Delhi HC: Withholding Consent For Divorce In Failed Marriage Is Cruelty

Recently, the Delhi High Court observed that withholding mutual consent for divorce or unilaterally withdrawing consent amounts to mental cruelty towards the other spouse. The court made this statement while upholding the divorce decree granted to a husband by a family court which the wife had challenged in the high court as she withdrew her consent for divorce after settlement. 

The court, headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait said, "It is evident that the fight between 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." 

Details of the case in hand

As per the case, the couple was married in 2001 but they separated in January 2003 and the husband filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty. However, the wife denied all the allegations and imposed new but false charges on her husband and his family. She filed false complaints against her husband and his family which included his 86-year-old grandmother. She also imposed unsubstantiated charges of adultery on her husband.

However, she withdrew her consent for divorce after a settlement was reached. According to the settlement, the husband was supposed to pay five lakh rupees to the wife. During the initial payment, she withdrew her consent and returned the money. 

The court's judgement

But the court said that withdrawing consent for divorce in a failed marriage amounts to cruelty. It further added that the wife's attempt to make her husband believe that their disputes would end could cause "disquiet, cruelty and uncertainty" in his mind. 

The court condemned the wife's conduct of filing false criminal cases against her husband and his family making them undergo protracted litigation as an act of cruelty. Furthermore, it also called out the false adultery allegations by the wife on the husband as an attempt to assault his character, honour and reputation which, according to the court, amounts to the worst kind of cruelty.

The court stated that when the records of the case are viewed together, it shows a 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". 

Consequently, the court refused to interfere with the judgement of the family court. The judge of the family court has rightly observed that even though the marriage survived only for 13 months, the civil and criminal litigation was stretched for more than 13 years. Saying this, the court dismissed the wife's appeal.