Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 04.09.2025
Judgment pronounced on: 19.09.2025
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 & CM APPL. 4523/2022 (Stay)
DHAN VATI @ DHANNO .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Rathi, Advocate.
versus
SATISH KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sudhir Tewatia, Mr. Sahil
Gandhi, Mr. Aman Gahlot,
Ms. Himani Verma, Ms. Kavya
and Mr. Vivek, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
JUDGMENT
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family
Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1 2
1955 , assailing Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2021 passed by
the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Tis Hazari Courts
3
(West), Delhi , in the matter titled “Sh. Satish Kumar vs. Smt. Dhan
Vati @ Dhanno” , arising out of HMA Petition No. 526/2009 (which
was subsequently renumbered as 329/2014, and later 590661/2016).
1
HMA
2
Impugned Judgement
3
Family Court
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 1 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
2. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Family Court allowed
the petition filed by the Respondent-Husband and granted a decree of
divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, on the ground of cruelty,
thereby dissolving the marriage as against the Appellant-Wife and in
favour of the Respondent-Husband.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as pleaded by the parties
and relevant for the present Appeal, are as follows: -
a. The marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent was
solemnized on 03.03.1990 according to Hindu rites and
ceremonies. Out of wedlock, a son, Rahul, was born on
03.10.1997.
b. The Respondent-Husband alleged that the Appellant‟s conduct
during the subsistence of marriage was persistently cruel.
According to him, the Appellant was unwilling to reside in a
joint family and would frequently leave the matrimonial home
without his consent, staying at her parental house for prolonged
periods. On several occasions, it became necessary to seek the
intervention of panchayats to persuade her to return to the
matrimonial home.
c. The Respondent further claimed that from the year 2008,
particularly after Karwa Chauth of that year, the Appellant
withdrew from marital relations, declined to cohabit as husband
and wife, and subjected him to humiliation and indignity. It was
alleged that the Appellant often misbehaved in an abusive and
degrading manner, including throwing footwear at him,
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 2 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
compelling him to perform household chores, and once slapping
his mother.
d. The Respondent-Husband also asserted that the Appellant
pressurized him and his family to transfer property in her
favour, and upon their refusal, she not only declined to
discharge her conjugal obligations but also threatened to
implicate them in false criminal cases. Additionally, she
allegedly showed indifference towards his family, displaying no
concern for the health and well-being of his parents and failing
to maintain cordial relations with them.
e. On these allegations, the Respondent instituted a petition under
Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, seeking dissolution of marriage
on the ground of cruelty. He further highlighted that although
the Appellant had not made any police complaints prior to
2008, she initiated multiple criminal proceedings after the filing
of his divorce petition in 2009. Specifically, she lodged First
4
Information Reports - namely FIR No. 118/2010 (under
5
Sections 323/354/506/34 of the IPC ), FIR No. 110/2011
(under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC), and FIR No. 89/2015
(under Sections 354A/506/509 of the IPC) against him and his
family members.
f. According to the Respondent, these FIRs were retaliatory in
nature, filed as a counterblast to the divorce proceedings, and
intended solely to harass him and his family.
g. The learned Family Court, vide the Impugned Judgment,
accepted the Respondent‟s version and held that the Appellant
4
FIR
5
Indian Penal Code
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 3 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
had withdrawn from marital relations since 2008 without any
just cause, had frequently stayed away from the matrimonial
home, and had filed multiple criminal complaints only after the
institution of the divorce petition. The learned Family Court
concluded that these circumstances, taken cumulatively,
constituted cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of
the HMA, and accordingly granted a decree of divorce.
h. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Appellant-Wife has
preferred the present appeal, contending, inter alia , that the
learned Family Court erred in relying upon evidence beyond the
scope of pleadings, that the allegations of cruelty and denial of
sexual intercourse were unsubstantiated, and that the FIRs
lodged by her were genuine complaints of harassment rather
than retaliatory measures.
APPELLANT-WIFE’S SUBMISSIONS:
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would commence the
submissions by contending that although several grounds have been
raised in the appeal, the principal ground urged is that the decree of
divorce has been granted by the learned Family Court on the basis of
appreciation of evidence which travelled beyond the pleadings, and is
therefore legally unsustainable. It would further be argued that even
the pleadings indicated that it was the Respondent-Husband, and not
the Appellant-Wife, who was less receptive in maintaining sexual
relations, and hence the finding of cruelty returned against the
Appellant is wholly misconceived.
5. Learned Counsel would further submit that it was the
Respondent and his family who subjected the Appellant to acts of
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 4 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
cruelty, which led to estrangement between the parties and ultimately
to the absence of physical relations; and that the learned Family Court
failed to appreciate this crucial aspect and erroneously attributed the
withdrawal of cohabitation to the Appellant.
6. It would also be contended by the learned Counsel for the
Appellant that the allegations relied upon by the Respondent, such as
the Appellant‟s unwillingness to live in a joint family or occasional
quarrels with in-laws, even if assumed to be true, do not in law
amount to cruelty but fall within the ordinary wear and tear of
matrimonial life; and on the contrary, the Appellant was at all times
willing to continue with the marriage, and indeed she continued to
reside in the matrimonial home with her son even after the filing of the
divorce petition, which clearly belies the allegation of desertion or
voluntary withdrawal from marital relations.
7. Learned Counsel would further argue that the Respondent
examined only himself, whereas the Appellant examined three
witnesses and produced documentary evidence. It would further be
emphasized that the Respondent‟s family members, who were alleged
to have been assaulted, were not examined, nor was any independent
corroboration produced, which omission warrants an adverse
inference against the Respondent.
