Delhi High Court Views Wife’s Continual Pursuit of Application U/S 24 of HMA Beyond Financial Settlements as Intended Mental Harassment Towards Husband

On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court noted that despite the wife having received a payment of Rs. 1 crore and 80 lakhs from her husband, her ongoing pursuit of an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, suggests her intention to mentally harass him.

“Even if it is taken that respondent had failed to financially support the appellant during the period they lived together but despite having received payment of Rs.1 crores 80 lacs from respondent, the appellant had pressed her application under Section 24 of the Act in present proceedings, this shows her ill intention to mentally harass the appellant”, the Court opined.
The Court entertained an Appeal pursuant to Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, lodged by the appellant-wife challenging the judgment and decree issued by the Family Court on November 29, 2018. This decree granted the respondent’s petition for marriage dissolution under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna, comprising the Division Bench, reiterated previous rulings emphasizing the sanctity of marriage founded on trust and faith. They underscored that leveling unfounded accusations of extramarital affairs constitutes a grave form of cruelty, severing the marital bond and undermining its very foundation.

The Bench took note that the appellant-wife had initially filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act in Mumbai, later retracting it. Subsequently, she filed a similar petition against the respondent-husband in Delhi.

“The appellant in her cross-examination admitted that lump sum amount of Rs.2 crores was paid to her in the year 2015-2016 towards full and final settlement; and it is so evident from her statement recorded on 28.08.2015 in the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, wherein, she stated that “I have settled my financial issues with my husband in pursuance of the settlement so I am withdrawing my interim maintenance application as not pressed,” the Court noted.

The Court referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ravi Kumar Vs. Julmidevi (2010) 4 SCC 476, which unequivocally stated that “reckless, false, and defamatory allegations against the husband and family members would tarnish their reputation in society” and constitute cruelty.

The marriage between the parties occurred on April 15, 1973, in New Delhi and was officially registered in Mumbai. Both individuals are Hindu American citizens holding ‘Overseas Citizen of India’ status, and they have two children together.

After approximately 41 years of marriage, the respondent-husband sought divorce from the appellant-wife. He claimed that marital discord existed from the outset, asserting that the appellant abruptly left for London early in their marriage. While he secured employment in London and later in Chicago, USA, the respondent alleged that the appellant’s mother made their lives difficult during their stay in Chicago.

Furthermore, the husband alleged that he and his family endured mental and physical cruelty from the appellant. He argued that he had the right to live with the appellant, which she had deprived him of. He also mentioned that when he expressed his intention to cohabit with another person with whom he was having an extramarital affair, it further exacerbated the marital discord.

Contrastingly, the appellant-wife initiated a case under the Domestic Violence Act in Delhi and subsequently withdrew the case filed in Mumbai. She claimed to have sent numerous notices to the respondent through his counsel and lodged a complaint in Mumbai. The appellant-wife refuted the allegations of subjecting the respondent to mental and physical cruelty, contending that the divorce petition filed by the respondent was retaliatory to her Domestic Violence Petition.

The Bench opined, “It is abundantly apparent that the appellant barely sees any good in respondent and by stretching multiple litigations against him and his sister, she has made it clear that there is no scope for their reunion. Moreover, despite living separately since the year 2013, she has never made an effort to reconcile the disputes.”

“In the light of above, the present appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 29.11.2018 passed by the learned Family Court in HMA No. 1036/2014, is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the marriage of the parties stand dissolved under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly,” the Court ordered.