The Delhi High Court on September 25, 2025, delivered its judgment in a long-pending matrimonial dispute, refusing to grant divorce to a husband who had challenged the Family Court’s earlier decision. A division bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the appeal, bringing to an end more than two decades of litigation between the estranged couple.
Background
The marriage was solemnized in 1997 and a child was born the following year. But relations soured quickly, and since January 2000 the husband and wife have been living apart. In 2004, the husband approached the Family Court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty and desertion. He claimed the wife denied him companionship, behaved erratically, and left the matrimonial home without justification.
In 2014, the Family Court rejected his petition, holding that he had failed to prove his allegations. The same order also directed him to pay travel-related expenses to the wife. Aggrieved, the husband moved the High Court.
Court’s Observations
Senior counsel for the husband argued that the wife subjected him to mental cruelty, pointing out that she filed several criminal complaints which ultimately failed. He also alleged she spread false accusations of adultery.
The wife, however, told the court that she had been mistreated and even forced into terminating a pregnancy. She further claimed the husband assaulted her and later became involved in an extramarital relationship, which was supported by call records and travel documents.
The bench was unconvinced by the husband’s case. “Merely because a complaint ends in acquittal does not automatically make it false,” Justice Kshetarpal observed, stressing that the burden of proving malice rested on the husband.
On desertion, the judges noted a key admission during his cross-examination, where the husband had said he was not willing to live with the wife. “Such a statement defeats his own plea that he made efforts to bring her back,” the Court remarked.
Dismissing the appeal, the bench held that the husband had not established cruelty or desertion. Invoking Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the judges ruled that a party cannot take advantage of his own wrong.
Case Title: X vs Y
Case Number: MAT. APP. (F.C.) 84/2014, CM APPL. 42598/2024