The Delhi High Court dissolved the marriage after finding that the wife’s criminal allegations were raised only after the husband filed for divorce and had no timely evidence. The Court held that the husband’s consistent testimony proved sustained mental cruelty.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court ruled that a wife’s delayed criminal allegations cannot overshadow the husband’s clear and consistent evidence of cruelty, and therefore granted the husband a decree of divorce.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Renu Bhatnagar, who set aside the earlier Family Court order that had dismissed the husband’s divorce petition.
The case involved a marriage solemnized on 01.03.2016, after which serious marital disputes arose. The husband approached the Family Court in 2021, alleging continuous mental cruelty by the wife.
He stated that she forced him to live separately from his elderly parents, made abusive remarks about his mother, demanded a new house in her own name, threatened suicide, refused physical relations, and finally left the matrimonial home on 17.01.2020 taking her clothes and jewellery. He also claimed she threatened to file false criminal cases against him and his family.
The High Court noted that the husband’s testimony remained stable and credible. His statements about verbal abuse, suicide threats, denial of cohabitation and desertion were consistent and were not shaken in cross-examination.
The Court observed that the evidence clearly showed that the wife’s actions caused the husband and his family continuous humiliation, stress, and emotional suffering. Her behaviour, according to the Court, showed a steady pattern of cruelty.
The Bench also examined the wife’s allegations, including claims of dowry harassment and an accusation that her father-in-law tried to molest her. However, the Court pointed out that there was no complaint, FIR, or any protective action filed before the husband moved the divorce petition in March 2021. All criminal proceedings were initiated only after the divorce case started.
The Court said that such late actions seriously reduce the credibility of these allegations and make them appear retaliatory rather than genuine. It emphasised that post-litigation complaints generally weaken the claim of immediate or real grievance.
Quoting from the judgment, the Bench held:
“Wife’s delayed accusations cannot detract from or outweigh the husband’s consistent evidence of sustained cruelty.”
On the serious allegation that the father-in-law attempted to molest her, the Court stated:
“Even if such an allegation is presumed to be true, living together becomes impossible because such a foundational claim strikes at the very root of mutual trust between the families.”
It added that once a spouse levels such accusations against close relatives of the other spouse, the chances of restoring matrimonial harmony are practically gone.
The Court also noted that the couple had been living separately since January 2020, and no child was born from the marriage, leaving no realistic chance of reconciliation. The marriage had completely broken down.
Finally, while dissolving the marriage, the High Court made an important general observation about the emotional impact of such cases.
It said:
“The dissolution of marriage is not a triumph of one over the other, but a legal recognition that the relationship has reached a point of no return. Both parties are urged to maintain civility in all future interactions, particularly in the event of any pending or future proceedings concerning maintenance or other ancillary reliefs.”
With these findings, the Court granted the husband a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, holding that cruelty was clearly proved and that there was no reason in law to deny him relief.
Explanatory Table Of All Laws & Sections Cited In The Judgment
| Law / Section | What It Means (Simple Explanation) | How It Was Used in This Case |
| Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Allows divorce on the ground of cruelty by the spouse. | Husband sought divorce claiming mental cruelty; High Court held cruelty was proved. |
| Section 23(1)(a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Court must ensure the petitioner is not taking advantage of his/her own wrong. | Family Court wrongly denied divorce using this section. High Court corrected it. |
| Section 5(ii)(a)(b)(c), Hindu Marriage Act | Conditions for marriage relating to mental capacity. | Mentioned in the statutory reading of Section 23. Not directly in dispute. |
| Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance claim by wife. | Wife filed a 125 CrPC case after the husband filed for divorce — Court held this showed reactive behaviour. |
| FIR / Criminal Proceedings (General Law) | Complaint to police to initiate criminal case. | Wife filed FIR only after divorce was filed. Court said this weakened her allegations. |
| Supreme Court Precedents Cited | — | — |
| V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337 | Defines mental cruelty as behaviour making it impossible to live together. | Used to interpret husband’s cruelty claim. |
| Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 | Cruelty must be judged cumulatively; not incident-wise. | High Court said Family Court erred by isolating incidents. |
| A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur (2005) 2 SCC 22 | False/ belated accusations can amount to mental cruelty. | Applied to wife’s late FIR & allegations. |
| K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226 | Filing false cases = cruelty. | Court said wife’s conduct met this standard. |
| Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558 | Irretrievable breakdown of marriage recognized. | Court held marriage had completely failed. |
| Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73 | Clarifies meaning of “clean hands” under Section 23. | High Court used this to show Family Court made a legal error. |
Case Title: XXX vs. YYY (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 173/2025)
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Bench
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal
- Hon’ble Ms. Justice Renu Bhatnagar
Judgment Reserved On: 10.11.2025
Judgment Pronounced On: 20.11.2025
Appeal Against:
Impugned Judgment dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Family Court dismissing husband’s divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA.
Appellant (Husband):
- Gaurav Dixit
- Counsel: Mr. S.D. Dikshit and Ms. Anu Tyagi
- Appellant present in person.
Respondent (Wife):
- Priyanka Sharma
- Counsel: Name not given (Appearance not provided)
- Respondent present in person.
Key Case Facts
Marriage Date: 01.03.2016
- Husband’s Allegations
- Wife said marriage was against her will & she liked another man.
- Demanded separate home away from his aged parents.
- Threatened suicide when he refused.
- Threw tea on him during a dispute.
- Abused his mother calling her “langdi”.
- Denied physical relations after Oct 2019.
- Threatened false cases.
- Left home on 17.01.2020 with jewellery and did not return.
- Wife’s Allegations
- Dowry harassment.
- Father-in-law tried to molest her.
- Forced out of home.
- Produced NGO ID card & dowry list.
- Filed FIR and 125 CrPC after divorce petition.
- High Court’s Findings
- Husband’s evidence was consistent, stable, and not shaken.
- Wife’s allegations were unsupported, belated and reactive.
- No FIR or complaint before 2021 → credibility doubtful.
- False/ delayed allegations can themselves be cruelty.
- Marriage is broken beyond repair.
- Divorce granted.
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.