8. It would also be submitted that the finding regarding denial of
conjugal relationship is based on a misreading of the Respondent‟s
own testimony, wherein he admitted that the parties had been residing
separately since 2008, and therefore, attributing the absence of marital
relations solely to the Appellant‟s voluntary conduct was wholly
untenable.
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 5 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, while concluding the
arguments, would pray to set aside the Impugned Judgment, as the
allegations of cruelty stand unsubstantiated and the findings of the
learned Family Court are perverse and contrary to settled principles of
law. It would then be urged that the Appellant, who herself has been
the victim of false, exaggerated, and uncorroborated accusations, has
been unjustly condemned.
RESPONDENT-HUSBAND’S SUBMISSIONS:
10. Per contra , learned Counsel for the Respondent would support
the Impugned Judgment and contend that no infirmity or illegality is
made out in the decree of divorce granted by the learned Family
Court, and therefore, the findings recorded therein merit affirmation.
11. Learned Counsel would emphasize the admitted position that
the Appellant voluntarily and without any justifiable cause withdrew
from maintaining physical relations with the Respondent since 2008,
particularly after Karwa Chauth of that year, and such prolonged
refusal of conjugal cohabitation amounts to mental cruelty, as
recognized in law and judicial precedent.
12. It would further be urged that the Appellant not only withdrew
from marital intimacy but also persistently pressurized the Respondent
and his family members to transfer property in her favour, and when
these demands were not accepted, she resorted to threats of false
implication in criminal cases, thereby aggravating the cruelty.
13. Learned Counsel would also highlight that the criminal
complaints and FIRs instituted by the Appellant were all lodged after
the filing of the Respondent‟s divorce petition, and were, therefore, a
clear counterblast intended to harass the Respondent and his family.
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 6 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
14. It would further be submitted by the learned Counsel for the
Respondent that the Appellant frequently absented herself from the
matrimonial home and had on several occasions to be persuaded to
return through the intervention of panchayats , and her persistent
indifference towards the Respondent‟s family, including her lack of
concern for their health and well-being, caused them deep anguish and
demonstrated her disregard for marital obligations.
15. Learned Counsel would lastly urge that the testimony of the
Respondent was consistent, credible, and unrebutted on all material
particulars, and therefore, the cumulative effect of the Appellant‟s
conduct clearly established cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the
HMA, justifying the decree of divorce granted by the learned Family
Court.
ANALYSIS:
16. We have, with the able assistance of the learned Counsels for
the parties, carefully perused the pleadings, examined the evidence,
and considered in detail the contents of the Impugned Judgment.
17. In our considered view, it would be apposite to reproduce the
relevant factual findings recorded by the learned Family Court in the
Impugned Judgement while granting the decree of divorce, so as to
duly appreciate the reasoning that formed the basis thereof, which read
as under:
“ CONCLUSION : -
51. I have heard the submission of both the sides and perused the
record. My issue wise findings are as under: -
52 . Issue No. 1.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce on the
ground of cruelty u/s.13(1)(ia) of HMA, 1955? OPP.
*
59. Bearing in mind, the above principles of law, it is imperative to
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 7 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
appreciate the cumulative effect of the conduct of the parties and
the happenings that occurred over a period of time in their
matrimonial life to ascertain the ground of cruelty. Accordingly, it
is required to be assessed that the conduct complained of must be
serious and drawing more firmness that it would be more tragic for
the petitioner to live with the respondent rather it was the ordinary
wear and tear of married life which is perceived by the petitioner to
be catastrophic.
60. It would be trite to mention that the entire case of the
petitioner/husband hinges upon the allegations of cruelty and proof
of the same. The burden of proof undoubtedly lies upon him and he
must show that he was treated with cruelty. The standard of proof
required is "pre-ponderance of probabilities" and not "beyond
reasonable doubt" as in the criminal proceedings.
61. In the present case, the petitioner has filed this petition for
grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty on the following grounds:
(i) that after about one year of marriage, respondent
wanted to reside separately from the joint family and
insisted upon the petitioner to live separately from the
joint family and was giving threats to commit suicide. She
was giving abuses to the petitioner and his parents even in
the presence of the others. Later, she started to pressurize
the petitioner and his parents to transfer the share of the
petitioner in the property house as well as plots in the
name of respondent and her son. On the refusal of old
parents of the petitioner, she started insulting them and
banned the meeting of the child with petitioner and his
parents and refused to have sex with the petitioner till the
property is transferred. There is no relationship of husband
and wife between them since the day of Karva Chauth in
the year 2008 and she also stopped keeping Karwa Chauth
fast after 2008.
(ii) She was sexually hot but the petitioner was not so and
was not able to satisfy her at every time as per her wishes
and that is why she used to go her parental house at village
Samaspur, District Gurgaon Haryana against the wishes of
petitioner and his parents and after the birth of the child
Rahul on 03.10.1997, she left with the newly born child to
her parental house and gave beatings to petitioner and his
mother and also threw 'Chappal' on petitioner. She also
declared the petitioner as impotent and unable to procure
any child in the presence of entire family and neighbours.
(iii) One day during a quarrel at the time of taking dinner
between the petitioner and respondent on a petty issue, she
became furious and threw eating plates on the face of
petitioner which hurt him on his nose.
