In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court recently dismissed two appeals challenging the Family Court’s decision to reject divorce petitions filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). The case revolved around allegations of mental cruelty between two married couples who were also related by family ties—two brothers married to two sisters.
The Court’s decision, delivered on October 28, 2025, reaffirmed that general quarrels, unproven allegations, or routine family disagreements do not amount to “cruelty” under matrimonial law. The ruling serves as a reminder that divorce on the ground of cruelty requires strong, credible, and specific evidence.
Background of the Case
The two appeals before the High Court arose from similar facts and were therefore heard together. Both marriages were solemnized in 2001 according to Hindu rites. Over the years, tensions grew in the joint household where both couples lived with their extended family.
According to the husbands (the appellants), their wives (the respondents) often created disharmony at home, leading to fights and even physical altercations. They alleged that the wives not only quarreled with them but also assaulted their elderly father. Multiple FIRs were filed between April and May 2011, after which both women left their matrimonial homes and started living with their parents.
The wives, on the other hand, claimed that they were harassed for dowry and eventually thrown out of the house. They also pointed out that all the criminal cases mentioned by the husbands ended in acquittal, proving that the allegations were false and exaggerated.
The Family Court, after examining all evidence, concluded that the claims of cruelty were vague, uncorroborated, and largely based on normal marital conflicts. It dismissed both divorce petitions in January 2019, prompting the husbands to appeal to the High Court.
Arguments by the Appellants (Husbands)
The appellants argued that the Family Court had ignored substantial evidence of cruelty. They claimed that their wives’ behavior caused mental agony not only to them but also to their father. They also contended that even though the criminal cases ended in acquittal, they were settled by compromise, which did not erase the fact that cruelty had occurred.
Their counsel further relied on Supreme Court rulings such as Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), arguing that more than 13 years of separation itself should be treated as mental cruelty and a sign of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The prolonged separation, they said, made reconciliation impossible and justified granting divorce.
Arguments by the Respondents (Wives)
The wives firmly denied all allegations of cruelty. They maintained that the FIRs were filed to harass them and create a false defense. They argued that there were no specific dates, witnesses, or documents to support the claims of abuse.
Their lawyers emphasized that all criminal cases resulted in acquittal, which meant the accusations lacked merit. They further stated that the wives were always willing to reconcile and resume cohabitation, but the husbands themselves admitted in cross-examination that they were “not ready to live with the respondents.”
They concluded that the husbands were trying to take advantage of their own refusal to reconcile and had failed to meet the legal threshold required for divorce on grounds of cruelty.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
After reviewing the evidence and hearing both sides, the Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court’s findings and dismissed the appeals.
The Court examined each of the incidents cited by the appellants:
1. Preventive proceedings under CrPC Sections 107/151:
The Court found that no official records were produced to prove that any such proceedings ever took place. The husbands even failed to remember key details like case numbers or dates. These unsubstantiated claims could not amount to cruelty.
2. Alleged poisoning incident:
One husband alleged that his wife once consumed poison. However, no hospital or medical record was produced, making this claim baseless.
3. Absence at mother’s funeral:
The Court observed that the wives claimed they were not informed of the mother-in-law’s death. There was no proof that they deliberately avoided the funeral. The Court also noted that one husband himself admitted he was not ready to live with his wife, undermining his case of cruelty.
4. Multiple FIRs:
The Court reviewed the FIRs filed in 2011. All of them ended in acquittal—some through compromise and others due to lack of evidence. The judges made it clear that “mere registration of FIRs, without credible proof, cannot be equated with cruelty.”
The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Samar Ghosh and Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006): for cruelty to be a valid ground for divorce, it must be serious and make cohabitation impossible. General quarrels, minor disputes, or mutual misunderstandings are not enough.
The bench also observed that the long separation between the parties did not, by itself, justify granting a divorce, especially when it was the husbands who refused reconciliation efforts.
Key Legal Takeaways
1. Cruelty must be proven with clear evidence:
Allegations must be specific, supported by witnesses or documents. Vague claims or routine quarrels do not meet the threshold for legal cruelty.
2. Acquittal in criminal cases weakens the case for divorce:
When criminal charges end in acquittal or compromise, courts are unlikely to infer cruelty unless there is independent evidence.
3. Prolonged separation alone is not enough:
Even if couples have lived apart for years, courts cannot dissolve a marriage unless the behavior meets the legal definition of cruelty or other grounds under the HMA.
4. Irretrievable breakdown is not yet a separate ground:
Although the Supreme Court has used its powers to grant divorce in such cases, ordinary courts cannot rely solely on “irretrievable breakdown” unless Parliament amends the law.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s judgment underscores an important principle in matrimonial law: not every unhappy marriage amounts to cruelty. Emotional conflicts, misunderstandings, or occasional disputes are part of married life and cannot automatically justify divorce.
By upholding the Family Court’s ruling, the High Court reminded litigants that divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act requires serious, proven, and sustained acts of cruelty. The decision also highlights the judiciary’s cautious approach in balancing individual rights with the sanctity of marriage.
While the parties remain separated, the judgment sends a clear message—divorce cannot be granted simply because reconciliation is difficult. Legal dissolution of marriage demands more than emotional estrangement; it requires clear proof of cruelty as defined by law.
Back to Blog