False Allegations Of Illicit Relationship & Denial Of Cohabitation Is Ultimate Cruelty: Delhi HC While Upholding Divorce Decree

A Division Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that, “false allegations of illicit relationship are the ultimate kind of cruelty as it reflects a complete breakdown of trust and faith amongst the spouses without which no matrimonial relationship can survive.”

The appellant had filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against a judgment that allowed a divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, based on the ground of 'cruelty'. The appellant's main grounds for the appeal were that the impugned judgment went against the principles of natural justice as she was not given the opportunity to participate fully in the proceedings and present her evidence.

The marriage between the parties took place on March 10, 2009, and they had a daughter. The respondent claimed that the appellant displayed various acts of cruelty. The appellant also alleged an illicit relationship on the respondent's part, and the couple had been living separately since March 29, 2016.

The appellant was proceeded ex-parte before the Family Court on March 13, 2018, and although she later appeared with her counsel, her application to set aside the ex-parte proceedings was dismissed. The Family Court granted the divorce based on the respondent's allegations of mental cruelty.

Advocate Sameer Nandwani appeared for the Appellant.

The respondent's counsel countered that the appellant had the opportunity to contest the divorce petition but chose not to. They asserted that the appellant's actions did amount to cruelty, as detailed in the divorce petition.

The appellant's first challenge to the divorce decree was based on the claim that she was not served properly, leading to her being proceeded against ex-parte and unable to present her defense. However, the Court rejected this assertion, stating that service through her father was in accordance with the law and she had knowledge of the proceedings. Her appearance in court further weakened her argument. Even if there were irregularities in service, since she had sufficient notice of the hearing and chose not to participate, the Court viewed this as inconsequential.

“There is no explanation for her non-participation in the trial and she cannot claim denial of Principles of Natural Justice.”

The Court found that the appellant's actions did constitute mental cruelty. Her frequent quarreling on trivial issues, leaving the home without informing her husband, denying cohabitation, and attempting suicide by jumping from a balcony were all considered evidence of her cruel behavior. Moreover, she tried to poison the husband and his parents, falsely accused him of an illicit relationship, and showed a complete lack of intent to fulfill her marital obligations. The Court cited legal precedent to establish that such actions amount to severe cruelty in a matrimonial relationship.

“Any denial of cohabitation by other spouse amounts to severe cruelty. This conduct was compounded by appellant’s frequently leaving the matrimonial home. Regular quarrels may be trivial when considered individually, however, collectively, these quarrels on a regular basis can not only disrupt the mental peace but also become a source of mental agony.”

Ultimately, the Court upheld the judgment of the Family Court, finding that the respondent/husband's claims of mental cruelty were substantiated by the evidence presented. The appeal was dismissed, and the divorce decree remained valid.

Cause Title: Lata Kumari v. Om Prakash Mandal

Click here to read/download Judgment