Every Person Is Entitled To Live With Dignity And Honour – Delhi High Court While Upholding The Divorce On The Ground Of Cruelty

Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant (wife) who challenged the Family Court’s order for granting divorce.

The Delhi High Court while uploading the dissolution of marriage on the basis of cruelty has observed that repeated use of derogatory and humiliating words by the wife against the husband and his family amounts to cruelty.

A bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Vikas Mahajan stated that “No person can be expected to live with constant abuse being hurled upon him”.

The Court was hearing an appeal by the appellant (wife) against a judgment of the family court granting the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage on the basis of cruelty. The Family court had passed the decision in the husband's favor and granted the divorce.

In her appeal, the wife argued that the family court had been misled by a mere suggestion made by the husband's counsel by the end of the cross-examination that the husband had filed for divorce because he was having an extramarital affair with his co-worker.

In his petition for divorce, the husband repeated the taunts and words used by the appellant and her father against him and his family. There were some instances that stated that there was some kind of mental cruelty towards his family by the wife, as the Court noted.

The Court responded to those statements by stating, "Everyone has the right to live with decency and respect and if those phrases were used against a person, they would be extremely insulting and humiliating."

The Court noted that the wife’s behavior is of such quality, magnitude, and impact that it would have caused mental anguish, grief, fury, and suffering to the husband on a regular and ongoing basis, and thus definitely constituted cruelty.

The Court also rejected the wife's argument that particular dates and times of acts of cruelty were not specified in the family court's ruling on the petition.

Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no error in the conclusions of the family court and dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title – Deepti Bhardwaj vs. Rajeev Bhardwaj

Statue – Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act 1956