Allegations of Abuse, Verbal Taunts, and Desertion Constitute Mental Cruelty: Delhi High Court Grants Divorce

“A cumulative assessment of sustained abusive conduct, emotional trauma, and withdrawal from cohabitation must be seen as mental cruelty—incidents cannot be dissected in isolation.” - In a robust reaffirmation of the principles governing matrimonial cruelty, the Delhi High Court overturned a Family Court’s decision and dissolved a marriage on the ground of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Renu Bhatnagar held that the Family Court erred in both its assessment of cruelty and its invocation of the “clean hands” doctrine under Section 23(1)(a) of the HMA.

The Court found that the husband's consistent and unshaken testimony—alleging repeated verbal abuse by the wife, threats of suicide, refusal to consummate the marriage, and desertion—clearly established sustained mental cruelty, thereby entitling him to a decree of divorce. Dismissing the Family Court's observation that the incidents were isolated and insufficient, the Bench declared:
“Cruelty must be determined from the entire backdrop of marital life—it is the aggregate of conduct, not isolated snapshots, that breaks a marriage.”

“Post-Litigation FIRs Cannot Nullify Consistent Evidence of Cruelty”: High Court Criticises Misuse of Clean Hands Doctrine in Divorce Proceedings

“Mere allegations, devoid of contemporaneous evidence, cannot defeat a divorce petition that otherwise satisfies the statutory requirement of cruelty.”

At the heart of the appeal was a challenge to a Family Court judgment dated 20.03.2025, which had dismissed the husband's divorce petition by citing lack of proven cruelty and branding him as having approached the court with “unclean hands” owing to dowry-related allegations made by the wife. The High Court, however, found that these allegations were “reactive, belated and unsubstantiated,” observing that:
“The wife initiated no complaint, no FIR, and no legal proceedings at the time the alleged acts occurred—her claims emerged only after the divorce petition was filed.”

The Bench emphasized that Section 23(1)(a) of the HMA is meant to bar relief only when the petitioner’s own conduct constitutes a matrimonial offence, and not when he merely fails to rebut vague allegations. Citing Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, the Court held that the Family Court’s reasoning was legally flawed, stating:
“A party cannot be denied relief under Section 13(1)(ia) merely because the opposing side levels accusations unsupported by contemporaneous evidence. The 'clean hands' doctrine is not a substitute for proof.”

Marriage Deteriorated Beyond Repair: Trust Irretrievably Broken After Allegation of Molestation by Father-in-Law

The Court also took serious note of the wife’s own grave accusation against her father-in-law, alleging an attempt to molest her. Even assuming arguendo that the allegation was truthful, the Court observed:
“Once such an accusation is made, restoration of marital harmony becomes virtually impossible. It strikes at the foundation of mutual trust between the spouses and their families.”

With both parties living separately since January 2020 and no child born from the marriage, the Court concluded that the relationship had broken down irretrievably. Referring to Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, the Court reiterated the principle that forcing spouses to remain bound in a dead marriage serves no purpose except to prolong suffering.

The judgment further stressed that the Family Court's reliance on an alleged miscarriage in early 2019 to infer matrimonial harmony was wholly misplaced. The Bench noted that:
“A miscarriage, or isolated reconciliation, cannot be taken as evidence of an enduring, functional relationship when overwhelming facts show sustained cruelty thereafter.”

High Court Grants Divorce, Reaffirms Mental Cruelty Must Be Judged as a Whole

After careful review of the pleadings, depositions, and the Family Court's findings, the High Court held that the husband had successfully established cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA. The consistent testimony, supported by specific dates and events—including verbal abuse calling the husband’s disabled mother “langdi”, physical and emotional withdrawal, and desertion—compelled the Court to conclude:
“The cumulative effect of these acts amounts to mental cruelty of such intensity that continuation of the marriage would be unjust.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered:
“The marriage solemnized on 01.03.2016 is dissolved by a decree of divorce. The Registry shall draw up the decree sheet. No orders as to costs.”

Before closing, the Bench also issued a gentle reminder of the human toll matrimonial disputes often extract:
“The dissolution of marriage is not a victory for either party, but a legal recognition that the relationship has irreversibly broken down. Both parties are urged to conduct themselves with dignity in all future interactions, especially in any proceedings relating to maintenance or ancillary matters.”

Date of Decision: 20 November 2025