Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has recently held that the deprivation of conjugal relationships is an act of extreme cruelty.

The bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said, “It needs no reiteration that the bedrock of any matrimonial relationship is cohabitation and conjugal relationships. For a couple to be deprived of each other’s company proves that the marriage cannot survive, and such deprivation of conjugal relationships is an act of extreme cruelty.”

While granting a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) to the husband, the court held that a relationship that has come to an end only brings suffering and distress, and to allow the same would constitute mental cruelty. "The marriage ties which keep lingered on account of protracted litigation only brings more cruelty and acrimony," it said. 

The parties involved were married in 1998 and shared two children. The husband contended that the wife exhibited greed, quarrelsome behavior, and jealousy, often demanding excessive amounts for personal needs. Allegedly, despite fulfilling matrimonial obligations, the wife mistreated the husband's widowed mother, resulting in the mother leaving the house for extended periods. The husband also claimed instances of the wife leaving the matrimonial home without valid cause.

In response, the wife refused the allegations, attributing her departure from the matrimonial home to domestic violence. She asserted cruelty and abuse by her husband, seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC and filing a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).

The Family Court, in its earlier decision, found no specific instance of cruelty proven by the husband and consequently dismissed the divorce petition.

Discontent with the Family Court's ruling, the husband appealed the decision, contending that the wife's intolerance towards his mother was the primary cause of discord. He argued that the constant stress and trauma created a hostile environment, constituting cruelty.

Relying on the precedent set by the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), the Court held that a prolonged period of continuous separation could lead to the irreparable breakdown of the matrimonial bond, constituting mental cruelty.

The Court observed that the wife's actions over the years constituted mental cruelty, entitling the husband to a divorce.

"We observe that such acts of the respondent, spread over more than fourteen years, were a constant source of mental agony and trauma, constituting cruelty and entitling the appellant to a decree of divorce. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 20.04.2019. The decree of divorce is granted under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA," the bench ordered.

Case Title: Prem Kumar v. Kalpana Kumar