Deprivation Of Conjugal Relationship ‘Extreme Cruelty’: Delhi High Court Allows Husband's Plea For Divorce

The Delhi High Court has observed that for a married couple to be deprived of the conjugal relationship and of each other’s company is an act of extreme cruelty.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a family court order granting divorce to a husband under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, on the ground of cruelty by wife.

While dismissing the wife’s appeal, the court observed that the parties, who got married in 2012, were unable to sustain their marriage as they were only able to live together barely for ten months and have been living separately thereafter.

“For a couple to be deprived of each other’s company and of conjugal relationship, is an act of extreme cruelty,” the court said.

It added that there were differences between the parties and that efforts were being made between their families every month to reconcile them.

“The issues may apparently appear to be normal wear and tear of marital life, but the fact remains that the appellant was unable to adjust in matrimonial life, leading to day to day differences and thereby creating an element of dissatisfaction and apprehension in the mind of the respondent (husband),” the court said.

It added, “The differences between the parties may have been on small issues, but it is clearly evident that they continued to persist and could not be resolved despite all efforts. These incidents when considered individually may be termed as ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life but their consistent persistence for months with no solution despite efforts can only be termed as creating mistrust, unhappiness and uncertainty in the matrimonial relationship leading to mental trauma.”

Furthermore, the court observed that the husband, whether at home or work, was constantly apprehensive if things would be alright at the house or would he face some adverse incident.

The bench said that such “lingering disquiet” in the mind of a person not only deprives the individual of mental peace but is also a constant source of mental agony and trauma.

The court also said that the wife’s act of locking herself in the room was the ultimate act to reinforce the husband’s apprehension that she may get him involved in false cases.

“In every matrimonial relationship, the parties look for companionship, sharing mutual confidence and cohesiveness, but such kind of life permeated by all pervasive fear of false implication cannot in any way nurture a matrimonial relationship; the acts of appellant (wife) would certainly amount to cruelty,” the court said.

Advocates Sahil Garg, Shikhar Singhal and Prageet appeared for the appellant.

Advocate Rachit appeared for respondent.

Case Title: X v. Y

Citation:2023 LiveLaw (Del) 932

Click Here To Read Order