Calling Husband ‘Bastard’ and His Mother a ‘Prostitute’ is Grave Mental Cruelty: Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce, Rejects Wife’s Claim for ₹50 Lakh Alimony

“A Spouse Cannot Resist Divorce Only to Secure Monetary Gain — Marriage Has Irretrievably Broken Down Beyond Repair” - In a significant judgment that reaffirms the evolving jurisprudence on mental cruelty and the misuse of matrimonial litigation for monetary gain, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by a senior government officer challenging the Family Court’s decree of divorce granted on the ground of cruelty and simultaneously seeking permanent alimony of ₹50 lakhs. The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the marriage was marred by sustained verbal abuse, humiliation, and hostile conduct, and had irretrievably broken down, with no entitlement to alimony shown.

“Use of Words Like ‘Bastard’, ‘Illegitimate’, ‘Son of a Prostitute’ Constitutes Undisputed Mental Cruelty”: High Court Upholds Family Court’s Findings

Dismissing the wife’s challenge to the divorce decree passed by the Family Court on August 31, 2023, the High Court held:

“Specific messages dated 09.05.2011, 15.05.2011, and 27.06.2011, which included terms such as ‘bastard’, ‘son of a bitch,’ and suggestions that his mother should ‘earn through prostitution’, are by themselves sufficient to constitute mental cruelty of the gravest kind.”

The Court observed that these abusive messages, which were sent from the wife's official government-issued phone, had been duly proved with a Section 65B certificate, and the explanation offered — that the husband sent the messages to himself using her phone — was held to be an afterthought, unsupported by any evidence.

“The mobile phone was with her, and if such messages were sent by the husband, it would have been known to her. No police complaint was filed. The explanation lacks credibility.”

“Hostile Behaviour, Denial of Conjugal Relations, and Humiliation Before Others Show a Pattern of Cruelty — Not Isolated Events”

The Court emphasized that mental cruelty must be assessed cumulatively, and not based on isolated instances. Referring to testimony that remained unshaken in cross-examination, the Court noted:

“From the inception of the marriage, the appellant refused conjugal relations and explicitly told the respondent they should live like two individuals sharing a room.”

“She slapped him in January 2011 merely because he expressed a desire to accompany her to Mumbai, and later humiliated him before her parents, calling him ‘kamina’ and questioning his social status as an advocate.”

Further, she was found to have forced his elderly parents out of the matrimonial home, used demeaning casteist and classist remarks, and undermined him socially and professionally, including denigrating him during Durga Puja in front of relatives and mocking his Bengali roots.

“Counter-Allegations by Wife Were Vague, Unproven, and Cannot Displace Established Cruelty by Husband”

While the appellant claimed she was locked indoors, forced to cook non-vegetarian food, and was harassed for dowry and inclusion of the husband’s name in her property, the Court found these to be vague, uncorroborated, and not supported by any documentary evidence.

“Mere assertion of counter-cruelty does not nullify established acts of cruelty; each averment must be judged on evidential merit.”

The Court accepted the Family Court’s reasoning that even if the husband’s conduct in filing multiple cases was “undesirable”, it did not justify or excuse the abusive and humiliating behaviour by the wife.

“Wife’s Demand for ₹50 Lakh to Consent to Divorce Shows Opposition Was Not Bonafide”

Crucially, the Court relied on her own affidavit dated 13.08.2019, where she clearly stated that she would consent to divorce if paid ₹50 lakh. This was also confirmed in her cross-examination and recorded in the Family Court’s order sheet.

“When a spouse opposes divorce but simultaneously demands money as a condition, it shows the opposition is financially motivated, not grounded in any sincere desire to restore matrimonial harmony.”

The Court added that such financial motivations cannot justify continued marital ties, nor do they confer any automatic entitlement to alimony.

“Permanent Alimony is an Equitable Relief — Not a Tool for Financial Equalisation Between Capable Individuals”

Dismissing the wife's plea for alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court emphasized:

“She is a Group A Officer in the Indian Railway Traffic Service, drawing a substantial salary, entitled to pension and medical benefits. There is no evidence of financial hardship, dependency, or medical condition. She is not entitled to alimony.”

Referring to Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain (2024) 13 SCC 66, the Court reiterated that alimony requires genuine financial need, not “enrichment or equalisation of financial status between two capable individuals.”

“14 Years of Separation — No Children, Failed Reconciliation — Marriage Has Become a Legal Fiction”

The Court held that the parties had lived together for only a year (2010–2011) and had been separated for over 14 years, with all attempts at reconciliation having failed:

“The relationship has been consumed by bitterness, mutual allegations, and litigation, rendering any possibility of reconciliation entirely implausible.”

The Court also noted that condonation of cruelty was not established, as no material evidence was produced to show genuine cohabitation post-2011, and even if some meetings had taken place, there was no intention to restore marital life or forgive past wrongs.

“Family Courts Not Bound by Technical Rules of Evidence — Section 14 FC Act Allows Liberal Admission of Relevant Material”

On the question of admissibility of the abusive messages, the Court reaffirmed the view that Family Courts are not shackled by strict rules of admissibility under the Evidence Act, as per Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984:

“The messages were accompanied by a Section 65B certificate and were shown to the appellant’s counsel in cross-examination. Objections to their admissibility are meritless.”

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Aman Lohia v. Kiran Lohia (2023) 3 SCC 752, and the Bombay High Court’s decisions in Premdeep v. Bhavana and Shiv Anand Damodar Shanbhag v. Sujata Shiv Anand, to reiterate that relevant and reliable documents can be admitted even if not formally proved, provided they assist the court in resolving the dispute.

Divorce Justified on Cruelty — Alimony Denied for Want of Financial Necessity

Concluding that the Family Court had correctly evaluated both fact and law, the Delhi High Court affirmed the decree of divorce and rejected the claim for permanent alimony:

“We find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No case of permanent alimony has been made out. No costs.”

Date of Judgment: 17 October 2025