Wife's Request For Financial Support From Husband Not Cruelty: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's request for financial support from her husband cannot be termed as an act of cruelty.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that though the aggrieved person is entitled to avail the remedy under laws, but crossing the point of “no return” becomes inevitable once the spouses get engulfed in the “rabbit hole of criminal litigations.”

“The bullets of unjustified accusations and complaints cause such fatal wounds, leading to unendurable mental and physical acrimony, making it impossible for the spouses to live together,” the court said.

The bench made the observations while granting divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty by the wife under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The parties got married in 2010 after three years of courtship. After living together for 46 days, the husband, who was in Indian Army, joined his posting in Kargil.

The wife had alleged that the husband's parents expected dowry considering that she was a Punjabi and there was a culture of lot of dowry being given in their marriage. On the other hand, the husband alleged that the wife used to abuse him physically and financially and that because of her adamant conduct, all his efforts to make the marriage work had gone in vain.

Granting relief to the husband, the court said that from the wife's testimony it emerged that she was unhappy with the conduct of the husband's parents which she even found demanding and oppressive.

“However, except bald assertions, there is no evidence led by her to corroborate her assertion,” the court said.

However, the court said that the wife's stand that an ambition of a woman to have a house of her own, cannot be considered as a sin.

It said that when two people get married they intend to build their nest and a life where they can celebrate their joys and share the sorrows together and therefore, looking for support from her husband during the courtship and later for being able to buy a flat, cannot be termed as unreasonable.

“The desire and endeavour of the respondent/wife to make an effort to buy the house for which she sought the support from her husband, cannot by any interpretation, be considered either as a greed or unjust demand from her husband. In no way, can her request for financial support from her own husband be termed as an act of cruelty,” the court said.

The bench observed that there was overwhelming evidence to establish that disgruntled by a failed marriage for lack of adjustment between the parties and their respective families, the wife resorted to all acts of making false allegations and complaints only to bring the husband to his knees and to ruin his career.

“The explanation of the wife that the complaints were made in order to protect the marital ties, cannot by any standard considered a reasonable explanation to justify her persistent efforts to undermine the dignity of the husband. In such circumstances, the wronged party cannot be expected to continue the matrimonial relationship and there is enough justification for separation,” the court said.

It added that there was no chance of reconciliation between the parties and such long separation peppered with false allegations, Police reports and criminal complaints could only be termed as mental cruelty.

“This dead relationship has become infested with acrimony, irreconcilable differences and protracted litigations; any insistence to continue this relationship would only be perpetuating further cruelty upon both the parties,” the court said.

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 276

Click Here To Read Order