Unilateral Withdrawal From Divorce By Mutual Consent Without Any Justifiable Ground Can Amount To Mental Cruelty: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court held that a unilateral withdrawal from divorce by mutual consent without any justifiable ground amounts to mental cruelty.
The Court held thus in an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 filed by the wife against the decree allowing divorce on the ground of cruelty passed by the Family Court by which divorce was granted in a petition filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
A Division Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “Thus, such conduct of the appellant/wife in driving the respondent to believe that their disputes were about to be put to an end and then to withdraw from the attempted settlement can cause disquiet, cruelty, and uncertainty in the mind of the respondent. It is evident that the fight inter se the parties was not on any justifiable grounds, but was a war between the egos prompted by the desire to wreak vengeance against the spouse. Such unilateral withdrawal from divorce by mutual consent thus, amounted to cruelty.”
The Bench said that the acts of the wife of filing not only false criminal cases against the husband and his family but also, appealing against them in a vexatious manner, amounts to cruelty.
Senior Advocate Raman Kapur represented the appellant/wife while Advocate Amarjit Singh Bedi represented the respondent/husband.
Factual Background -
The marriage between the parties barely survived for about 13 months and they separated in the year 2003. The husband who was the petitioner in the divorce petition asserted that soon after the marriage, the wife created a ruckus in the family and they went to reside on the second floor of the house which belonged to his maternal grandmother till a suitable accommodation was arranged by the husband. The husband asserted that however, the wife did not settle in the matrimonial life. It was claimed that the wife had a fetish for cleanliness and she cleaned the house, including furniture, several times with a wet cloth and on being stopped, she became hysterical and used abusive language against the husband.
She insisted on having a child and when the husband expressed his reluctance due to want of more time to settle in matrimonial relationship, she threatened him that she would conceive from some other person. Further, she paid no respect to his friends and was also disrespectful to his maternal grandmother who was aged about 86 years. She also abused his sister in front of her father who threatened the husband and his mother of involving them in court proceedings. She did many other things and being fed up of all this, the husband claimed that he was subjected to various acts of cruelty and hence, sought divorce.
The High Court in the above regard said, “In light of the above discussion, these incidents, though may not be of much significance when viewed in isolation, but when viewed together clearly depicts a non adjusting attitude of the appellant/wife who had no maturity to sort out the differences with the husband without his public humiliation due to which the respondent suffered mental cruelty. … Further, the appellant/wife had made averments in the Written Statement, that the respondent/husband was friendly with many girls and had adulterous relationships. Having made such serious allegations, the appellant in her cross examination admitted that she has no concrete proof of adultery by her husband with any of his female friends.”
The Court noted that the wife, as per her own admissions, made irresponsible allegations against the fidelity and character of the husband without any basis and hence, the Principal Judge rightly referred to all the incidents to conclude that her conduct was cruel towards him.
“The appellant/wife filed the civil litigation against the grandmother for restraining her from getting the second floor of the house vacated from her where she had been living. However, the suit was not decreed in her favour. The litigation was taken to the highest level i.e. to the Apex Court in order to continue her possession. Such an act of dragging the aged grandmother of the respondent into a property litigation, is most certainly a cause of agony to the respondent”, observed the Court.
Furthermore, the Court said that the wife filed appeals against the husband’s acquittal dragging him into a prolonged litigation of more than 14 years. It added that the wife miserably failed to prove any acts of cruelty as alleged and the husband and his family members were made to suffer due to protracted litigation.
“The other significant factor for consideration is that the appellant/wife had agreed for divorce by mutual consent and a settlement was arrived at between the parties on 08.05.2014 in compliance of which a Demand Draft of Rs. 5 lakhs was given by the respondent/husband to the appellant/wife. However, even after this part payment, the appellant unilaterally withdrew her consent for divorce by Mutual Consent and returned the Demand Draft”, also noted the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:9381-DB)
