. |
| (2013) 5 SCC 226 – K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa | Held that filing false or repeated complaints amounts to mental cruelty. | |
| (2016) 9 SCC 455 – Narendra v. K. Meena | Ruled that wife forcing husband to separate from parents is cruelty. | |
| (2015) 6 SCC 353 – Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena | Cautioned against long delays in family matters; urged speedy justice. | |
| (2018) 1 SCC 1 – Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh | Stressed on timely resolution and conciliation in matrimonial disputes. | |
| Delhi High Court Precedent Cited | 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1468 – Kanwal Kishore Girdhar v. Seema Girdhar | Recognised “parental alienation” as an extreme form of cruelty. |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Aishwarya Pasricha v. Puja Pasricha
- Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 138/2023 & CM APPL. 68819/2024
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
- Judgment Reserved On: 25 August 2025
- Judgment Pronounced On: 16 September 2025
- Originating Court / Appeal From: Principal Judge, Family Court, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
- Family Court Case No.: HMA Petition No. 5861631/2016 (Old No. 192/2012)
- Date of Family Court Judgment: 21 January 2023
- Appellant (Wife): Puja Pasricha
- Respondent (Husband): Aishwarya Pasricha
- Counsel for Appellant: Ms. Urmila Sharma, Mr. U. K. Sharma & Mr. Parteek Bajaj, Advs.
- Counsel for Respondent: Mr. R. Sahni, Ms. Jamine Sahni & Ms. Ashmine Sahni, Advs.
- Marriage Date: 27 March 2007
- Child: One son, Aditya Pasricha (born 8 January 2008)
- Ground for Divorce: Cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- Judgment Outcome: Appeal dismissed; Divorce decree upheld
- Key Holding: Forcing husband to separate from his family amounts to cruelty; such conduct is beyond “ordinary wear and tear of married life.”
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