The Delhi High Court has opined that the act of establishing friendships, whether at the workplace or elsewhere, by individuals, including married couples, during periods of separate residence due to vocational obligations, does not per se constitute cruelty.
The Court has articulated that a person living in solitude may seek solace in forming friendships, and the mere act of engaging in conversational exchanges with friends should not be construed as a deliberate act of neglect towards one\’s spouse or as an act of cruelty. This pronouncement was rendered within the context of a case wherein a wife was appealing against a family court\’s decree of divorce issued in favor of her husband on grounds of desertion and cruelty.
The husband, an Army Officer, contended that the nature of his profession necessitated frequent relocations, and the wife displayed no inclination to accompany him to his duty stations. Following their nuptials, she initially resided with him and his family; subsequently, she relocated to reside with her own parents.
The wife alleged that her husband harbored no intent to maintain a matrimonial relationship with her and intentionally abstained from applying for family accommodation during his posting in Kasauli.
In response to the wife\’s assertion that her husband would become distant and preoccupied with telephone conversations with friends, both male and female, during her visits, the Court pronounced the following.
“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 bench partly modified the impugned order and set aside the divorce granted on the ground of desertion but, it upheld it on the ground of cruelty by wife.
On wife’s allegation that the husband was in a habit of consuming alcohol daily, the court said,
“Merely because a person consumes alcohol daily, does not make him an alcoholic nor does it add up to a bad character especially when there is no other incident asserted to have happened on account of consumption of alcohol by the respondent.”
Moreover, the wife levied allegations that the husband was engaged in an illicit relationship with another woman. In response, the court duly recorded the wife\’s testimony during her cross-examination, wherein she indicated her preparedness to cohabitate with the husband, notwithstanding his alleged proclivity for excessive alcohol consumption, chain smoking, and purported involvement with a third party.
“She, thus, acquiesced to this brief escapade of respondent and the appellant cannot claim advantage under Section 23 (1) (a) of the Act, 1955 as it cannot be held that the respondent is taking advantage of his own wrong,” the court said.
It added, “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 things could have been different had it been a turning point in the relations between the parties which otherwise also were not too platonic.”
Additionally, the bench asserted that the minor child had experienced complete estrangement and had been utilized as a weapon by the wife against the father.
The court made a poignant observation regarding the profound distress a parent endures when witnessing their child\’s increasing alienation and hostility towards the other parent. It took cognizance of the father\’s consistent fulfillment of his parental duties, encompassing financial support for the child\’s education and other necessities, as well as the provision of relevant military benefits as per eligibility.
“The learned Principal Judge, Family Courts has, therefore, rightly concluded that such child alienation is an extreme act of mental cruelty towards a father who has never shown any neglect for the child,” the court said.
It added, “Once vindictiveness has crept in and the appellant had marched on to the war path filed 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.”
