Delhi High Court affirms divorce, holding that a wife’s persistent efforts to separate her husband from his parents constitute mental cruelty, highlighting parental alienation and public humiliation as key grounds.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court recently affirmed a divorce decree granted to a husband, holding that a wife’s persistent attempts to compel her husband to separate from his parents constituted mental cruelty. A Division Bench of Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar emphasized that public humiliation, parental alienation, and abuse of judicial processes can justify the dissolution of a marriage.
Background of the Case
The couple, married on March 27, 2007, had a son born in January 2008. The husband filed for divorce, citing a pattern of behavior by his wife that caused him severe mental agony. According to the petition, the wife consistently pressured him to live separately from his mother and sister and demanded partition of the family property.
He alleged that she misbehaved with his family, created scenes at social and professional gatherings, and neglected household duties. Specific incidents included:
- Performing a religious ceremony at her Guruji’s place in May 2007 caused embarrassment.
- Conducting the child’s Mundan ceremony against family traditions.
- Publicly berating him at his workplace in May 2009.
- Repeatedly calling the police to their home during domestic disputes in 2011.
- Denying him and his family access to their child after leaving the matrimonial home.
The wife, however, claimed she was the one subjected to harassment and humiliation by her in-laws. She stated that absences from the home were due to medical reasons and that she had made attempts to save the marriage through counseling and restitution of conjugal rights.
Family Court Findings
The Family Court, after reviewing evidence, found the husband’s and his sister’s testimonies credible. The wife’s repeated failure to appear for cross-examination led the court to reject her affidavit. The court concluded that the husband had successfully proven cruelty and granted the divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
High Court Analysis
The High Court examined two key issues: whether the wife’s conduct amounted to cruelty, and whether principles of natural justice were violated.
1. On the Issue of Cruelty
The Court highlighted multiple acts constituting mental cruelty:
- Pressure to Separate from Family: The bench cited the Supreme Court in Narendra v. K. Meena, noting that while a desire to live separately is not cruelty, persistent efforts to force separation can be “torturous for the husband.”
- Public Humiliation: Referring to A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, the Court stated that “a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty.”
- False Police Complaints: The Court emphasized repeated police complaints as acts of cruelty, citing K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, which described such behavior as a “vindictive mind” causing “extreme mental cruelty.”
- Parental Alienation: Denying the husband access to their child was deemed an “extreme act of cruelty” by the Court, quoting Kanwal Kishore Girdhar v. Seema Girdhar.
2. On Principles of Natural Justice
The High Court rejected the wife’s claim of being denied a fair hearing, citing the multiple “last and final” opportunities she failed to utilize. The Court also criticized the decade-long delay in the case, invoking Section 21B of the Hindu Marriage Act and Supreme Court judgments:
“Procrastination is ‘the greatest assassin’ of matrimonial litigation, breeding bitterness, emotional fragmentation, and aggravating the suffering of parties.”
The bench concluded that the wife’s conduct reflected “gross indifference and amounts to misuse of the judicial process.”
Decision:
The Delhi High Court dismissed the wife’s appeal, affirming the Family Court’s judgment. It held that the dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty “warrants no interference and merits affirmation.”
Case Title:
PUJA PASRICHA versus AISHWARYA PASRICHA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 138/2023 & CM APPL. 68819/2024
Read Judgment:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Cruelty
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Divorce
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