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 8 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
(iv) In order to pressurize the petitioner and his parents to
transfer the property in her name she filed a false
complaint against his parents in police post Tikri border,
P.S. Nangloi in February, 2000. Petitioner was forced to
clean toilets, floors of the house, utensils by the
respondent, which is a shame for a man. The respondent
was not serving food to the petitioner who was forced to
eat with his parents and some time at a Dhaba.
(v) In October, 2000 in the night at about 11:00pm she
came in the bedroom of the petitioner and threatened that
if the property is not transferred in their name, they all will
be implicated in false case or given poison in the food. In
pursuance to her threats, she filed FIR No.118/10 under
Section 323/354/506/34 IPC against his family members
and also a petition under DV Act and also lodged an FIR
No.110/11 under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC. She
manhandled mother of the petitioner many times.
62 . On the other hand, respondent has taken the defence on the
following grounds that: -
(i) she was being tortured for dowry demands and forced
by petitioner and his family members to arrange Rs. 5 lakh
for construction of the house.
(ii) She was not looked after properly at the time of
delivery. The hospital bills the time of birth of the child
were even arranged by her parents.
(iii) Petitioner used to pass sarcastic remarks on the skin
colour of the respondent.
(iv) Petitioner and his father and his brothers are habitual
drunkard and used to indulge in drinking up to late in the
night in her bedroom which is without any door. The
family members used to pickup quarrel on one pretext to
other and used to abuse her and her parents and on her
objection she was subjected to physical assault.
(v) In March, 2009 she gave Rs.5 lakh to petitioner and his
family members for two months and after two months
when she asked for the return of the said amount, they
refused to return the money and threatened for dire
consequences.
(vi) On 03.10.2008, on the occasion of birthday of her son
petitioner, his father, brothers and Jija started drinking in
the bedroom of the respondent at about 12:00 midnight
and on her objection she was beaten by petitioner and her
family members and was tried to be thrown out of the
house and due to the intervention of the neighbours she
could remain in the house.
(vii) On 21.12.2008, petitioner his parents, brothers,
Bhabhi's, sister and his husband entered her bedroom and
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 9 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
they tried to molest her, beaten her mercilessly and
threatened to throw her out. She made complaint at police
Chowki Tikri, medically examined but no action was
taken by police.
(viii) On 30.08.2009 they again entered in her portion and
started throwing her articles and due to the interventions
of the labour they could not dispossess her. She made
complaints in Panchayat 7 to 8 times and every time they
felt sorry and after sometime they started behaving in the
same manner.
(ix) On 15.11.2009, petitioner and her family assaulted her
badly. Her father, came and a made a complaint at police
chowki, Tikari Kalan but no action was taken.
(x) On 09.12.2009 at about 09-90:30 am father of
petitioner, brother of petitioners, his mother, Bhabhis
started beating her with fist, blow and wooden sticks.
They assaulted her, torn her clothes with intention to
outrage her modesty. She managed to escape, make police
call at 100 number, was medically examined but no action
was taken. Thereafter, she filed police complaint under
Section 156 Cr.P.C. on which as per the directions of the
Court, FIR was registered.
63. As per the allegations of the petitioner, the respondent
pressurized him and his parents for transfer of the property in her
name and name of her son and when his parents refused, she
stopped keeping physical relations with him since the year 2008
and has also stopped keeping Karwa Chauth fast for him. During
cross-examination, the respondent has admitted that
“I and the respondent are not having physical relations
as husband and wife with each other since 2008”
She further deposed:
“it is correct that since last more than 10 years, I have no
relationship with my husband.”
She also deposed
“the karva Chauth fast was performed lastly in the year
2008”.
She has also deposed that
“she is not residing at her matrimonial house since year
2016”.
64. Hence from the testimony of respondent and petitioner, it
emerged that though petitioner and respondent stayed in the
matrimonial house together but there was no cohabitation between
them since the year 2008 till 2016 uptil which time, the respondent
was living in matrimonial house. The respondent has failed to
disclose any plausible reason as to why she was not having any
physical relations with the petitioner and had stopped keeping the
fast for him. She could not mention the reason as to why she
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 10 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
stopped considering him as her husband. She has taken the plea of
torture at the hands of petitioner and his family on account of
dowry demands and in that context she has referred to only one
dowry demand of Rs.5 lacs by the petitioner and his brother for the
construction of the house. However, during her cross-examination,
she has admitted that when she was married, the matrimonial house
was already constructed. As per her own case, she had given Rs. 5
lacs to the petitioner as a loan and not towards the dowry demand,
which amount was later on claimed by her but the petitioner
refused to return. She has not referred to any other dowry demand
in her WS.
65. The petitioner's case is that since after one year of marriage, the
respondent wanted to separate him from his family and on his
refusal, she used to maltreat him and he was made to do household
work. She was also living with her parents for 7-8 months in a year
against the wishes and consent of petitioner and his family
members and every time, she used to be brought back after
convening panchayat. During cross-examination, the respondent
has admitted that several panchayats were held between them.
Though, the respondent has taken the defence in written statement
that the petitioner and his family used to apologize for their
conduct in each Panchayat but in her cross-examination, she
herself had controverted the same and deposed that
“the last Panchayat was held on 15.11.2009”.
She further deposed that
“it is correct that in Panchayat petitioner and his
family never apologized or felt sorry.”
66. As per the admission of the respondent, the acrimony between
both the side raised to such an extent that there was physical
violence during the Panchayat between the family members of the
parties. Hence, the testimony of the respondent goes to show that
several times the respondent was to be brought back to the
matrimonial house from her parental house after holding
panchayats. Hence, this proves that the respondent was leaving for
her parental home off and on.
