The Delhi High Court clarified the grounds for mental cruelty in divorce cases, emphasizing that trivial irritations and the loss of trust between married couples should not be confused with mental cruelty. This decision came as the Court refused to uphold a lower court order granting divorce to a husband who alleged mental cruelty by his wife.
A division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Manoj Jain issued this ruling while handling the wife's appeal against her husband's plea for divorce. The husband had claimed that his wife was not interested in living with him in their matrimonial home and wanted him to live with her at her parental home.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The case involved a married couple whose union was solemnized in 1996 following Hindu rites and customs. Over the years, they were blessed with a daughter in 1998. However, their marriage began to face strains, with the husband alleging various issues leading to his request for a divorce. He contended that his wife had no interest in living with him in their matrimonial home and, instead, wanted him to reside with her at her parental home as a "ghar jamai." The husband further claimed that his wife frequently abandoned him on different pretexts, focused on running her coaching center, and even denied him sexual intimacy. These circumstances formed the backdrop for the legal proceedings.
Contentions of the Parties:
Husband's Contentions:
The husband primarily contended that he had suffered mental cruelty at the hands of his wife. He alleged that her actions, including her reluctance to live with him in their matrimonial home, her desire for him to live at her parental home as a "ghar jamai," and her frequent desertion of him, amounted to mental cruelty. The husband also asserted that his wife's focus on running her coaching center and her denial of sexual intercourse further added to his mental agony. He argued that these actions were intentional and had persisted for a considerable period of time. He claimed that his wife had lodged a false and malicious First Information Report (FIR) against him and his family members. He argued that the registration of this FIR alone amounted to cruelty and that the fact that the criminal case against him resulted in acquittal demonstrated the falsity of the accusations.
Wife's Contentions:
The wife refuted the allegations of mental cruelty. She argued that the issues in their marriage were the result of misunderstandings and difficulties in their relationship, rather than any intentional or prolonged cruelty on her part. She denied the husband's claims that she was not interested in living with him and that she wanted him to reside at her parental home. She maintained that they had lived together in rented accommodation. The wife contended that her actions were not aimed at causing her husband mental distress but were a product of the normal ups and downs in their relationship. She stressed that there was no irretrievable breakdown of their marriage. Regarding the FIR she had lodged, the wife argued that her complaint was a genuine attempt to seek redress for her grievances and should not be considered an act of cruelty. She also noted that the FIR ultimately resulted in her husband's acquittal.
Observations by the Court:
The Court acknowledged that denial of sex could be considered a form of mental cruelty when it is persistent, intentional, and lasts for a considerable period. However, the bench stressed that judges must exercise caution when dealing with such sensitive and delicate issues. Allegations of this nature could not be substantiated solely based on vague and unspecific claims, particularly when the marriage had been consummated.
The Court found that the husband had failed to prove any mental cruelty in this case, and the problems in their marriage were simply the result of normal wear and tear on the matrimonial bond. Furthermore, the evidence indicated that the discord was primarily between the wife and her mother-in-law, not between the husband and wife.
The Court clarified that the loss of trust, faith, and affection between the couple should not be confused with mental cruelty, and they both had been trying hard to save their family despite their issues.
Decision of the Court:
The High Court rejected the husband's plea for divorce on the grounds of an 'irretrievable breakdown' of their marriage. The Court clarified that the power to grant divorce on these grounds rests solely with the Supreme Court of India and cannot be sought by either party as a matter of right. The power to grant such a divorce is exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution to do complete justice to both parties.
Case Name: Bhawana Sharma Vs Shyam Sunder Sharma
Coram: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Manoj Jain
Case No.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 264/2019 & CM APPL. 45187/2019 & CM APPL. 45189/2019 & CM APPL. 8382/2021 & CM APPL. 272/2022 & CM APPL. 21001/2022 & CM APPL. 23421/2022
Advocate of the Appellant: Appellant in person
Advocate of the Respondent: Sunil Malhotra
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
