The Delhi High Court emphasized that cruelty emerges when a couple is deprived of the essential companionship necessary for a flourishing marriage, highlighting the unsustainable nature of such circumstances. Specifically, the act of withholding a conjugal relationship was identified as an exceptionally cruel behavior.
In line with Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), the Court granted a divorce decree to the husband. The underlying rationale for this decision was rooted in the understanding that a concluded relationship brings about only anguish and suffering, and permitting its continuation would amount to mental cruelty. The court stressed that prolonged legal disputes aimed at preserving marital ties only serve to escalate cruelty and bitterness.
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 acted as the legal representative for the appellant, while Advocate Stuti Gupta represented the respondent. The couple entered into marriage in 1998 and had two children. The husband alleged that his wife, described as greedy, quarrelsome, and jealous, frequently demanded substantial sums for personal needs. Despite fulfilling marital duties, the wife reportedly mistreated his widowed mother, prompting 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).
After scrutinizing the evidence, the Family Court found no specific instance of cruelty proven by the husband. Consequently, it concluded that he failed to establish cruelty, leading to 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, constituting 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.
