The Delhi High Court has upheld the grant of divorce in favour of a husband on the grounds of cruelty inflicted by his wife, ruling that her persistent quarrelsome behaviour, opposition to his financial support of his parents, continued discord even after the couple shifted to a separate residence, and denial of marital relations collectively constitute legal cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar dismissed the appeal filed by the wife challenging the family court’s decree dissolving her marriage. The husband had initiated divorce proceedings, alleging that from the outset of the marriage, his wife engaged in frequent quarrels with him and his parents, objected to his remittances to his parents, and separated the kitchen in their joint family home in Narnaul.
The Bench noted that despite the couple’s subsequent relocation to Delhi, the wife’s conduct did not improve. She continued to frequently quarrel with her husband, refused to cook food for him, and on one occasion in January 2012, misbehaved with him in the presence of his friend. Furthermore, she kept her room in the matrimonial home in Narnaul locked even after moving to Delhi, causing inconvenience to her in-laws.
The wife, in her defence, alleged that her husband abused and beat her, pressured her to transfer a flat in his name, maintained an extra-marital relationship with a colleague, returned home intoxicated, purchased a house in his lover’s name, and sold her jewellery while taking away Rs. 1.5 lakh in cash.
The Court, however, found no substance in the allegations of extra-marital relations. It observed that such claims, being of a serious nature, require stringent proof and were raised only after the wife received notice of the divorce petition. The Bench agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that these allegations were an afterthought and a counterblast to the divorce proceedings, lacking credible evidence.
On the contrary, the Court found merit in the husband’s contention that the wife had locked her room in the joint family residence with the intent to harass her in-laws. It held that this act, coupled with her persistent refusal to integrate into the family and her continued hostility, amounted to cruelty. The Bench emphasised that had there been a genuine change in her behaviour after shifting to Delhi, it might have alleviated the strain on the marital relationship.
The Court further stated, ‘Therefore, we hold that the behaviour of setting up a separate kitchen and total separation from the joint family by shifting to Delhi was not a normal act of the appellant. Rather, the same were acts of cruelty.’ It concluded that the cruelty initiated by the wife began at the start of the marriage and persisted until the filing of the divorce petition and beyond.
Recognising that an aggrieved spouse cannot be expected to maintain a detailed record of every incident, the Bench held that the husband had presented sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims of cruelty. The cumulative effect of the wife’s conduct—her quarrels, opposition to filial duties, denial of conjugal rights, and acts aimed at harassing in-laws—was sufficient to justify the grant of divorce.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s findings, dismissing the wife’s appeal and upholding the divorce decree granted to the husband on the ground of cruelty.