Wife making unproven allegations of criminal conduct is cruelty to husband: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that a wife making serious allegations of criminal conduct against her husband and his parents and not being able to establish the same amounts to cruelty as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Neelam v. Jai Singh)..The Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh held the same while dismissing the wife’s appeal against the judgment of a family court which had granted a divorce decree to the husband and dissolved the marriage. The Court held,"The mere fact that she made serious allegations of criminal conduct against the respondent and his parents – which she could not establish before the Court, was sufficient to constitute acts of cruelty against the respondent.".According to records, the couple had entered into a marriage in December 2007 and out of the wedlock, a child was born in November 2011. However, disputes soon arose and the woman registered a complaint with the police under Sections 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code in 2013. The husband as well as his parents were subsequently taken into custody. While his parents were released after a day, he was kept in custody for three days. Both the husband and his parents were acquitted in August 2015 and an appeal against the acquittal was also dismissed in January the next year.After the family court granted the husband a divorce decree on the ground of cruelty, the wife approached the High Court in appeal..Before the High Court, counsel for the appellant wife had argued that she did not oppose the bail pleas of her husband and her in-laws. It was also submitted that she had filed a petition to seek restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the HMA..However, the Court held that the fact that the wife did not contest the bail applications did not justify her irresponsible conduct.“How can the respondent be expected to allow the appellant into his life in these circumstances? The faith and trust – which is the foundation of a matrimonial bond stood completely demolished by the aforesaid conduct of the appellant. For a man to see his parents to be taken into custody and being incarcerated even for a single day would have caused immense and untold pain and agony to him...Did she not know that their conviction would have led to their being sentenced to imprisonment? Therefore, her conduct of not opposing the bail application is neither here, nor there.".With these observations, the Court upheld the order of the family court and dismissed the wife's appeal..The Court, however, issued notice to the husband on the aspect of grant of permanent alimony of the wife and maintenance of their minor child. The case has been posted for hearing on this aspect on December 10..Advocate Inderpal Khokhar appeared for the appellant wife..[Read Order]