Belated Criminal Allegations By Wife Can't Outweigh Consistent Evidence By Husband On Cruelty: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that wife's belated criminal allegations cannot detract from or outweigh the Husband’s consistent evidence of sustained cruelty.

The Court was considering an Appeal against an order passed by the Family Court whereby the Husband’s Petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, was dismissed.

The division bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Renu Bhatnagar held,"....It is an admitted position on record that the FIR and other proceedings were instituted only subsequently, which materially undermines the Respondent’s version. The post litigation initiation of criminal proceedings strongly indicates that the allegations were reactive, embellished, or incomplete, rather than a reflection of genuine or immediate grievance. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held, including in A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, that unsubstantiated, belated, or exaggerated accusations, particularly when raised only after matrimonial litigation commences, may themselves constitute mental cruelty. Applying this principle, this Court finds that the Respondent’s belated criminal allegations cannot detract from or outweigh the Appellant’s consistent evidence of sustained cruelty."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate S.D. Dikshit.

Facts of the Case

The parties married in 2016 and owing to the marital discord, the Husband alleged that the Wife subjected him to mental cruelty by a series of acts and omissions including insistence that he live separately from his aged parents and a threat of suicide, demand that a new house be purchased in her name, repeated abusive references to his mother, refusal of physical relations, leaving the matrimonial home with clothes and jewellery and thereafter refusing to resume cohabitation despite overtures by the Husband and his family.

The Wife contested the same and in her written statement and affidavit alleged, among other things, demand for dowry by the Husband’s family, harassment by in-laws, an attempt to molest her by the Husband’s father and physical ouster from the matrimonial home

The Family Court, after considering evidence, observed that certain averments of the Wife remained uncontroverted, the Husband’s allegations were viewed as isolated incidents or inconsistent with other parts of the record.

It thus concluded that the Husband had failed to prove cruelty, and further held that he was disentitled to relief on account of approaching the Court with “unclean hands” having not satisfactorily rebutted the Respondent’s allegations of dowry-related ill-treatment. 

Counsel for the Husband submitted that the Family Court failed to appreciate the uncontroverted and consistent evidence of the Wife, which demonstrated a sustained pattern of mental cruelty. It was contended that the Wife’s conduct, including her disclosure that the marriage had been against her will, repeated verbal abuses towards the Appellant and his mother, threats of suicide, refusal to cohabit, and eventual desertion without reasonable cause, cumulatively established cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA. 

It was argued that the Family Court erred in isolating each incident rather than considering their cumulative effect on the Husband’s mental peace and dignity. It was further urged that the Family Court wrongly invoked the principle of “clean hands” to deny relief. 

It was contended that mere allegations of dowry demand in the written statement, unsubstantiated by any independent evidence, could not taint his claim, particularly when no criminal case or complaint was pending at the time of filing the petition.

It was submitted that the Family Court failed to appreciate that while the burden of proving cruelty lay on the Husband, the onus of establishing counter-allegations rested equally on the Wife.

Reasoning By Court

The Court agreed with the Counsel for the Wife and referred to Supreme Court's decision in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh.

"Applying these principles, the Appellant’s testimony regarding the Respondent’s repeated verbal abuses, threats of suicide, withdrawal from cohabitation, and ultimate desertion remained consistent and largely unshaken in cross-examination. The evidence establishes that the Respondent’s conduct caused continuous mental stress and humiliation to the Appellant and his family. The Family Court’s approach of assessing each incident in isolation rather than cumulatively was contrary to the settled legal position in Samar Ghosh (supra)", the Court observed.

It was of the view that taken cumulatively, the Wife’s conduct, repeated verbal insults directed at the Husband and his mother, who is disabled, persistent threats of self-harm, refusal to cohabit, and desertion without reasonable cause, satisfies the test of mental cruelty.

The Court went on to rule that the “clean hands" principle is intended to prevent a party from deriving advantage from his or her own wrong and does not empower the Court to reject relief where the petitioner has otherwise established the statutory ground for divorce.

"The Respondent’s allegations of dowry harassment and misconduct remained unsubstantiated. The withdrawal of the Appellant’s father as a witness does not, by itself, amount to suppression of material facts or constitute “wrong” within the meaning of Section 23(1)(a) of the HMA. The Family Court’s conclusion that the Appellant approached the Court with unclean hands, therefore, rests on conjecture rather than proof", the Court held.

The Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Gaurav Dixit v. Priyanka Sharma (2025:DHC:10200-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate S.D. Dikshit, Advocate Anu Tyagi

Click here to read/ download Order