Withholding mutual consent for divorce in failed marriage amounts to cruelty: Delhi HC

New Delhi: Withholding mutual consent for divorce in a failed marriage or unilaterally withdrawing such consent amounts to cruelty to the other spouse, the Delhi High Court has said while upholding the divorce granted to a husband by a family court here.

A bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, while dealing with an appeal of the wife who withdrew her consent for mutual divorce after a settlement, observed that the idea of a “no-fault-divorce” is to make the parties realise that there was a sensible way of parting on the agreed terms.

In the present case, the parties had agreed to divorce by mutual consent and a settlement was arrived at between them pursuant to which a demand draft of Rs 5 lakh was given by the husband to the wife but, after part-payment, she unilaterally withdrew her consent and returned the money.

"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 bench, also comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, said in a recent judgement.

"Withholding mutual consent in a failed marriage, is nothing but cruelty," noted the court as it remarked that the wife's conduct of making the husband believe that their disputes were going to end and then withdrawing from the settlement can 'cause disquiet, cruelty and uncertainty in his mind.

Besides the withdrawal of consent, the court also held that false criminal complaints by the wife against the spouse and his family, including his 86-year-old grandmother, due to which they suffered 'protracted litigation', was also an act of cruelty by her.

"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, amounts to cruelty," the court stated.

It noted that the false and unsubstantiated allegations of adultery against the husband, which constitute grave assault on his character, honour and reputation, also amounted to worst form of cruelty.

The couple had got married in 2001 but it survived barely for about 13 months as they separated in January 2003 and the husband subsequently filed for divorce on account of cruelty.

The wife denied all allegations.

In view of the incidents brought on record, the court observed that although they may not be of much significance in isolation but when viewed together, they clearly depicted the 'non-adjusting attitude' of the wife 'who had no maturity to sort out the differences with the husband without his public humiliation due to which he suffered mental cruelty'.

The court refused to interfere with the family court's verdict and said the principal judge rightly observed that while matrimonial life in the present case survived only for 13 months, the civil and criminal litigation between them ran into more than 13 years.

"We find no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby dismissed," the court said.