67. Admittedly, the parties got married in the year 1990 and till the
year 2008 they lived together whereafter they separated as husband
and wife while living in the same house. The present petition for
divorce was filed in November 2009 by the petitioner. As per the
deposition of the respondent, she stayed in the matrimonial house
up to 2016. Till the filing of this divorce petition, there is no
complaint by the respondent to the police. The respondent could
not produce any alleged complaint made by her to Police Chowki
Tikri on 21.12.2008 nor she could produce the alleged medical
examination got conducted upon her in respect of the said incident.
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 11 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
68. The respondent has stated that she was molested by her father-
in-law, brother-in-law and she was treated with cruelty and her
stridhan was not returned despite her demand for which she has
lodged complaints with the police. Admittedly, all the FIRs of
molestation bearing no. 118/2010 under Section 323, 354, 506, 34
IPC PS Nangloi Ex. PW2/1, FIR No. 110/11, PS Mundka under
Section 498-A/406/34 IPC Ex.RW3/1 and the FIR No. 89/2015
under Section 354-A/506/509 IPC PS Mundka Ex.RW3/2 filed by
the respondent against the petitioner and his family members are
pending trial and cannot form the basis of deciding this case.
Moreover, they were filed after the filing of the present petition for
divorce. The petitioner has claimed that all these molestation cases
and dowry cases against him and his family are a counter blast to
the present divorce petition.
69. The petitioner has deposed that the respondent was pressurizing
his parents to transfer the properties in her name and the name of
the child otherwise they will be falsely implicated. The petitioner
has deposed that on the refusal of his parents to transfer the
property, the respondent started humiliating, insulting him and his
parents, banned the child to meet the petitioner and his parents and
stop the relationship of husband and wife after the day of Karwa
Chauth of the year 2008. The petitioner's deposition is that she was
adamant for having no sex till the transfer of the property in her
name and in the name of the child Rahul. During cross-
examination the petitioner has deposed that from 1992 the
respondent started pressuring him to transfer the property in her
name. He has deposed that in order to buy peace in the house the
petitioner always counselled the respondent and do the household
work by sacrificing his own dignity. He has claimed that the
respondent has filed molestation cases and dowry cases against his
family as a counterblast to the present petition. As already
observed, even the respondent has admitted that there is no
relationship of husband and wife between them since 2008 and the
Karwa Chauth of the year 2008 was lastly performed. The
petitioner has deposed that once the respondent has slapped his
mother and even thrown Chappal at him and once she had thrown
an eating plate on his face. Though during the cross-examination
the petitioner has admitted that he has not mentioned the specific
date of incident but it is also a common knowledge that it is very
difficult to remember the specific date of each and every incident
of life and merely because of non-mentioning of the date, the
testimony of the petitioner cannot be discarded.
70. The petitioner has given specific incidents of cruelty. He has
deposed that the respondent was not serving food to her whenever
he returned from the office and he was make to do the household
chores like washing of utensils, cleaning of floors, toilet mixing of
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 12 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
flour etc. The acrimonious relationship between the parties led to
holding various of Panchayats between the parties whereafter they
had reconciled for a shorter time but again disputes erupted.
71. The stand of the petitioner is that due to humiliation and insult
by the respondent his father partitioned the property vide Family
Settlement dated 15.12.2012, where after the petitioner started
residing at House no. 68 Panna Kalan, Village Tikri Kala which
house came to be his share exclusively whereas House No. 73 had
come to the share of other family member. He has also deposed
that his father has filed a suit for possession and permanent
injunction bearing no. 68/13 against the him and the respondent to
take the possession of the house no. 73, Panna Kalan, which is
pending adjudication in the Court of Sh. Nipun Awasthi, Civil
Judge, Delhi. This statement is not controverted by the respondent.
72 . Admittedly, the parties were married on 03.03.1990 and till the
year 2008-2009, the respondent has not filed any complaint against
the petitioner and his family regarding dowry demands, beatings,
cruelty, maltreatment, consuming of liquor etc and misbehaving
with her. Nothing adverse come out in the cross-examination of the
petitioner. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of
the petitioner. The testimony of petitioner appears to be more
convincing, trustworthy and reliable. From the above testimony of
the petitioner and the respondent, it is proved that the petitioner
was denied the pleasure of marital life by the respondent without
any justifiable cause.
*
79. The allegations of cruelty show that the respondent deviated
from the normal standards of conjugal relationship and the
misconduct attributed to the respondent was such that it tantamount
to making the life of petitioner miserable. From the evidence which
has emerged on the record, the cumulative effect of the instances of
cruelty lead to the fair inference that the petitioner was subjected to
mental cruelty and there is reasonable apprehension in the mind of
petitioner that it would be harmful to her mental and psychological
well-being to continue with the marital life with the respondent,
regard being had to the social strata to which the parties belong,
their ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that
have been conditioned by their social status. The conduct alleged
certainly amounts to cruelty and is more than the ordinary wear and
tear of married life.
80. Accordingly, the petitioner is able to prove his case that he was
treated with cruelty by the respondent after the solemnization of his
marriage. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner
and against the respondent.
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 13 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
81. ISSUE No.2: RELIEF
82. Accordingly, a decree of divorce is passed under Section 13(1)
(ia) & (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in favour of petitioner and
against the respondent on the ground of cruelty thereby dissolving
the marriage of the petitioner Satish Kumar with the respondent
Dhanwati.”
