Keywords: Delhi High Court, Cruelty, Separation, False Complaints, Sapinda Relationships, Custom and Usage
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that persistent false complaints and a nearly three-decade separation by a wife against her husband amount to mental cruelty. This landmark decision led to the annulment of the marriage between the estranged couple, shedding light on the legal implications of such actions within a marital context.
The division bench consisting of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that the wife’s consistent pursuit of baseless litigation against her husband and his family members constituted a form of cruelty. These false allegations and complaints against the husband were recognized as acts of mental cruelty, impacting his well-being and the matrimonial relationship. What makes this case particularly striking is the lengthy separation between the couple. Having lived separately since 1995, their 28-year estrangement was seen by the Court as a grave form of cruelty in itself. The Court invoked Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which relates to grounds for divorce, to justify the immediate severance of the marital relationship due to this prolonged separation.
The Court further highlighted that the woman had previously filed a case against the husband and his family members under Sections 498A (cruelty to women), 504, and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. However, they were acquitted after a lengthy trial, and a subsequent revision petition was also dismissed. The Court noted that her persistent litigation over a significant period without substantial evidence amounted to cruelty.
This ruling echoes a recent judgment by the same bench in another marital dispute. In that case, the Court found that a wife making false allegations of rape and dowry harassment against her in-laws constituted extreme cruelty, ultimately leading to divorce. In the present case, rather than granting divorce, the Court declared the marriage void under Section 11 (void marriages) of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing a close blood relationship between the couple. The Court determined that they had a sapinda relationship because the woman’s grandmother was the sister of her husband’s father.
The woman argued that their marriage was recognized by custom, given their belonging to the Jhang Community. However, the husband contended that the marriage was invalid due to a violation of Section 5(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which prohibits sapinda marriages without a custom. The Court ruled that to establish such a custom, it must predate the 1955 enactment, which was not proven in this case. Additionally, the Court emphasized that community silence on these marriages did not validate them, and the marriage was declared null and void.
Advocates Harpeet Singh and Jatin Kumar Gaur represented the appellant seeking to declare the marriage void, while Advocate Kapil Dua represented the respondent-woman. This ruling sets a precedent in recognizing the significance of persistent false complaints and lengthy separations as forms of mental cruelty within marriage, contributing to the evolving landscape of family law in India.
Name: Tanvi Bansal , College: UILS, PU Semester: 3rd , As intern under Legal Vidhiya
