Constant Threat Of Arrest And Wife's False Allegations Is Mental Cruelty: Delhi HC While Granting Divorce To Husband
The Delhi High Court granted divorce to a husband on grounds of mental cruelty by his wife. The Court determined that the wife inflicted mental distress upon her husband by attempting to implicate him and his family in criminal proceedings.
“The respondent had done everything to get the appellant and his family entrapped in the criminal case. Such conduct of making false allegations and constant threat of being summoned to Police Station are the acts which severely impact the mental balance and all the acts of cruelty”, the Bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed.
Advocate Ranjit Kumar Dubey appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Praduman Kumar Aggarwal appeared for the Respondents.
The Appellant and Respondent-wife got married in 2002 and have two children. The Appellant alleged that the Respondent was cruel to him and his family, while the Respondent contended that the Appellant and his family harassed her. The Appellant-husband had asserted in his petition that soon after the marriage, the Respondent did not behave properly; fought routinely and abused all the family members. The Family Court dismissed because the Appellant was unable to prove any act of cruelty. The Appellant filed before the Court challenging the order of the Family Court.
The Court emphasized that while physical cruelty is visible and easy to comprehend, mental cruelty is more difficult to define and prove. However, mental cruelty can be a valid ground for divorce if it is severe enough to make it impossible for the couple to live together. The Court cited the Supreme Court case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337, which held that mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The Court also stated that it is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty caused physical injury to the party. The Court noted that Whether something constitutes cruelty is a matter of fact that must be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account specific facts and circumstances.
The Court asserted that visiting a police station can be a distressing and traumatic experience for anyone and feels like a "Damocles Sword" hanging over one's head, not knowing if a case will be filed against them, leading to their arrest. The Respondent had made every effort to trap the Appellant and his family in a criminal case. The Court noted that such behaviour, including making false allegations and constantly threatening to summon them to the police station, severely impacts one's mental well-being and constitutes acts of cruelty.
“It is not under challenge that the criminal proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the parties. A Police Station is not the best of places for anyone to visit. It is a source of mental harassment and trauma each time he was required to visit the Police Station, like the “Damocles Sword” hanging over his head, not knowing when a case would be registered against him and he would be arrested”, the Bench noted.
Furthermore, the Court held that fault-based divorce laws are insufficient for handling a failed marriage. The "Fault theory" requires proof of guilt, with divorce courts investigating specific behaviors that discredit the institution of marriage. The Court observed that once a marriage has irreparably broken down, the law must acknowledge this fact for the benefit of both parties and society. When a couple has been continuously separated for a long time, it's reasonable to assume that the marriage is beyond repair, the Court noted.
“The Family Court ought to have visualised that preservation of such a marriage is totally unworkable which has ceased to be effective and would be a greater source of misery for the parties. The Family Court ought to have considered that a human problem can be properly resolved by adopting a human approach. In the instant case, not to grant a decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties”, the Bench observed.
The Court noted that the parties have been living separately for 17 years and there is no hope for reconciliation. The husband has been subjected to mental cruelty, and any attempt to continue the relationship would only cause further harm to both parties, the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal and dissolved the marriage.
Cause Title: Kulvinder Singh Gehlot v. Parmila