The Delhi High Court asserted that cruelty arises when a couple is denied the companionship vital for a thriving marriage, emphasizing the unsustainable nature of such conditions. Withholding a conjugal relationship was specifically identified as an exceedingly cruel act.
In accordance with Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), the Court awarded a divorce decree to the husband. The rationale behind this decision rested on the recognition that a concluded relationship brings only anguish and suffering, and allowing its continuation would constitute mental cruelty. The court underscored that prolonged legal disputes aimed at preserving marital ties only serve to intensify cruelty and acrimony.
A Division Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Suresh Kumar Kait observed “It needs no reiteration that the bedrock of any matrimonial relationship is cohabitation and conjugal relationship. For a couple to be deprived of each other’s company, proves that the marriage cannot survive, and such deprivation of conjugal relationship is an act of extreme cruelty.”
Advocate Pankaj Pandey served as the legal representative for the appellant, while Advocate Stuti Gupta represented the respondent. The couple entered into matrimony in 1998 and had two children. The husband alleged that his wife, characterized as greedy, quarrelsome, and jealous, frequently demanded significant sums for personal needs. Despite fulfilling marital duties, the wife purportedly mistreated his widowed mother, leading her to leave the house for extended periods. The husband also claimed instances of the wife leaving the matrimonial home without valid reasons. In response, the wife denied these allegations, attributing her departure to domestic violence and asserting cruelty and abuse by her husband. She sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
The Family Court, after examining the evidence, found no specific instance of cruelty proven by the husband. Consequently, it concluded that he failed to establish cruelty, resulting in the dismissal of the divorce petition. Dissatisfied with this decision, the husband filed an appeal, arguing that the wife’s intolerance towards his mother was the primary cause of marital discord. He contended that the wife’s persistent stress and trauma created a hostile environment, amounting to cruelty.
Citing the precedent of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, the Court asserted that a prolonged period of continuous separation could lead to the irreparable breakdown of the matrimonial bond, constituting mental cruelty. Observing that the wife’s actions over the years amounted to mental cruelty, the Court granted the husband’s appeal, approving the divorce.
You May Also Like:
How Indian Courts Define A Married Woman’s Rightful Place 
Hindu Marriage Act 1955 Wife’s 498A complaint costs advocate husband judge post 
The Delhi High Court Pronounces that a Wife’s Prior Acknowledgment of Her Husband’s Extramarital Affair Does Not Constitute Grounds for Alleging Cruelty in a Divorce Case