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 judicially determined that in the context of divorce proceedings, the condonation or acceptance by one spouse of their counterpart\’s extramarital indiscretions precludes subsequent classification of such conduct as an instance of cruelty.
Within the specific case adjudicated, the Court duly ascertained that the wife had voluntarily elected to persist in the matrimonial alliance, notwithstanding the occurrence of the aforementioned extramarital affair.
Consequently, the Court\’s pronouncement posits that, within the purview of divorce proceedings, the characterization of said affair as cruelty towards the wife would lack legal substantiation.
“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 panel composed of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna expounded that a different disposition could have ensued had the extramarital relationship in question been a pivotal juncture fundamentally altering the marital relationship between the husband and wife.
However, within the specific case, notwithstanding a transitory extramarital intimate involvement transpiring over a decade ago, the Court concluded that the spouses effectively surmounted the associated turbulence.
Moreover, the Court took cognizance of the principle that cultivating professional relationships or engaging in occupational dialogues should not be construed as acts of cruelty or neglect toward the wife, particularly in the context where the spouses\’ physical separation was necessitated by 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 made a significant point that children should not be estranged or manipulated in disputes between parents.
These remarks were delivered while the Court was addressing an appeal filed by a woman who was challenging a family court\’s decision to grant her husband a divorce based on claims of desertion and cruelty.
The husband, an officer in the Indian Army, informed the Court that his official responsibilities required him to be posted in different locations, which had strained his relationship with his wife due to her apparent indifference. He stated that she rarely engaged in conversation with him, causing him considerable frustration and emotional distress.
Additionally, the husband argued that his wife had sought to shift blame onto him by filing unfounded and false complaints with his Commanding Officer, the Family Welfare Organization, and the Army Headquarters, accusing him of desertion and abandonment.
Conversely, the wife contended that her husband had engaged in an extramarital relationship and was exploiting his own wrongdoing as a pretext for pursuing a divorce. She refuted her husband\’s allegations and claimed that he only made brief visits during his annual holidays and leaves, during which time he subjected her to physical and psychological abuse.
After thorough consideration, the Court determined that the wife had, indeed, acted cruelly by alienating their only daughter and lodging multiple complaints against her 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.
