The Court also noted that making friends at the workplace or talking to them is not a cruel act or an act of ignoring the wife, particularly when the spouses were living apart due to the nature of their work.
The Delhi High Court has rendered a significant legal pronouncement, asserting that the act of condoning a spouse’s extramarital or intimate affair cannot subsequently be deemed an act of cruelty within the purview of divorce proceedings.
In the specific case before it, the Court conducted a thorough examination and determined that the wife had unequivocally expressed her intention to sustain the matrimonial relationship with her husband, despite the occurrence of the aforementioned extramarital affair.
Consequently, the Court judicially concluded that the aforementioned extramarital affair could not be legally construed as constituting an act of cruelty toward the wife within the context of the ongoing divorce proceedings.
“It has been rightly concluded … that it was an act which was condoned by the appellant who despite this episode, had expressed her willingness to continue to reside with the respondent. Once an act which lasted for a short while had been condoned, it cannot be taken as an act of cruelty while deciding the petition for divorce,” the Court observed.
A divisional bench presided over by Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna additionally opined that the outcome may have diverged had this illicit association constituted a pivotal turning point in the conjugal relationship between the husband and wife.
Nonetheless, in this specific case, despite a brief extramarital liaison that transpired over a decade ago, causing some turbulence, the Court’s examination concluded that the marital partners effectively navigated these challenges.
Moreover, the Court underscored that the establishment of workplace acquaintanceships or professional discourse should not be adjudged as acts of cruelty or marital neglect, particularly in circumstances where the spouses resided separately due to the exigencies of their respective vocations.
“A person who is essentially living alone, may find solace by having friends and merely because he used to talk to his friends, it can neither be held to be an act of ignoring the appellant (wife) nor a cruel act. It has to be appreciated that both the parties having been essentially living separately because of their work exigencies, were bound to make friends at their place of work and otherwise; and such friendships without anything more, cannot be termed as cruelty,” the Court observed.
The Court emphasized that, in disputes between parents, it is imperative not to isolate or exploit children as tools of conflict.
These observations were made within the context of a legal appeal filed by a woman challenging a family court’s decision to grant her husband a divorce based on allegations of desertion and cruelty.
The husband, who identified himself as an Indian Army officer, informed the Court that his official duties necessitated his frequent postings to various locations. He contended that the relationship with his wife had deteriorated due to her aloof demeanor. He asserted that his wife rarely engaged in communication with him, leading to profound frustration and emotional distress.
The husband further argued that, in an attempt to shift blame onto him, his wife had lodged unfounded and baseless complaints with the Commanding Officer, Family Welfare Organization, and the Army Headquarters, accusing him of desertion and making “groundless, frivolous, and false allegations.”
In contrast, the wife maintained that her husband had maintained an extramarital relationship and was attempting to exploit his own misconduct as grounds for divorcing her. She refuted the allegations made by her husband and contended that he only visited her briefly during his annual leaves and holidays, during which time he subjected her to physical and mental cruelty.
The Court deliberated on the case and determined that the wife had, in fact, exhibited cruelty toward the husband by estranging their sole daughter and by filing multiple complaints against the husband with his superiors.
“Once vindictiveness has crept in and the appellant had marched on to the war path and filed not only complaints in the Department but also initiated various civil/legal cases since 2011, i.e., for about 12 years and has even alienated the daughter from the respondent, it leads to irresistible conclusion that various acts of cruelty have been committed towards the respondent (husband),” the Court said.
The Court, however, said that no grounds of desertion were made out in the case.
“The divorce was also granted on the ground of desertion, but from the above discussion, it is evident that the things had gone to an extent where neither the appellant nor the respondent were in a position to restore their marital ties. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that it was a case of desertion by the wife for a period of more than two years from the date of separation ie July, 2011 onwards,” the Court observed.
The Court, therefore, proceeded to uphold the divorce decree on the ground of cruelty alone.
