Raising Voice Against Alleged Cruelty Does Not Mean Complainant Is Not Interested In Continuing With Marriage: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that raising a voice against alleged cruelty does not, in any way, indicate that the complainant is not interested in continuing with the marriage or is not ready to adjust.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that what is important is whether the allegations leveled are premised upon facts or concocted.

“There is no doubt that there can be regular fights between the couple which are normal wear and tear of the married life, but certainly there is fine thin line which has to be taken care of so that parties not only respect each other socially but also do not misbehave with the near and dear ones of the spouses,” the bench said.

The court made the observations while granting divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It concluded that he was subjected to cruelty during his matrimonial life.

The couple got married in 1990 and a boy was born out of the wedlock next year. The wife alleged that they were both minors at the time of marriage and that even then her father-in-law, who was an active politician and Member of Parliament, committed a crime by arranging their marriage.

She further alleged that it was the husband who was keen to marry her and had forced her to marry him in the Arya Samaj Mandir, without informing anyone.

The bench observed that even though the wife had asserted that the husband's father was an influential Member of Parliament, nothing stopped her from taking recourse to the law if any grievance persisted during the period she stayed in India.

On the family court's finding that by not filing a complaint, the wife asserted that she was willing to make the marriage work, the bench said:

“In our considered opinion, raising a voice against alleged cruelty in any matrimonial relationship does not in any way indicate that the complainant is not interested in continuing with the matrimonial bond or is not ready to adjust.”

The court further said that the husband's family had in no way, tried to disturb the married life of the parties but made an effort to settle them gracefully, and thus, the wife's allegation that there were disputes since the day of their marriage due to interference of husband's family were borne out from the record.

It also said that even if it is assumed that the husband was in a relationship with another woman, it cannot be ignored that the parties had been living separately since 2004 and the wife did not make any effort to reconcile the dispute or show any willingness to resume her matrimonial relationship.

“In light of the above discussion, this Court finds that even though the incidents narrated by the appellant do not implicate the respondent if viewed in isolation, but altogether demonstrate her non adjusting attitude, due to which appellant had to suffer public humiliation and thereby, suffered mental cruelty,” the court said.

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 196