Marriage Briefly Bloomed, Legal War Endured: Husband Wins Divorce on Cruelty Grounds.


20 December 2023 Divorce Law >> Family Law   |   Hindu Marriage Act >> Marriage Law  

A recent judgment of Ritu Sethi Vs Vivek Sethi by the Delhi High Court has upheld a lower court's decision to grant a husband a divorce on the grounds of cruelty, bringing an end to a protracted legal battle that spanned over a decade, far exceeding the brief duration of the marriage itself. The case, stemming from an appeal filed by the wife against a 2017 decree by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Delhi, highlights the complexities and emotional toll of matrimonial disputes, particularly when allegations and counter-allegations escalate into lengthy legal proceedings.

The couple, who were colleagues, married on December 10, 2001. However, their marital bliss was short-lived, with the couple separating just thirteen months later, on January 19, 2003. The husband subsequently filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), citing cruelty as the primary ground.

In his petition, the husband detailed a series of incidents that, according to him, demonstrated the wife's cruel behavior. These included her dissatisfaction over a postponed honeymoon, her berating him for financial constraints when she wanted to purchase a Mangalsutra, and her excessive obsession with cleanliness. He also alleged that she failed to fulfill matrimonial obligations, threatened to conceive a child with another man when he expressed reluctance to start a family immediately, and insulted his friends and elderly maternal grandmother. Furthermore, he claimed that she made malicious calls to his office and even visited his workplace to spread fabricated stories, causing him significant professional embarrassment. The husband also alleged the wife's insistence on scrutinizing the property documents of his grandmother.

 

 

Adding a significant layer to the dispute, the wife filed a complaint with the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell in August 2003, which led to an FIR being registered against the husband and his family members under Sections 498A (dowry harassment) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The husband secured anticipatory bail after paying ?5,00,000 to the wife. While the criminal proceedings against the husband's grandmother abated due to her demise, his mother and sister were eventually discharged, and the husband himself was acquitted of all charges in 2016. The husband further claimed that the wife demanded ?35,00,000 to vacate his grandmother's property.

The wife, in her written statement, vehemently denied all the allegations leveled against her. She counter-alleged that the husband had deserted her and moved to a rented accommodation in January 2003. She claimed that she was harassed by the husband's grandmother and sister for more dowry and that the family had even disrupted essential services like water and electricity to her portion of the house. She also disputed the claim that she was a permissive user of the second floor, stating that she paid rent. Regarding the incidents cited by the husband, she offered explanations, such as feeling excluded from a family dinner when her parents visited and being upset when the husband brought friends to their shared living space after she was not invited to the downstairs gathering. She further accused the husband of having affairs with several women.

The Family Court framed four issues based on the pleadings, including whether the wife had treated the husband with cruelty and whether the husband had approached the court with clean hands. After examining the evidence presented by both sides, including the testimonies of the husband, his mother, and the wife herself, the Principal Judge, Family Court, focused on the false criminal complaint filed by the wife against the husband and his family, which led to prolonged legal proceedings and eventual acquittal of the husband. The court also noted the wife's unsubstantiated allegations of adultery and her initial agreement to a divorce by mutual consent, followed by a unilateral withdrawal despite accepting a partial settlement of ?5,00,000. Based on these observations, the Family Court concluded that the wife's conduct amounted to cruelty and granted the divorce.


Aggrieved by this decision, the wife filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

The High Court, after hearing the submissions from both sides and perusing the evidence, upheld the Family Court's judgment. The court noted the wife's "non-adjusting attitude" and her tendency to publicly humiliate her husband over minor issues. It specifically highlighted her admission of turning away the husband's friends, her threat to have a child with another man, and her unsubstantiated allegations of adultery, which the court deemed a grave assault on the husband's character and reputation, constituting mental cruelty.

The High Court also concurred with the Family Court's assessment of the false criminal complaint. Relying on precedents set by the Supreme Court, the High Court reiterated that filing false criminal complaints against a spouse and their family members amounts to mental cruelty. The court emphasized the prolonged suffering and potential for arrest faced by the husband and his family due to these baseless allegations.

Furthermore, the High Court addressed the issue of the withdrawn mutual consent for divorce. Citing previous rulings, the court held that a unilateral withdrawal of consent for mutual divorce without just cause adds to the cruelty inflicted on the other spouse, especially after a partial settlement had been reached.

In its final analysis, the High Court observed that a marriage lasting only thirteen months followed by over fourteen years of civil and criminal litigation, exacerbated by the wife's persistent pursuit of appeals and revisions, unequivocally demonstrated extreme cruelty. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the wife's appeal, affirming the divorce granted by the Family Court.


HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955  

Family Courts Act, 1984