LI Network
Published on: 06 September 2023 at 12:05 IST
The Delhi High Court has emphasized that when evaluating acts of ‘mental cruelty,’ the courts must assess the entirety of a couple’s married life, rather than focusing solely on isolated incidents. In addition, the court stated that the mere filing of an FIR by a wife is insufficient to substantiate allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment without compelling evidence.
This perspective was articulated by a division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna while dismissing the appeal of a wife against a family court’s decision to dissolve her marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty.
In upholding the divorce decree, the bench noted that the parties had wed in 2015, and the wife left the matrimonial home in 2019. Despite reaching a settlement at one point that led to their living separately, their differences persisted, ultimately leading to their separation in 2019.
The court recognized the wife’s allegations of dowry harassment and abuse by her husband and his family members. However, the court determined that none of these claims could be substantiated by evidence.
“In this context, it may be observed that the term [dowry harassment] has been inserted in the Settlement Deed as a mere precaution and in light of lack of any evidence, the same cannot be relied on to prove harassment on account of dowry,” the court stated.
Regarding the wife’s allegation that her brother-in-law had molested her one day when she was alone, the court found that no supporting evidence was presented.
“In conclusion, not only a criminal case under Section 498-A has been filed against the respondent and his family members on the ground of dowry demand, but also allegations of molestation have been made against the brother-in-law, which have not been substantiated in the present case,” the court remarked.
Furthermore, the bench pointed out that even if it were believed that the husband had left the wife at her parents’ house, it was clear that the wife’s conduct had been cruel to the extent that it made it extremely difficult for him to live with her.
“Thus, there exists a cause for such abandonment, and consequently, the respondent cannot be held guilty of desertion,” the bench concluded.
Case Title: PREETI v. VIKAS
