"Wife Filed Unsubstantiated Criminal Complaint Against Husband, His Family Causing Immense Mental Cruelty": Delhi HC Dissolves Marriage

The Delhi High Court has dissolved marriage between a couple living separately for 12 years taking note of the fact that the wife had filed an unsubstantiated criminal complaint against the husband and his family members which caused them immense mental cruelty and agony.

Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh dissolved the marriage by decree of divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Bench was of the view that there was no chance of reconciliation between the parties and that the marriage was irretrievably broken down. It also noted that no useful purpose would be served by maintaining the matrimonial bond and the insistence to continue the relationship would only be inflicting further cruelty upon both the parties.

"The marital discord between the parties at present is such that there is a complete loss of faith, trust, understanding and love between the parties. The conduct of the Respondent (wife) has been such as to cause great mental anguish to the Appellant (husband), and the parties cannot be reasonably expected to live with each other anymore," the Court noted.

The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court whereby the petition seeking divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the appellant husband, was dismissed.

The Court was of the view that the conduct of the appellant showed that, at least, till the time he filed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, he wanted to make the marriage work. However, it noted that the wife did not resume cohabitation or join husband in the matrimonial relationship.

"Rather, the respondent filed a complaint before the CAW cell alleging dowry demand, threat to life, and harassment at the hands of the appellant and his family members. The same allegations were reiterated in the reply to the section 9 petition, where the CAW cell complaint was also annexed. The respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955," the Court noted.

The Court said that the conduct of the wife not only demonstrated a clear intention on her part to desert the husband, but also her lack of sensitivity to the physical and emotional needs of the husband.

The Court said "After nearly two years of leaving the matrimonial home, and three years of the marriage, the respondent filed a complaint on 10.10.2011 before the CAW Cell, Krishna Nagar, Delhi against the Appellant and his family members, alleging dowry demands, abuse, physical and mental torture and harassment, amongst other cruelties. These allegations remained unsubstantiated."

The Court was of the view that the allegations were not established and the same amount to a clear and categorical character assassination of the husband as well as his family members.

Observing that the Family Court ignored the said aspect of the matter, the Court said:

"Moreover, the appellant had to make 30-40 visits to the police station in connection with the said complaint. A police station is not the best of places for anyone to visit. It must have caused mental harassment and trauma each time he was required to visit the police station, with the Damocles Sword hanging over his head, and he not knowing when a case would be registered against him and he would be arrested. So far as the respondent is concerned, she had done everything to get the appellant and his family entrapped in the criminal case. That was also her prayer in her complaint."

Furthermore, the Court also said that the wife could not justify not returning to the matrimonial home, and her refusal to cohabitate with the husband was sufficient to establish desertion by her.

"In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the appellant has been able to make out a case of being subjected to cruelty and desertion at the hands of the respondent. We are unable to agree with the findings of the Family Court. That the appellant is entitled to succeed on both the grounds i.e. Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib)," the Court held.

Accordingly, the plea was disposed of.

Advocates Sumeet Verma and Mahinder Pratap Singh appeared for the appellant whereas Advocate Pratyush Chirantam appeared for the respondent.

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 192

Click Here To Read Order