The Delhi High Court recently observed that a wife making false allegations of rape and dowry harassment against the family members of husband, amounts to extreme cruelty for which there can be no condonation.

A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna added that such false complaints by the wife against her husband constitutes mental cruelty and the husband can claim divorce on that ground.

“It cannot be overlooked that making serious allegations of not only dowry harassment but of rape against the family members of the respondent which are found to be false, is an act of extreme cruelty for which there can be no condonation… Ultimately, if it is found that such allegations were unwarranted and without basis, the husband can allege that mental cruelty has been inflicted on him and claim a divorce on such a ground,” the Court said.

The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by a woman challenging a family court order of November 11, 2021 granting divorce to the husband on grounds of mental cruelty.

The Court was told that the couple got married on November 24, 2012 according to Hindu rites and customs, but the wife left the matrimonial home on February 19, 2014.

She alleged that the husband never gave her the status of his legally wedded file and that on February 17, 2014, her brother-in-law committed rape on her.

She further stated that the husband and his family would taunt her for being handicapped and for not bringing sufficient dowry.

The Court, however, found that though a case under Sections 498A (cruelty to woman) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was filed against the husband and his brother, they were exonerated of all allegations. It also noted that the wife had written an apology letter wherein she said that there was no harassment as claimed by her.

The Court further observed that there was no evidence to show that the marriage was not consummated as alleged. Rather, the Court opined that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant (wife) was reluctant to live with her husband.

The Court stressed that it was an extreme act of cruelty to deprive a one spouse of the other's company and that the bedrock of any matrimonial relationship is cohabitation and a conjugal relationship.

“For a couple to be deprived of each other’s company, proves that the marriage cannot survive, and such deprivation of conjugal relationship is an act of extreme cruelty," the Court said.

Delving into the issue of cruelty, the Court held that there is no straightforward way to categorise or conclusively define what would be cruel.

It is the effect of the conduct rather than its nature which is of paramount importance in assessing a complaint of cruelty, the Court underscored.

“The Court must bear in mind the physical and the mental conditions of the parties as well as their social status and should consider the impact of the personality and the conduct of one spouse on the mind of the other, weighing all incidents and quarrels between the spouses from that point of view and such conduct must be examined in the light of the capacity and endurance of the complainant and to what extent such capacity was known to the other spouse. Malevolent intention is not essential to cruelty but it is an important element where it exists," the Court explained.

In the present case, the Court further noted that the couple had been living separately for almost nine years. This, the Court said, is an instance of utmost mental cruelty, which called for immediate severance of the matrimonial relationship.

The Court, therefore, upheld the family court order and dismissed the wife's appeal.

Advocate Pradeep Kumar appeared for the wife.

The husband appeared in person. 

[Read Judgment]