Questioning Paternity and Demanding DNA Test of a Child Constitutes Categorical Mental Cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a).

The parties married on December 7, 2014. Sneha (the wife) alleged that she was misled regarding Vikas’s (the husband) income and was subjected to continuous exclusion, body shaming, and dowry demands by her in-laws

After the birth of their son, Sneha alleged Vikas questioned the child's paternity and demanded a DNA test

Sneha sought a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and the return of sridhana articles

Vikas filed for restitution of conjugal rights and child custody

The Family Court granted the divorce but dismissed the application for the return of articles, leading to these cross-appeals

1. Whether the conduct of the husband and his family, including social isolation and questioning the paternity of the child, constituted mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

2. Whether the husband was entitled to restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

3. Whether the wife was entitled to the return of sridhana articles listed in her application

The Court applied Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, defining cruelty not just as physical violence but as conduct causing such mental pain that it is impossible for the spouse to live together

It relied on K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, which establishes that filing a police complaint against a spouse can constitute mental cruelty

Regarding property, the Court applied the principle that sridhana remains the woman's exclusive property, granting her autonomy over its possession and use

The Court found that Sneha was subjected to systematic humiliation, including being forced to eat alone and being excluded from family gatherings, which impacted her mental health

Critically, the Court noted that Vikas failed to specifically deny the allegation that he demanded a DNA test to prove the child's paternity; such an affront to a woman's honor was deemed a severe act of cruelty

The Court rejected Vikas's claim for restitution, noting his lack of interest in the child’s birth and his hostile conduct made his plea for reconciliation non-bonafide

Regarding the sridhana articles, the Court found the Trial Court erred in relying on a "stray statement" about temporary custody; since Sneha was barred from the house upon her return from the hospital, she could not have physically retrieved her belongings, which remained under the husband's control

The Court allowed Sneha’s appeal (CMA No. 2609 of 2025), setting aside the lower court's order and directing Vikas to return the listed sridhana articles within four weeks. If he fails to do so, he must pay the value of the articles as of June 19, 2026, with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of marriage