Wife's apathy towards aged in-laws amounts to cruelty: Delhi High Court

Wife's apathy towards aged in-laws is a facet of cruelty within the scope of matrimonial law thereby, entitling the husband to divorce, the Delhi High Court recent held.

The Delhi High Court recently observed that parents are an integral part of a joint Hindu family and a spouse’s apathy and indifference toward them adds to cruelty in a matrimonial dispute. 

A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that parents are an integral part of a joint Hindu family and a spouse’s apathy and indifference toward them adds to cruelty in a matrimonial dispute. 

A spouse is expected to care for aged parents and elders in the household, the Court said.

While deciding a matrimonial case, the Court noted that the wife who had challenged the divorce decree was unaware of the fact that the mother-in-law was unable to walk and had undergone a hip replacement surgery. 

The Court said that such indifference reflected the wife’s disregard for the essential obligations in a marriage in the Indian familial context. 

“It is a natural and legitimate expectation that a spouse, upon entering matrimony, would demonstrate care and concern for the health and dignity of the elders in the household. The studied apathy and want of sensitivity displayed by the Appellant [wife] towards her in-laws, particularly when their advanced age and health conditions required compassion, cannot be treated as trivial. This conduct inflicted avoidable anguish on the Respondent [husband] and his family, thereby amounting to another facet of cruelty within the scope of matrimonial law,” the Court observed. 

The High Court made the observation as it rejected the wife’s appeal against a family court order granting divorce to husband on the grounds of cruelty. 

The couple married in March 1990 and had a son in 1997. The husband alleged that his wife was unwilling to live in a joint family, frequently left the matrimonial home without consent, and had withdrawn from marital relations since 2008. He also claimed that she pressured him and his family to transfer property in her name and later filed multiple criminal cases against them after he sought divorce in 2009.

The family court granted divorce after finding that the wife’s prolonged refusal to cohabit and filing of retaliatory FIRs amounted to mental cruelty.

In her appeal, the wife argued that the lower court relied on evidence beyond pleadings and ignored her allegations of dowry harassment and mistreatment. She contended that her criminal complaints were genuine and not filed in retaliation.

The High Court, however, found no merit in her claims and ruled that prolonged denial of marital intimacy and repeated acts of harassment constituted mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

“The prolonged denial of marital intimacy, the series of complaints instituted against the Respondent, the deliberate alienation of the minor child, and the indifference towards the Respondent’s parents collectively demonstrate a sustained neglect of marital responsibilities. These actions have caused the Respondent and his family considerable emotional suffering, thereby constituting cruelty of such gravity as to justify dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA,” the Court ruled. 

Advocate Sanjay Rathi appeared for the wife. 

Advocates Sudhir Tewatia, Sahil Gandhi, Aman Gahlot, Himani Verma, Kavya and Vivek appeared for the husband. 

[Read Judgment]