In a detailed judgment that cuts through years of bitter allegations and police complaints, the Delhi High Court has upheld a decree of divorce granted to a husband on the ground of cruelty. The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar ruled that the wife's "repeated, unsubstantiated accusations and violent conduct" had rendered the marriage impossible to sustain.
The court observed that physical assault, false criminal cases, and years of relentless litigation caused grave mental anguish to the husband, amounting to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Background
Anupama Sharma and Sanjay Sharma were married in 1997 in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, and had a son the following year. What began as a regular matrimonial life soon spiralled into a prolonged courtroom battle.
The wife alleged dowry demands, harassment, and infidelity, claiming she was thrown out of her matrimonial home during pregnancy. She filed several police complaints over the years, including FIR No. 217/2013 under Sections 498A and 323 of the IPC. The husband, on the other hand, accused her of assaulting him at his clinic in Muzaffarnagar, abusing him publicly, and filing false criminal cases that led to his arrest and social humiliation.
By 2012, the couple had started living separately, and the husband approached the Family Court seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Court's Observations
After examining years of cross-complaints, the Bench concluded that the Family Court was justified in granting divorce based on cruelty.
"The appellant-wife repeatedly filed criminal complaints, many of them unsubstantiated, causing the respondent-husband prolonged mental agony and humiliation," the Court noted. It agreed with the trial court's finding that physical assault at the husband’s clinic and a barrage of defamatory allegations amounted to grave cruelty.
The bench recalled that the wife had accused her husband of illicit relations with two women but failed to provide names, witnesses, or authentic documents.
"Baseless imputations of infidelity strike at the very root of a marriage," the Bench observed, adding that such reckless allegations, without proof, "are not mere words but weapons that wound the dignity and mental peace of a spouse."
Referring to Supreme Court precedents like Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Bhate and Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja, the judges reiterated that false and defamatory accusations or misuse of legal provisions such as Section 498A IPC constitute mental cruelty.
The Court also noted that despite having initiated numerous complaints, the wife had not produced reliable evidence to establish her claims of dowry harassment or violence.
"Her conduct reveals a sustained pattern of harassment and litigation over a decade," Justice Shankar remarked during the pronouncement.
Analysis of the Evidence
The judges took particular note of an incident on April 21, 2013, when the wife allegedly entered the husband’s clinic with her relatives and assaulted him, damaging property worth ₹30,000. Even though the husband did not lodge a complaint at that time, the Court held that such physical aggression could not be condoned under any circumstances.
It also referred to the series of criminal cases and complaints filed by the wife-some even after the divorce petition-observing that this continuing pattern of litigation "revealed an intention to harass rather than seek justice."
"The prolonged separation since 2012, coupled with baseless allegations and police cases, shows that the marriage has broken down beyond repair," the Bench noted.
Court's Decision
Dismissing the wife's appeal, the High Court upheld the Family Court's order of June 7, 2022, which had dissolved the marriage. The Bench agreed that cruelty had been clearly established.
"The material on record demonstrates that the respondent-husband was subjected to grave mental and physical cruelty," the Court said. "
The appellant's reckless complaints and defamatory accusations inflicted sustained harassment, humiliation, and mental agony. No person can reasonably be expected to continue cohabiting under such conditions."
While clarifying that "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" is not an independent ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court added that a marriage which has "become a source of misery for both parties" can still be dissolved under the cruelty provision.
Concluding the 39-page judgment, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed:
"Keeping such a marriage alive would only prolong the agony of both parties. The decree of divorce granted by the Family Court stands affirmed. Each party shall bear their own costs."
Case Title: Ms. Anupama Sharma v. Shri Sanjay Sharma