18. At the outset, we deem it appropriate to refer to the judgment of
6
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh ,
wherein the Apex Court elaborated upon the concept of „mental
cruelty‟ and, upon examining judicial precedents across various
jurisdictions, held that the withdrawal by one spouse from maintaining
emotional or physical relations with the other would squarely fall
within the ambit of mental cruelty and constitute a valid ground for
seeking dissolution of marriage. The relevant excerpts of the said
judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:
“ 99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is
equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound,
therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one
definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may
not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs
from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of
sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial
position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human
values and their value system.
100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain
static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of
modern culture through print and electronic media and value
system etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a
mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can
never be any strait-jacket formula or fixed parameters for
determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent
and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it
on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking
aforementioned factors in consideration.
6
2007 4 SSC 511
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 14 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet
we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human
behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of
“mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the succeeding
paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive:
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the
parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would
not make possible for the parties to live with each other
could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial
life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that
situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably
be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live
with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to
cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of
manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree
that it makes the married life for the other spouse
absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep
anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused
by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental
cruelty.
(v.) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating
treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render
miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one
spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the
other spouse. The treatment complained of and the
resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave,
substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect,
indifference or total departure from the normal standard of
conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or
deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental
cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy,
selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and
dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground
for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear
of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would
not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of
mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a
few isolated instances over a period of years will not
amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a
fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 15 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and
behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it
extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer,
may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of
sterilisation without medical reasons and without the
consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife
undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason
or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such
an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for
considerable period without there being any physical
incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after
marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount
to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous
separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial
bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction
though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that
tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of
marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the
feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like
situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.”
(emphasis added)
7
19. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat held
that „mental cruelty‟ is conduct which causes such mental pain and
suffering that it becomes impossible for the aggrieved spouse to
reasonably be expected to live with the other. The determination of
cruelty must depend on the social and educational background of the
parties, their manner of life, and the context of the allegations made.
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
“ 16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)( ia ) can broadly be defined as
that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain
and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live
with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a
nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live
together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot
reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to
live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental
7
(1994) 1 SCC 337
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 16 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner.
While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social
status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the
possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case
they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and
circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out
exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to
cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case
having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a
case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the
context in which they were made.”
(emphasis supplied)
8
20. Similarly, in Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi , the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court, while dealing with the definition of “cruelty” held that the
notion of cruelty is incapable of precise definition and its
determination must necessarily depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment
are reproduced hereinbelow:
“ 19. It may be true that there is no definition of cruelty under the
said Act. Actually such a definition is not possible. In matrimonial
relationship, cruelty would obviously mean absence of mutual
respect and understanding between the spouses which embitters the
relationship and often leads to various outbursts of behaviour
which can be termed as cruelty. Sometimes cruelty in a
matrimonial relationship may take the form of violence, sometimes
it may take a different form. At times, it may be just an attitude or
an approach. Silence in some situations may amount to cruelty.
20. Therefore, cruelty in matrimonial behaviour defies any
definition and its categories can never be closed. Whether the
husband is cruel to his wife or the wife is cruel to her husband has
to be ascertained and judged by taking into account the entire facts
and circumstances of the given case and not by any predetermined
rigid formula. Cruelty in matrimonial cases can be of infinite
variety—it may be subtle or even brutal and may be by gestures
and words. That possibly explains why Lord Denning
in Sheldon v. Sheldon [ Sheldon v. Sheldon , 1966 P 62: (1966) 2
WLR 993 (CA)] held that categories of cruelty in matrimonial
cases are never closed.”
(emphasis supplied)
8
(2010) 4 SCC 476.
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 17 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
21. Having regard to the prefatory judgments referred to above, we
proceed to examine the Impugned Judgment under challenge.
22. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance upon a
specific paragraph of the Respondent‟s divorce petition to contend that
the requisite pleadings necessary to support the evidence were absent,
and in fact, the said paragraph was inconsistent with the evidence
subsequently led. Particular reliance was placed on paragraph 8 of the
divorce petition, which reads as follows:
“ 8. That the respondent was/is very hot sexually as well as
temperamentally but the petitioner was/is not so much hot sexually
to satisfy the respondent at every time as per her wishes and that is
why, the respondent used to go to her parental house at Village
Samaspur, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana frequently against the wishes
of the petitioner and his parents and without their consent. The
respondent used to go to her parental house as per her wishes and
sweet will without caring her social and matrimonial responsibility
and obligations and used to stay there 7-8 months. a year. It was a
routine life for the respondent upto the month 05 June/July, 1995.”
