LI Network
Published on: December 26, 2023 at 13:42 IST
The Delhi High Court, in a recent ruling, declared that a spouse’s unilateral withdrawal from a mutually agreed divorce settlement amounts to mental cruelty.
The division bench, comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna, referred to judgments from the Supreme Court and various High Courts to emphasize that when spouses agree to divorce by mutual consent, the unilateral withdrawal of consent by one spouse, without any just cause, contributes to the cruelty inflicted upon the other.
The Court stated, “Thus, such conduct of the appellant/wife in driving the respondent to believe that their disputes were about to be put to an end and then to withdraw from the attempted settlement can cause disquiet, cruelty, and uncertainty in the mind of the respondent (husband). It is evident that the fight inter se the parties was not on any justifiable grounds, but was a war between the egos prompted by the desire to wreak vengeance against the spouse. Such unilateral withdrawal from divorce by mutual consent thus, amounted to cruelty.”
This observation came in response to an appeal filed by a woman against a family court order from March 20, 2017, allowing her husband’s plea for divorce on grounds of cruelty.
The couple, married in December 2001, separated after thirteen months in January 2003. Despite initial attempts to reach a mutual divorce settlement, the wife unilaterally withdrew, returning a demand draft of ₹5 lakh that was part of the settlement.
Upon reviewing the case, the High Court noted that the wife’s allegations of her husband’s adulterous relationships lacked concrete proof. The court concluded that the incidents alleged collectively depicted the non-adjusting attitude of the wife, causing mental cruelty to the husband.
“In view of the foregoing discussions, we conclude that there is no infirmity in the Judgment dated 20.03.2017 of the learned Principal Judge granting divorce on the ground of cruelty to the respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,” the Court affirmed.
