Making Defamatory Complaints to Spouse’s Employer Is Cruelty – Delhi High Court Affirms Divorce on Ground of Mental Harassment

“A Marriage That Survives Only in Litigation Is Itself a Form of Cruelty” – Delhi High Court upheld a decree of divorce granted to a husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, observing that false and malicious complaints made by the wife to the husband’s employer and authorities “amount to cruelty, not catharsis.” Dismissing the wife’s appeal, a Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar held that repeated and unsubstantiated allegations, especially when addressed to the husband’s superiors, destroyed the possibility of a respectful marital relationship.

The Court further held that the long-standing separation of over 15 years and the breakdown of the relationship added weight to the finding of cruelty, stating that “a relationship prolonged only through acrimonious litigation is itself injurious.”

“Cruelty Lies Not in a Single Blow but in a Thousand Cuts of Character Assassination” – Court on Malicious Complaints

The Court took strong exception to the wife's act of sending multiple complaints to public authorities, including BPCL (her husband’s employer), the National Commission for Women, the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India, and others, accusing him of adultery and domestic abuse. While the wife defended her actions as a natural reaction from a “scorned wife,” the Court firmly rejected the justification:

“The employer of the respondent has nothing to do with all such wrongs... The complaints were clearly intended to harass and humiliate him in his workplace before his colleagues.” [Para 33]

It observed that even if the allegations were true or partially true, making derogatory allegations to a spouse’s employer crosses the line from grievance to cruelty. Drawing upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, the Court stated:

“Making defamatory complaints to the employer with malicious intent or reckless disregard for truth amounts to cruelty... persistent efforts to undermine the husband’s dignity justify a decree of divorce.” [Para 37]

“Adultery Allegations Are Unfounded and Inconsistent with Natural Conduct” – Court Rejects Mutual Claims

Both parties had accused each other of having extramarital affairs, but neither produced credible proof. The wife alleged an affair between the husband and his colleague, while the husband pointed to her close association with one Mr. A.K. Tangri. The Court dismissed both claims:

“It is inconsistent with natural human conduct that a husband would maintain cordial family relations with a man with whom he believes his wife is involved in an extramarital relationship.” [Para 29]

The Court also noted that the wife had failed to mention any of these adultery allegations in her earlier complaints under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 CrPC. Thus, the Family Court's conclusion that adultery allegations were baseless and irrelevant to the cruelty findings was upheld. [Paras 28–30]

“Tapes, Testimony and Medical Reports Paint a Clear Picture of Abuse” – Electronic Evidence Rightly Relied Upon

The wife challenged the admissibility of audio recordings (CDs) submitted by the husband, alleging that the requirements of Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act were not met. However, the Court emphasized the liberal evidentiary regime applicable in Family Courts under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act:

“Strict rules of evidence are not applicable. The CDs were supported by medical reports and oral testimony – making them credible and admissible.” [Para 39]

The Court found no infirmity in the Family Court’s reliance on evidence showing physical assault, including instances where the wife allegedly hit the husband with a stick, poured water on him, and used abusive language. These were backed by medical documentation and unshaken cross-examination, satisfying the standard of mental and physical cruelty.

“15 Years of Separation Is a Marriage in Name Only – The Law Must Reflect This Reality”

The High Court took note of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, with both parties living separately since 2010–2011 and no sign of reconciliation. Referring to Rakesh Raman v. Kavita and Shankar Routh v. Soma Dutta, the Bench observed:

“A marriage which has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years does nothing but inflict cruelty on both sides. To keep the façade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both.” [Para 40]

While irretrievable breakdown is not, per se, a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court held that it reinforces a finding of cruelty when cohabitation is neither practical nor emotionally viable. It stated:

“This is not merely a case of incompatibility; it is a chronicle of continuous animosity. Law cannot mandate emotional servitude.” [Para 44]

Dismissing the wife’s appeal, the Delhi High Court concluded that the Family Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and legal position. It held:

“The Family Court rightly dissolved the marriage... the allegations of cruelty were established through consistent, malicious and defamatory conduct... Fifteen years of separation only reinforces the conclusion that the marriage is beyond salvage.” [Para 45]

The judgment underscores a growing judicial recognition that mental cruelty need not always be physical or overt—sustained attempts to injure reputation, dignity and livelihood are sufficient. It also reinforces that marriages which survive only in litigation can, themselves, be a form of cruelty.

Date of Decision: 1 July 2025