In a much-anticipated judgment reserved on August 26 and pronounced on September 22, 2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed a husband’s plea for divorce from his wife while upholding her right to maintenance and a half share in the sale proceeds of a jointly owned flat in Mumbai. The bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar delivered a common verdict covering multiple connected appeals filed by both husband and wife.
Background
The couple married in July 1999 in Amritsar but began living separately by January 2006. Their marital discord soon spilled into multiple litigations across Delhi and Mumbai. The husband sought divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, while the wife pursued maintenance and protection of her share in joint property.
During the proceedings, the family court had directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of ₹2 lakh per month to the wife and also allowed him partial withdrawal from an HSBC account holding over ₹1 crore, which was surplus after the bank auctioned their jointly purchased Mumbai flat. Both parties challenged different parts of this order, leading to years of cross-appeals.
Court's Observations
The High Court carefully sifted through conflicting claims. On maintenance, the bench noted that the wife was already receiving ₹2 lakh per month under criminal proceedings, and this amount should continue. Rejecting the husband’s plea to set aside maintenance, the judges remarked that,
"maintenance pendente lite is meant to ensure a spouse without sufficient income can sustain litigation and livelihood."
On the property dispute, the Court held that the wife was entitled to half of the ₹1.09 crore lying in HSBC. The bench rejected the husband’s claim that since he paid all EMIs, the proceeds belonged solely to him.
"Once the property is in joint names, the husband cannot claim exclusive ownership by pleading he bore the entire cost," the bench observed, citing the bar under the Benami Property Act.
On the divorce petition, the Court agreed with the family court's finding that the husband failed to establish cruelty or desertion by his wife. The judges highlighted contradictions in his testimony and noted evidence suggesting his close relationship with another woman.
The bench pointed out that he had already "made up his mind to divorce by February 2006" and later tried to "teach a lesson" to his wife.
"The petitioner-husband cannot take advantage of his own wrong," the Court emphasized, invoking Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It also remarked that while the marriage had irretrievably broken down, only the Supreme Court has the power to dissolve marriages on that ground under Article 142.
Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal for divorce, upheld the wife’s claim to 50% of the joint property proceeds, and directed continuation of ₹2 lakh monthly maintenance. Each party was left to bear their own legal costs.
With this ruling, the long-running matrimonial dispute, stretching nearly two decades, sees another chapter close though without granting the husband the divorce he sought.
Case Title: X and Y
