False complaints by wife against husband, separation of 28 years constitutes mental cruelty: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that the consistent and persistent act by a wife to pursue false litigation against her estranged husband and his family members amounts to cruelty [Naresh Kr. Babbar v. Seema]..The division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that such false complaints and allegations against the husband by his wife constituted mental cruelty against him.The Court made the observations while annulling the marriage of a couple who had married in 1992 but were residing separately since 1995. Such separation of almost 28 years also pointed to grave cruelty, the Court added. "Such separation of almost 28 years is an instance of utmost mental cruelty, asking for immediate severance of matrimonial relationship on the ground of cruelty u/S 13(1)(ia) (relating to grounds for divorce) of the (Hindu Marriage) Act," the Court said. .The Court noted that the woman had filed a case under Sections 498A (cruelty to woman), 504, and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the husband and his family members and they were acquitted after a protracted trial. A revision petition by her in the matter was also dismissed.“This consistent and persistent act of the respondent (woman) to pursue the litigation over a period of time, is again an act of cruelty especially when the alleged evidence of cruelty has not been proved in this case,” the bench said..The same bench had recently made similar observations in another marital dispute when the Court observed that a wife making false allegations of rape and dowry harassment against her in-laws, amounted to extreme cruelty. In that case, the Court also opined that it was cruel to deprive one spouse of the other's company since the bedrock of any matrimonial relationship is cohabitation and a conjugal relationship. The bench proceeded to uphold the divorce decree in that case. .In the present case, however, rather than granting a divorce, the Court held the marriage to be void under Section 11 (void marriages) of the Hindu Marriage Act on finding that the couple were closely related to each other. The bench found that they had a sapinda relationship with each other since the woman’s grandmother was the sister of her husband’s father..The woman had argued that since they belonged to the Jhang Community, their marriage was recognized as per custom. However, the husband, whose plea for divorce was earlier dismissed by the lower court, contended that the marriage was a nullity due to the violation of Section 5 (v) of the Hindu Marriage Act. This provision prohibits marriage between sapindas in the absence of a custom. The Court observed that in order to constitute a custom that can override the Hindu Marriage Act, it has to be established and proved that the custom existed prior to the 1955 enactment. However, the Court found that no such incident was proved on record.It further observed that the consequences ensuing a marriage performed against the law would not diminish merely because it has not been questioned by the community. “The factum of uninterruptedness of the custom is also not established. Merely because the stray incidents of marriage between the sapindas have not been questioned by the community, would not make out a case of positive assertion of a prevailing custom,” said the Court while holding the marriage to be a nullity..Advocates Harpeet Singh and Jatin Kumar Gaur represented the appellant who had moved the plea for declaring the marriage void. Advocate Kapil Dua represented the respondent-woman..[Read Judgment]