23. However, this Court also takes note of paragraph 17 of the
divorce petition, wherein the Respondent specifically alleged denial of
physical relations by the Appellant, thereby setting out pleadings
consistent with the evidence led. The said paragraph reads as follows:
“ 17. That under the compelling circumstances, social pressure and
for the sake of personal reputation, the petitioner brought the
respondent back to her matrimonial home alongwith Master Rahul
in the year -2008 at Tikri Kalan Village, Delhi and Master Rahul
was admitted at Sainik Public School, Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar
th
(Haryana) in the 5 class and till date, he is in the said school. The
studying thinking/hoping that he may lead his future with the
respondent and Master Rahul smoothly but it was not in the fate of
the petitioner. After about one month, the respondent started to put
- an pressure on the petitioner to hand over complete salary in her
hands and not to visit his old parents for giving them mental and
financial support. The petitioner accepted her said demands in
order to save his married life by keeping stone on his heart but the
respondent could not started to pressurize be satisfied and she
further the petitioner and his old parents to transfer the share of the
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 18 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
petitioner in the property i.e. house as well as plots etc. in her name
or in the name of her son Rahul immediately but the old parents of
the petitioner flatly refused to transfer the property in her name or
in the name of her son Rahul till their death. On this, the
respondent became more adamant, furious and cruel to the
petitioner and his old parents. Her conduct and behaviour became
more cruel, insulting, paining and harassing towards the petitioner
and his other family members. The respondent also banned the
petitioner and his old parents to meet/talk with master Rahul. In
this way, the petitioner has become a stranger in his own house. It
is pertinent to mention here that there is no relationship like a
husband and wife between the petitioner and the respondent after
the day of Karva Chauth of the year 2008. Since the said day, the
petitioner and the respondent are sleeping in separate rooms and
the respondent is adamant for having no sex with the petitioner till
the transfer of the properties in her name or in the name of her son
Rahul. The respondent also use abusive and filthy Language
against the petitioner and his other family members. The
respondent always passes insulting and indignified
taunts/unwarranted remarks on the petitioner in respect of his
manly powers even before the neighbours especially before the
ladies. The respondent has addressed the petitioner as brother/sister
many a times openly in the presence of others. The conduct and
behaviour of the respondent is very paining, harmful, insulting and
injurious to the physical and mental health of the petitioner”.
(emphasis supplied)
24. In the present case, it stands admitted that the Appellant
withdrew from all forms of physical intimacy with the Respondent
since 2008. Even prior thereto, she frequently absented herself from
the matrimonial home and had to be persuaded through family and
panchayats to return.
25. From the Karwa Chauth of 2008 onwards, her refusal to engage
in marital relations became absolute, marking a clear abandonment of
conjugal obligations. The learned Family Court rightly relied upon her
own cross-examination, wherein she candidly admitted, “I and the
respondent are not having physical relations as husband and wife with
each other since 2008”, and further, “it is correct that since last more
than 10 years, I have no relationship with my husband”. She also
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 19 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
admitted that the last Karwa Chauth was observed in 2008 and that
she has not resided in the matrimonial home since 2016. These
unequivocal admissions fortify the Respondent‟s case and leave little
room for doubt.
26. We are mindful that such conduct cannot be viewed in isolation
but must be tested against established judicial precedent. A Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Mrs. Rita Nijhawan v. Mr. Bal
9
Kishan Nijhawan categorically held that cohabitation is the very
essence of marriage, without which the marital bond cannot endure.
10
The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit
went even further to underscore that “marriage without sexual
relations is an anathema” . The Apex Court observed that the absence
of harmonious intimacy not only undermines the marriage but also
inflicts emotional harm, often resulting in depression and frustration.
These pronouncements directly resonate with the facts before us. The
observation made in Vinita Saxena ( supra ) reads as under:
Marriage without sex is an anathema. Sex is the foundation of
“
marriage and without a vigorous and harmonious sexual activity it
would be impossible for any marriage to continue for long. It
cannot be denied that the sexual activity in marriage has an
extremely favourable influence on a woman's mind and body. The
result being that if she does not get proper sexual satisfaction it will
lead to depression and frustration. It has been said that the sexual
relations when happy and harmonious vivifies woman's brain,
develops her character and trebles her vitality. It must be
recognised that nothing is more fatal to marriage than
disappointments in sexual intercourse.”
( emphasis supplied )
27. The principle was further crystallized by the Hon‟ble Supreme
11
Court in Vidhya Viswanathan v. Kartik Balakrishnan , wherein it
9
AIR 1973 Del 200.
10
(2006) 3 SCC 778
11
AIR 2015 SC 285
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 20 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
was held in no uncertain terms that persistent denial of sexual relations
by one spouse to the other, without justifiable cause, itself constitutes
mental cruelty. The relevant portion of the judgment in
Vidhya Viswanathan ( supra ) reads as under:
“Undoubtedly, not allowing a spouse for a long time to have sexual
intercourse by his or her partner, without sufficient reason, itself
amounts to mental cruelty to such spouse.”
( emphasis supplied )
28. In light of the above principles, we are of the considered view
that the parties before us, by the Respondent‟s assertion and the
Appellant‟s admission, have scarcely cohabited or sustained their
matrimonial relationship. The Appellant repeatedly absented herself
from the matrimonial responsibilities without consent and denied
marital intimacy since 2008. Such persistent deprivation of conjugal
companionship constitutes an extreme form of cruelty, as consistently
recognized by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. It is axiomatic that
cohabitation and discharge of marital duties form the bedrock of
marriage; their persistent denial not only demonstrates an irretrievable
breakdown of the union but also amounts to cruelty warranting
judicial intervention.
29. While it is well recognized that the mere absence of physical
intimacy, by itself, may not constitute sufficient ground for granting a
decree of divorce, the Court must necessarily evaluate this factor in
conjunction with other attendant circumstances. The overall conduct
of the parties, the cumulative impact on the marital relationship, and
whether such conduct has crossed the threshold of cruelty envisaged
under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, must be carefully assessed. The
judicial inquiry, therefore, is not confined to a single incident or
omission but extends to examining whether the quality of marital life
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 21 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
has been so eroded that the matrimonial bond is rendered
unsustainable.
30. In this context, we take note of the specific submission
advanced by learned Counsel for the Respondent that the allegations
of molestation against the father-in-law and brother-in-law, cruelty by
the Respondent, and non-return of stridhan , as raised by the
Appellant, must be viewed with circumspection.
