|
The Delhi High Court observed that the wife's pregnancy and subsequent miscarriage in 2019 could not wipe away the sustained pattern of mental cruelty she inflicted on her husband, as it granted him a decree of divorce and overturned the Family Court's refusal to do so.
The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Renu Bhatnagar stated that temporary periods of reconciliation cannot overshadow repeated acts of abuse, threats and desertion that persisted throughout the marriage. The High Court found the husband's testimony clear and consistent detailing verbal insults directed at him and his disabled mother, threats of suicide, refusal of conjugal relations, and eventual departure from the matrimonial home without cause. These acts, taken together, amounted to proven mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It faulted the Family Court for examining these events in isolation instead of recognising a sustained pattern of distress. The Bench rejected the wife's allegations of dowry harassment and an attempted molestation by her father-in-law, noting that no complaint, FIR or protective action was filed before the husband initiated the divorce case. All criminal proceedings came only later, which the Court said weakened her claims and suggested they were reactive rather than genuine. The High Court held it was "legally untenable" for the Family Court to rely on the wife's pregnancy to infer normal marital relations. It emphasised that a moment of stability cannot undo earlier or subsequent cruelty, especially when the record showed the abusive behaviour continued even after the miscarriage. The Court also corrected the Family Court's reliance on the "clean hands" doctrine, stressing that it applies only when the petitioner is trying to benefit from his own wrongdoing. Since no evidence established misconduct on the husband's part, the denial of relief on this ground was unsustainable. Noting that the couple has lived separately since January 2020 and has no children, the Bench concluded that the marriage had reached a point where reconciliation was unrealistic--especially after allegations of sexual impropriety were levelled, making coexistence impracticable. The Court set aside the Family Court's judgment and dissolved the marriage solemnised in March 2016, observing that litigation should not prolong the suffering of parties whose relationship has irretrievably broken down. (ANI)
|
