Prolonged Denial Of Marital Intimacy, Complaints Against Husband, Deliberate Alienation Of Minor Child Constitute Cruelty: Delhi High Court

The appeal before the High Court was filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, assailing Judgment of the Family Court granting a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, on the ground of cruelty, thereby dissolving the marriage as against the Appellant-Wife and in favour of the Respondent-Husband.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar stated, “The prolonged denial of marital intimacy, the series of complaints instituted against the Respondent, the deliberate alienation of the minor child, and the indifference towards the Respondent‟s parents collectively demonstrate a sustained neglect of marital responsibilities. These actions have caused the Respondent and his family considerable emotional suffering, thereby constituting cruelty of such gravity as to justify dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.”

Advocate Sanjay Rathi represented the Appellant while Advocate Sudhir Tewatia represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent was solemnized in 1990 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of wedlock, a son was born. The Respondent-Husband alleged that the Appellant’s conduct during the subsistence of marriage was persistently cruel. According to him, the Appellant was unwilling to reside in a joint family and would frequently leave the matrimonial home without his consent, staying at her parental house for prolonged periods. It was also alleged that the wife withdrew from marital relations, declined to cohabit as husband and wife, and subjected the respondent-husband to humiliation and indignity. The Respondent thus instituted a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

It was further claimed by the husband that the wife initiated multiple criminal proceedings after the filing of his divorce petition in 2009. Specifically, she lodged First Information Reports under various sections of the IPC. The Family Court granted a decree of divorce. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Appellant-Wife approached the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that the Appellant withdrew from all forms of physical intimacy with the Respondent since 2008. Even prior thereto, she frequently absented herself from the matrimonial home and had to be persuaded through family and panchayats to return. It was further noticed that her refusal to engage in marital relations became absolute, marking a clear abandonment of conjugal obligations.

Referring to the timeline of events, the Bench found that the criminal complaints and allegations were initiated only after the divorce petition had been filed. This sequence lent support to the Respondent’s argument that such complaints were, in essence, a counterblast, aimed at exerting pressure in the matrimonial dispute rather than reflecting genuine, contemporaneous grievances. “At the same time, it is equally well settled that events occurring subsequent to the filing of a divorce petition are not irrelevant and may be taken into account to discern a continuing pattern of cruelty”, it added.

“In the present case, the Appellant’s conducts, which include her prolonged refusal to cohabit, persistent denial of conjugal relations, repeated absences from the matrimonial home, and subsequent institution of multiple complaints, taken together, reflect a continuous and deliberate pattern of behavior causing mental suffering to the Respondent, thereby satisfying the requirements of “cruelty” under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA. Such sustained neglect of marital obligations, coupled with acts designed to exacerbate discord, eroded the very foundation of the matrimonial bond”, it held. As per the Bench, these actions constituted cruelty justifying the dissolution of the marriage.

Thus, dismissing the appeal, the Bench affirmed the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court vide the Impugned Judgment.

Cause Title: ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8280-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Sanjay Rathi

Respondent: Advocates Sudhir Tewatia, Sahil Gandhi, Aman Gahlot, Himani Verma, Kavya, Vivek

Click here to read/download Order