31. Significantly, all the FIRs in this regard were lodged only after
the institution of the Respondent‟s divorce petition. These include:
(i). FIR No. 118/2010 under Sections 323, 354, 506, 34 IPC at PS -
Nangloi, Delhi,
(ii). FIR No. 10/2011 under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC at PS -
Mundka, Delhi; and
(iii). FIR No. 89/2015 under Sections 354-A, 506, 509 IPC at PS -
Mundka, Delhi.
32. The timing of these above-mentioned complaints, filed
subsequent to the divorce proceedings, cannot be ignored in
evaluating their credibility and context. It is further pertinent that
copies of these FIRs were themselves brought on record by the
Appellant, who examined witnesses also in support thereof. In this
backdrop, the Appellant‟s contention that the learned Family Court
exceeded the pleadings by considering these materials is untenable, as
the record itself establishes that the Appellant introduced and relied
upon these documents during trial before the learned Family Court.
33. Viewed in light of this chronology, it becomes evident that the
criminal complaints and allegations were initiated only after the
divorce petition had been filed. This sequence lends support to the
Respondent‟s argument that such complaints were, in essence, a
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 22 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
counterblast, aimed at exerting pressure in the matrimonial dispute
rather than reflecting genuine, contemporaneous grievances. Equally
significant is the absence of any record indicating that the Appellant
lodged similar complaints at any point prior to the initiation of the
divorce proceedings.
34. At the same time, it is equally well settled that events occurring
subsequent to the filing of a divorce petition are not irrelevant and
may be taken into account to discern a continuing pattern of cruelty.
12
The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur
authoritatively enunciated this principle, holding as follows:
“If acts subsequent to the filing of the divorce petition can be
looked into to infer condonation of the aberrations, acts subsequent
to the filing of the petition can be taken note of to show a pattern in
the behaviour and conduct.”
(emphasis added)
35. At the same time, to augment, it is apposite to refer to the
13
judgment by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this court in Preeti v. Vikas
wherein it has been held that mere lodging of an FIR, in the absence of
substantive proof, cannot by itself establish allegations of cruelty or
dowry harassment. The court further emphasized that such allegations
must be supported by cogent and reliable evidence. Where complaints
are filed immediately after the institution of divorce proceedings, such
conduct has often been regarded as a counter-blast to the petition,
reflecting their use as a weapon against the opposite party and his
family. The relevant portions of the said judgment are reproduced
hereinbelow:
“ 32. It is also pertinent to note that the complaint has been filed on
07.06.2019, i.e., one day after the respondent has filed the divorce
petition. Thus, it appears that such complaints were merely a
12
(2005) 2 SCC 22
13
2023 DHC 6387 DB
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 23 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
counter-blast to the said petition for divorce and is being used as a
weapon against the respondent and his family.
33. To conclude, not only 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 Ashish, which have not been
substantiated in the present case.
34. While the term “cruelty” as used in Section 13(1)(ia) of the
Act, 1955 cannot be defined in given parameters, there cannot be a
comprehensive definition of “cruelty” within which all kinds of
cases of cruelty can be covered and each case has to be considered
depending upon its own unique factual circumstances. In the case
of K. Srinivas vs. K. Sunita X (2014) SLT 126 , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that filing of the false complaint against the
husband and his family members also constitutes mental cruelty for
the purpose of Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
35. Similarly, it has been held by the Supreme Court in
Mangayakarasi v. M. Yuvaraj (2020) 3 SCC 786 , that an
unsubstantiated allegation of dowry demand or such other
allegations made against the husband and his family members
exposed them to criminal litigation. Ultimately, if it is found that
such allegations were unwarranted and without basis, the husband
can allege that mental cruelty has been inflicted on him and claim a
divorce on such a ground.
36. This Court in the case of Nishi Vs. Jagdish Ram 233 (2016)
DLT 50 held that the filing of false complaint against the husband
and his family members constitutes mental cruelty. Similar
observations were made by a coordinate bench of this court in the
case of Rita v. Jai Solanki 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9078.
37. Thus, such complaints which are not substantiated by evidence,
and remain unproved are acts of cruelty against the respondent. ”
(emphasis added)
36. In the present case, the Appellant‟s conducts, which include her
prolonged refusal to cohabit, persistent denial of conjugal relations,
repeated absences from the matrimonial home, and subsequent
institution of multiple complaints, taken together, reflect a continuous
and deliberate pattern of behavior causing mental suffering to the
Respondent, thereby satisfying the requirements of “cruelty” under
Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA. Such sustained neglect of marital
obligations, coupled with acts designed to exacerbate discord, eroded
the very foundation of the matrimonial bond.
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 24 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
37. To further appreciate the extent of matrimonial discord, this
Court finds it relevant to refer to the Respondent‟s cross-examination
dated 12.04.2018, wherein he detailed his failed attempts to maintain
contact with the minor child, Rahul, despite visitation orders. The
Respondent testified as follows:
“We are residing separately since 2009 and our child namely Rahul
is residing with the respondent. I moved an application in the
Rohini Court to meet my child namely Rahul in the year 2010/2011
and the Rohini Court grant me permission to meet with my child
namely Rahul. As per order of the Hon'ble Court I used to go to
meet with my child but he did not talk to me. After that I tried to
meet my child 4-5 times but he did not talk to me and therefore, I
stopped to meet with my child as it was useless and expensive as I
had to pay Rs.500/- for each meeting. After the year 2011, I tried to
talk my child but he did not talk to me.”
