NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has handed down a definitive ruling: a wife’s actions constituting cruelty against her husband are not excused merely by the fact of a pregnancy or a brief period of reconciliation.
A Division Bench presided over by Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Renu Bhatnagar granted the husband’s divorce petition based on mental cruelty (Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955). This pivotal decision effectively overturned the Family Court’s 2025 judgment.
By highlighting the lower court’s false presumption of marital harmony, the High Court was critical of it. The Family Court incorrectly cited the wife’s early 2019 miscarriage as evidence of harmony, failing to consider the cumulative severity of her ongoing abusive behavior. Crucially, the Bench stated that “the occurrence of pregnancy or temporary reconciliation cannot erase previous acts of cruelty.” This is especially true when, as the record clearly shows, the wife’s abusive behavior, threats, and refusal to cohabit continued even after the temporary respite.
The Marital Breakdown
The couple wed on March 1, 2016. However, the marital relationship quickly soured, leading the husband to file for divorce in March 2021, citing unrelenting mental cruelty.
His petition painted a picture of distress: he claimed the wife had declared soon after the wedding that she was unwillingly married and held affection for another man. She allegedly subjected him and his physically disabled mother to repeated humiliation and issued continuous suicide threats. Furthermore, he alleged she aggressively demanded he cut off all contact with his parents and purchase a new home solely in her name. The separation was cemented in 2019 when she reportedly refused cohabitation, followed by persistent threats to lodge false criminal charges. She finally abandoned the marital residence on January 17, 2020, taking all personal items and jewelry.
The wife, in her counterclaim, repudiated all allegations of cruelty. Instead, she claimed she had suffered dowry demands and harassment. In an unexpected turn, she accused her husband’s father of attempting molestation. The High Court emphasized that, in light of the serious nature of these allegations, it was noteworthy that no complaint or FIR had been lodged at the time of the purported incidents. It was only after the husband filed for divorce that any criminal action was pursued, raising doubts about the credibility and timing of her claims.
Key aspects of the judgment:
- Severity of allegations: the court determined that the molestation accusation against the father-in-law was profoundly damaging sufficient to shutter the possibility of any future marital life irrespective of whether the claim was proven true or not.
- Mental cruelty is established: a combination of sustained verbal reviews refusal to cohabit, desertion, and the persistent threat of filing false criminal cases provided ample evidence to establish mental cruelty
- Credibility issue: the wife’s overall credibility was serious play demolished by the tardiness of the fir and the dowry claim, which surfaced only as a defence of following the initiation of the divorce petition a relative
- Irretrievable breakdown: recognizing the couple had lived apart since January 2020, the court found no prospect of reconciliation. This led the bench to conclude the marriage had irretrievably broken down, culminating in the decree of divorce.
The High Court thus dissolve the marriage, setting aside the family For an early ruling, finally, the bench strongly advised both farmers to maintain civility throughout any subsequent proceeding against maintenance or other ancillary matrimonial issues.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
I am Nishu Lamba, a law graduate and a growing legal writer. I am building my career as a corporate lawyer with my skills in contract drafting and legal research. Through my writing, I aim to make legal topics clear and easy to understand for readers.