Forcing Husband to Cut Ties with His Family Amounts to Cruelty, Says Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has recently held that a wife’s persistent and pressurising conduct to sever her husband’s bonds with his family amounts to cruelty, and therefore constitutes a valid ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar delivered the ruling while hearing an appeal filed by a woman challenging the judgment of the Family Court, which had dissolved her marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.

The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 27 March 2007 in Delhi, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A son was born on 8 January 2008. However, disputes surfaced soon after the marriage.

According to the husband, the wife subjected him to cruelty during the subsistence of the marriage. She was unwilling to live in a joint family and repeatedly pressured him to partition the family property and live separately from his widowed mother and divorced sister. He alleged that she frequently absented herself from the matrimonial home, neglected household duties, and refused to share household responsibilities.On these grounds, the husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA seeking dissolution of marriage.

Before the High Court, the appellant argued that it was she who had been harassed at her matrimonial home by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. She alleged that they interfered in her domestic life, humiliated her on several occasions, including during pregnancy, denied her access to household resources, and pressured her to conform to unreasonable expectations. She claimed this amounted to both mental and physical abuse.

The wife also stressed that her disagreements with the husband did not arise from a desire to avoid a joint family but from the oppressive atmosphere created by his family members. She highlighted her efforts to preserve the marriage by approaching a Family Counselling Centre in 2010 and 2011. She had also filed proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and a petition under Section 9 of the HMA for restitution of conjugal rights.

On the other hand, the husband emphasised that prolonging the marital tie would serve no useful purpose since he was already suffering from serious medical ailments and incurring substantial expenditure on treatment. Maintaining the marriage, he contended, would only cause further hardship.

Taking note of the submissions, the Court upheld the Family Court’s findings, noting that the wife consistently pressured her husband to live separately from his mother and sister and to partition the family property. While the Bench clarified that a mere desire to live separately cannot amount to cruelty, it said, “Persistent and pressurising conduct to sever the Respondent’s bonds with his family certainly is cruelty.”

Court also noted instances of public humiliation and said," In May 2009, following the Respondent’s refusal to accede to the Appellant’s demand for separation, she publicly berated him at his workplace in the presence of colleagues and superiors, accusing him of neglect and of failing to prioritise her happiness. Such conduct, characterised by repeated public humiliation and verbal abuse, amounts to mental cruelty.”

Upholding the Family Court’s judgment, the Court ruled,"The Respondent has successfully demonstrated a sustained pattern of pressure, humiliation, threats, and alienation. Taken together, these acts go well beyond the ‘ordinary wear and tear of married life’ and constitute mental cruelty of such gravity that the Respondent cannot reasonably be expected to endure them.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the decree of divorce was upheld.

Case Title: X v. Y

Judgment Date: 16 September 2025

Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar