Mocking husband’s finances can lead to divorce, says Delhi High Court

A Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna observed that a wife should not be a constant reminder of one’s financial limitations.

The Delhi High Court, in a recent pronouncement, determined that persistent derogatory remarks by a wife concerning her husband’s financial capacity, coupled with coercive actions compelling him to fulfill extravagant aspirations beyond his financial means, constitute acts of mental cruelty, thereby providing a legitimate basis for seeking divorce. The Division Bench comprised of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna underscored the principle that a spouse should not function as a continual source of reminder regarding the financial constraints of the other spouse.

A wife should not be a constant reminder of one’s financial limitations. Pressurizing spouse to fulfil distant and whimsical dreams clearly not within his financial reach may create a sense of persistent dissatisfaction which would be sufficient mental strain to drain the contentment and tranquillity out of any married life. One must tread carefully between the needs, wants and desires,” the Court observed.

It asserted that continual arguments and conflicts have the potential to induce mental stress and adversely affect an individual’s mental health.

“The various incidents narrated by the respondent (husband) towards the overall conduct and a non-adjusting attitude of the appellant (wife) who lacked maturity to even sort out the differences with the husband, leads to the irresistible conclusion that such conduct was bound to cause a grave apprehension in the mind of the respondent disrupting his mental equilibrium. Though these incidents may seem to be innocuous, insignificant or trifling when considered independently, but when such conduct prevails over a period of time, it is bound to create mental stress of the kind, which makes it impossible for the parties to survive in their matrimonial relationship.”

In the comprehensive judgment delivered on January 30, the Bench further emphasized that the wording of Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act unambiguously establishes that the entitlement under Section 13 (1A) (ii) (decree of restitution of conjugal rights) is an absolute right, independent of the party holding the decree.

“This is also evident from the language of under Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the HMA which is to the effect that “either party”, which includes the decree holder as well as the judgment debtor, who can seek divorce in case of noncompliance of decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights. If the Parliament intended that it is only the party in whose favour the restitution has been allowed, who can avail the remedy under Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the HMA, then the language would have been accordingly used in the said Section,” the Court said.

It added,

“The very fact that Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, enures to the benefit of “either party” clearly implies that in case of non-compliance of a Decree under Section 9 of the HMA, either party is entitled to seek divorce on this ground and the Judgment Debtor cannot be precluded from exercising his right to avail the relief thereof. Section 23 cannot be interpreted in a way to completely render the remedy under Section 13 (1A) (ii) otiose.”

The court made these remarks in the context of a plea filed by a woman challenging a family court’s decision to grant her husband’s request for a divorce. The family court based its decision on grounds of cruelty, considering the absence of restitution of conjugal rights for a year, despite a prior decree to that effect.

According to the husband, the wife compelled him to relocate from Haryana to Delhi, insisted on establishing a separate residence, and criticized him for borrowing ₹8,000 from her parents. He further claimed that she accused him of being involved with another woman, harbored aspirations of a high-society lifestyle, and refused to adapt to the limited resources he could provide.

The wife refuted all allegations, asserting their falsehood and fabrication. She maintained her fidelity to her husband and claimed to fulfill all matrimonial obligations dutifully.

Upon examination, the court concurred with the family court’s determination of mental cruelty inflicted upon the husband. Additionally, it noted the absence of restitution of conjugal rights despite a prior decree to that effect. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal.

Advocate Ashok Sharma represented the wife, while the husband was represented by advocates Mrinal Bharti, Manish Kumar Shekhari, and Sanjana Srivastava.