In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld a divorce decree granted to a husband by a family court in 2021, holding that the wife's prolonged refusal to cohabit and her deliberate alienation of their son amounted to cruelty under matrimonial law. The order, pronounced on 19 September 2025 by Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, dismissed the wife's appeal.
Background
The marriage, solemnised in March 1990, had produced one son, Rahul. Trouble surfaced after 2008, when according to the husband, his wife stopped all physical relations, frequently left the matrimonial home, and pressurised the family to transfer property in her favour. She later filed multiple FIRs alleging harassment, assault, and dowry demands after the husband sought divorce in 2009.
The family court at Tis Hazari had dissolved the marriage in September 2021 on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife challenged that finding, calling the allegations exaggerated and insisting the FIRs were genuine complaints, not a counterblast.
Court's Observations
The bench carefully went through years of testimony, admissions, and cross-examination. A striking point emerged from the wife’s own statements. In court she admitted,
"I and the respondent are not having physical relations as husband and wife since 2008." She also acknowledged that her last Karwa Chauth fast was in 2008.
The judges noted that while quarrels and occasional disagreements can be treated as the wear and tear of marriage, a complete denial of conjugal companionship without reason crosses into cruelty. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit, the bench recalled the observation that "marriage without sex is an anathema."
Equally troubling for the court was the finding that the wife had alienated the couple's son from his father. Despite visitation rights granted earlier, the father testified he could barely interact with the boy, who refused to speak with him. The bench referred to earlier precedents holding that deliberate poisoning of a child's mind against a parent constitutes one of the gravest forms of mental cruelty.
The court also highlighted the wife's studied indifference towards her elderly mother-in-law, even claiming ignorance about her hip surgery and inability to walk.
"Such conduct inflicted avoidable anguish on the husband and his family," the judges said, pointing out that in Indian familial settings, showing care towards elders is part of marital obligation.
On the wife's criminal complaints, the bench took a cautious approach. While it acknowledged she had filed multiple FIRs, it noted their timing after the divorce petition and remarked that they carried the appearance of being retaliatory.
"These cannot be ignored, but equally, their context reveals a pattern of counterblast rather than contemporaneous grievance," the order observed.
Decision
In the end, the bench concluded that the cumulative conduct persistent refusal of intimacy, repeated absences, hostile complaints filed post-litigation, deliberate alienation of the child, and disregard for elderly in-laws met the threshold of cruelty as defined under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Dismissing the wife's appeal, the court affirmed the divorce.
"The prolonged denial of marital intimacy, the alienation of the minor child, and indifference towards the respondent’s parents collectively demonstrate a sustained neglect of marital responsibilities," the bench ruled.
The decree of divorce granted by the Tis Hazari Family Court in 2021 was thus upheld, and the marriage legally dissolved.
Case Title:- x & y