Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has recently held that a spouse unilaterally retracting from a mutually agreed divorce settlement constitutes mental cruelty.

The division bench, comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna, cited Supreme Court and High Court judgments to underscore that withdrawing consent without just cause in a mutually agreed divorce adds an element of cruelty.

Court expressed that such conduct, wherein one spouse leads the other to believe that disputes are on the verge of resolution through mutual consent, only to later withdraw from the settlement, causes disquiet, cruelty, and uncertainty in the mind of the affected spouse.

It clarified that such unilateral withdrawal, driven by egos and a desire for vengeance, amounts to cruelty.

"It is evident that the fight inter se the parties was not on any justifiable grounds but was a war between the egos prompted by the desire to wreak vengeance against the spouse. Such unilateral withdrawal from divorce by mutual consent thus amounted to cruelty," the court observed. 

The court made the observation while dealing with an appeal filed by a woman against a family court order from March 20, 2017, which granted her husband's plea for divorce on grounds of cruelty.

The couple, who married in December 2001, separated after thirteen months in January 2003 due to emerging disputes. Opting for a divorce by mutual consent, the spouses partially executed the settlement, with the wife accepting a demand draft of Rs. 5 lakh, only to return it later. Subsequently, the husband filed for divorce.

Court noted that the wife's allegations of her husband's adulterous relationships lacked concrete proof.

While noting that filing complaints against the spouse and their family members is not cruelty in itself, however, all the allegations leveled against the respondent/husband and his family members have been found to be false, the court said, "The appellant has miserably failed to prove any acts of cruelty as alleged, even in the present proceedings. The respondent and even his family members were made to suffer due to protracted litigation and also faced the prospect of arrest on patently unsubstantiated allegations that, without any doubt, constitute cruelty against the respondent or husband.".

"The acts of the appellant/wife of filing not only false criminal cases against the husband and his family but also appealing against them in a vexatious manner amount to cruelty," it added.

Court emphasized that the incidents collectively demonstrated the wife's non-adjusting attitude and lack of maturity in resolving differences without subjecting the husband to public humiliation, thereby causing him mental cruelty.

"In view of the foregoing discussions, we conclude that there is no infirmity in the judgment dated 20.03.2017 of the learned principal judge granting divorce on the ground of cruelty to the respondent or husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955," the Court asserted, leading to the rejection of the wife's appeal.

Case Title: Ritu Sethi v. Vivek Sethi