LI Network
Published on: October 31, 2023 at 11:35 IST
The Delhi High Court, in a recent ruling, emphasized that trivial irritations and a loss of trust between married couples should not be misconstrued as mental cruelty.
The court declined to uphold a lower court’s order granting divorce to a husband based on his plea against his wife.
The husband sought a divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty, alleging that his wife had no interest in living with him in their matrimonial home and wanted him to reside at her parental home as a “ghar jamai.” Their marriage took place in 1996, following Hindu customs, and they had a daughter in 1998.
The husband claimed that his wife frequently deserted him and was primarily focused on running her coaching center. He also alleged that she denied him sexual relations.
In response to the wife’s appeal, a bench led by Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva acknowledged that the denial of sex could be regarded as a form of mental cruelty when it is persistent, intentional, and extended over a significant period. However, the court stressed the need for caution when dealing with such a sensitive matter.
The court held that such allegations cannot be substantiated based solely on vague and unspecific claims, particularly when the marriage had been duly consummated. It concluded that the husband had failed to prove mental cruelty and that the situation was merely a case of typical wear and tear in a marital relationship. Additionally, the evidence indicated that the discord was between the wife and her mother-in-law.
The court remarked, “There was nothing to affirmatively suggest that the conduct of the wife was of such a nature that it was no longer possible for her husband to stay with her. The trivial irritations and loss of trust cannot be confused with mental cruelty.”
The court also noted that the wife’s complaint to the police, resulting in an FIR against her husband (who was eventually granted the benefit of the doubt), did not constitute cruelty.
The court’s observation was that while there had been a loss of trust and affection between the parties, they had both made efforts to salvage their family. Merely seeking court redress, like both the husband and wife did, did not amount to cruelty.
Furthermore, the court rejected the husband’s plea for divorce due to an “irretrievable breakdown” of the marriage, asserting that this power resides exclusively with the Supreme Court and cannot be invoked by either party as a matter of right.
In conclusion, the court held that the lower court’s judgment was not sustainable, and it allowed the wife’s appeal, consequently dismissing the husband’s divorce petition.
