The Delhi High Court upheld a decree of divorce in favour of the husband, reiterating that prolonged denial of marital relations, repeated false criminal complaints, parental alienation, and sustained neglect of marital duties amount to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Brief Facts of the Case
- Marriage solemnised in 1990; a son, Rahul, born in 1997.
- Husband alleged persistent cruelty: wife refused to stay in joint family, left for parental home repeatedly, denied conjugal relations since 2008, humiliated him publicly, and assaulted his family members.
- He further alleged she demanded transfer of property and, upon refusal, threatened false criminal cases.
- Wife later filed multiple FIRs (2010, 2011, 2015) alleging assault, dowry harassment, and molestation, but all were instituted after the husband filed for divorce in 2009.
- The Family Court granted divorce in 2021; wife appealed.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce on the ground of cruelty.
- Section 19, Family Courts Act, 1984 – Appeal provision.
Principles from Supreme Court precedents: Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit, Vidhya Viswanathan v. Kartik Balakrishnan, Srinivas v. K. Sunita on mental cruelty and false cases.
Arguments
Appellant-Wife
- Family Court relied on evidence beyond pleadings.
- Alleged she was the victim of cruelty, not the perpetrator.
- Denial of marital relations was due to husband’s own conduct.
- FIRs were genuine complaints, not retaliatory.
Respondent-Husband
- Wife withdrew from marital intimacy since Karwa Chauth 2008, amounting to cruelty.
- She demanded transfer of property and threatened false cases when refused.
- Multiple FIRs filed only after his divorce petition—clear counterblast.
- Testimony consistent and credible; her conduct showed continuous cruelty.
Court’s Observations
- Admission by wife: She herself accepted no marital relations since 2008 and stopped Karwa Chauth fast after that year.
- False complaints: All FIRs were filed after divorce petition—indicative of misuse of law.
- Parental alienation: Husband’s access to child systematically frustrated, causing deep emotional pain—recognised as mental cruelty.
- Neglect of in-laws: Wife showed indifference towards aged mother-in-law’s health; another instance of cruelty.
Conclusion: Persistent denial of conjugal life, false criminal cases, alienation of child, and lack of marital responsibilities cumulatively establish cruelty.
The Court affirmed the Family Court decree, dismissing the wife’s appeal.
Conclusion of the Judgment
The High Court held that the husband was subjected to sustained mental cruelty and upheld the decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA.
Criticism from My Standpoint
Reading through this judgment, I cannot help but reflect on how men are often trapped in marriages where their dignity, emotions, and even basic rights are trampled upon without anyone batting an eye. What strikes me most is how the wife in this case not only denied marital intimacy for over a decade but also used the child as a tool of control. Imagine the pain of a father who is alive, willing, and financially supporting his child, yet is systematically alienated and made to feel like a stranger. That kind of cruelty cuts deeper than any physical wound.
What makes it worse is the cycle of false criminal complaints. Time and again, we see FIRs filed as soon as a man seeks justice through divorce. These complaints are rarely about genuine grievances—they are weapons, aimed at destroying reputations, careers, and entire families. It is not just the husband who suffers; his parents, often elderly, are dragged into endless litigation. That is not justice—it is abuse of the very laws meant to prevent injustice.
Another disturbing element is the complete disregard for in-laws. Marriage, in our cultural and legal sense, is not only about two individuals but also about respecting and caring for family bonds. To see a woman openly indifferent towards her ailing mother-in-law, while simultaneously demanding property in her name, shows how entitlement can replace responsibility.
Final Thoughts
This judgment is important because it finally calls out behaviours that society has long normalised when done against men. Denial of intimacy, humiliation, misuse of law, alienation of children—these are not trivial issues. They are life-shattering. For too long, such realities have been dismissed as “ordinary wear and tear of marriage.” The court here has drawn a line, recognising that cruelty is cruelty, no matter the gender.
For me, this case stands as a reminder that silence is not an option. Men must speak, question, and demand fairness. Because when law acknowledges truth, it does not just free one man—it gives courage to thousands who are still suffering in silence.
Read Complete Judgement Here