Absence from Matrimonial Home Amounts to Cruelty

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar ruled that a wife’s repeated absence from the matrimonial home, denial of conjugal relations, and filing multiple complaints against her husband and his family amounts to cruelty, thereby upholding a divorce decree under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955. 

• The Delhi High Court held this in the matter of X. v. Y (CM APPL. 4523/2022) (2025). 

What was the Background of X v. Y (2025)? 

• Dhan Vati and Satish Kumar married on 3rd March 1990 under Hindu rites. Their son Rahul was born on 3rd October 1997. 
• The husband alleged persistent cruelty by his wife, claiming she refused to live in a joint family and frequently stayed at her parental home for 7-8 months annually without consent. Multiple panchayats were required to bring her back. 
• From 2008, particularly after Karwa Chauth, the wife allegedly withdrew from marital relations and subjected him to humiliation, including throwing footwear, forcing him to do household work, and slapping his mother. 
• The husband claimed his wife pressurized the family to transfer property in her name, threatening false criminal cases when refused, while showing indifference towards his parents. 
•  After the 2009 divorce petition, the wife filed three FIRs against the husband and his family under various IPC sections including assault, dowry harassment, and sexual harassment. 
• The wife alleged dowry torture, claiming she was forced to arrange Rs. 5 lakh for house construction. She accused the husband's family of being habitual drunkards, making remarks about her appearance, and physically assaulting her. 
• The Family Court accepted the husband's version and granted divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that cohabitation is essential to marriage and persistent denial of sexual relations without justifiable cause constitutes mental cruelty. The wife's admission of withdrawing from physical intimacy since 2008 and stopping Karwa Chauth observance was deemed prolonged refusal amounting to mental cruelty. 
• The Court noted all three FIRs were filed only after the husband's divorce petition, viewing their timing as suspicious. These complaints were considered a counterblast to divorce proceedings rather than genuine grievances. 
• The Court found the wife's conduct - refusal to cohabit, denial of conjugal relations, repeated absences from matrimonial home, and multiple complaints - reflected a deliberate pattern causing mental suffering, satisfying cruelty requirements under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 
• The Court observed systematic frustration of the husband's access to his son constituted serious psychological cruelty. Using a child as a tool in matrimonial conflict injures the affected parent and corrodes the child's emotional well-being. 
• The wife's complete ignorance about her mother-in-law's health conditions, including inability to walk and hip replacement surgery, reflected disregard for essential marital obligations in Indian familial context. 
• The Court concluded the cumulative effect of the wife's behaviour demonstrated sustained neglect of marital responsibilities, causing considerable emotional suffering to justify dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 

How does Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Recognize Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce? 

• Legal Framework:  
  • Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that any marriage may be dissolved by decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has treated the petitioner with cruelty after solemnization of marriage. 
• Essential Elements:  
  • The cruelty must occur after marriage solemnization, as pre-marital conduct cannot form the basis for divorce under this provision.  
  • The respondent must have treated the petitioner with cruelty, encompassing both physical and mental forms.  
  • Either spouse has the right to file for divorce under this ground if subjected to cruelty by the other party. 
• Physical Cruelty Components:  
  • Physical cruelty includes actual physical violence or assault against the petitioner. 
  • It encompasses threats of physical harm or intimidation.  
  • Any conduct causing bodily injury to the spouse constitutes physical cruelty under this provision. 
• Mental Cruelty Parameters:  
  • Mental cruelty involves conduct causing mental pain and suffering to the petitioner. It includes behaviour making it impossible for the aggrieved party to reasonably live with the other spouse.  
  • Sustained course of conduct affecting the mental health of the petitioner falls within this category.