(emphasis added)
38. In the context of parental alienation, guidance may be drawn
from the judgment of this Court in Sandhya Malik v. Col. Satender
14
Malik , where it was held that the deliberate alienation of a child
from one parent, thereby depriving the parent of love and affection,
constitutes mental cruelty. Parental alienation occurs when one parent
psychologically manipulates a child against the other, often by
unjustified negativity, thereby damaging the child‟s relationship with
the estranged parent. A child has a right to the love and affection of
both parents, and any act intended to deprive a parent of such affection
amounts to cruelty. The custodial parent owes a duty to foster respect
and affection for the non-custodial parent, and deliberate failure to do
so constitutes an egregious breach of that duty. Nothing is more
painful than seeing one‟s own child alienated, which amounts to
14
2023 SCC OnLine Del 6099.
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 25 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
mental cruelty of the gravest kind. The relevant observations made in
the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow:
“35. Learned Principal Judge from all the circumstances as detailed
above concluded that it makes it evident that the child had been
totally and intentionally alienated from her father by the mother.
The discord and the disputes were between the husband and wife
and no matter how bitter the relationship between them had
become, it was not appropriate to involve the child or embitter her
against the father or to use her as a tool against him.
36. In the case of Prabin Gopal v. Meghna, 2021 SCC OnLine
Ker 2193 in a similar situation, the Kerala High Court observed
that the mother had intentionally distanced the child from the father
and had deprived the child from the parental love and affection. It
was a case of parental alienation where the child, who was in the
custody of one parent, had been psychologically manipulated
against the estranged parent. It was a strategy whereby one parent
intentionally displayed to the child unjustified negativity aimed at
the other parent, with the intent to damage the relationship between
the child and the estranged parent and to turn the child emotionally
against the parent. It was observed by Kerala High Court that the
child has a right to love and affection of both the parents and
likewise, the parents also have a right to receive love and affection
of the child. Any act of any parent calculated to deny such
affection to the other parent, amounts to alienating the child which
amounts to mental cruelty. Since the child was in the custody of the
mother, it was held that the mother had breached her duty which
she owed as a custodian parent to instil love, affection and feelings
in the child for the father. Nothing more can be more painful than
experiencing one's own flesh and blood i.e., the child, rejecting him
or her. Such wilful alienation of the child amounts to mental
cruelty.
37. In the present case as well, the child has not only been totally
alienated, but has also been used as a weapon against the father.
Nothing can be more painful for a parent to see the child drifting
away and being totally against the father. This assumes some
significance in the light that the father never failed to provide for
the child either for her education or otherwise or to provide army
facilities as were available. So much so, 10% of his salary was
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 26 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
being paid to the child for her maintenance which was
subsequently increased to 20%.
38. The learned Principal Judge, Family Courts has, therefore,
rightly concluded that such child alienation is an extreme act of
mental cruelty towards a father who has never shown any neglect
for the child.”
(emphasis added)
39. In the present case, as per the record, the Respondent‟s access
to his son was systematically frustrated by the Appellant, despite his
continued endeavors. This deliberate alienation of the minor child
from the Respondent is a serious form of psychological cruelty. The
use of a child as a tool in matrimonial conflict not only injures the
affected parent but also corrodes the child‟s emotional well-being,
striking at the very root of familial harmony.
40. Further, this Court cannot ignore the Appellant‟s categorical
admissions in her cross-examination dated 06.12.2019, wherein she
professed complete ignorance regarding the age and health of her
mother-in-law, including her inability to walk and the fact of having
undergone hip replacement surgery in 2012. She deposed on that day
as follows:
“I can not admit or deny due to want of knowledge if my mother-
in-law is around 75 years of age at present or if she is unable to
walk. I do not know if my mother-in-law got hip replacement
surgery in 2012.”
41. Given the facts and circumstances of the present matter, such
indifference towards the Respondent‟s aged parents, who are an
integral part of the Joint Hindu Family, unmistakably reflects
disregard for the essential obligations of marriage in the Indian
familial context. It is a natural and legitimate expectation that a
spouse, upon entering matrimony, would demonstrate care and
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 27 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
concern for the health and dignity of the elders in the household. The
studied apathy and want of sensitivity displayed by the Appellant
towards her in-laws, particularly when their advanced age and health
conditions required compassion, cannot be treated as trivial. This
conduct inflicted avoidable anguish on the Respondent and his family,
thereby amounting to another facet of cruelty within the scope of
matrimonial law.
42. While this Court does not concur with certain observations of
the learned Family Court regarding alleged cruelty arising from the
Respondent being compelled to perform household chores, the
cumulative effect of the Appellant‟s behaviour cannot be ignored. The
prolonged denial of marital intimacy, the series of complaints
instituted against the Respondent, the deliberate alienation of the
minor child, and the indifference towards the Respondent‟s parents
collectively demonstrate a sustained neglect of marital responsibilities.
These actions have caused the Respondent and his family considerable
emotional suffering, thereby constituting cruelty of such gravity as to
justify dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the
HMA.
CONCLUSION:
43. For the reasons elaborated hereinabove, this Court finds itself
substantially in agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned
Family Court. No infirmity, perversity, or error of law has been
demonstrated so as to warrant interference by this Court in appellate
jurisdiction.
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 28 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59
44. Accordingly, the decree of divorce granted by the learned
Family Court vide the Impugned Judgment and Decree dated
30.09.2021 is affirmed, and the present appeal stands dismissed.
45. The present appeal, along with pending application(s), if any, is
disposed of in the above terms.
46. No order as to costs.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2025 / v / sm/kr/rn
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2022 Page 29 of 29
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:20.09.2025
19:11:59