In a significant divorce case, the Delhi High Court emphasized the gravity of denying one’s paternity when ruling on the separation of an estranged couple who had lived apart for over a decade. Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna of the bench upheld a family court’s decision to grant divorce to a man on grounds of cruelty. They also noted that the family court had erred in concluding that the woman had not abandoned the marriage, and subsequently granted the divorce on this basis as well.
The woman’s appeal against the family court’s divorce grant was dismissed by the high court, asserting that there was no error in the determination that the wife’s actions amounted to cruelty towards her husband and his family members, thereby entitling him to divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
However, the court did express criticism for the man’s conduct when the woman informed him of her pregnancy through a text message. After the woman left her marital home in April 2013, she informed her husband about her pregnancy, to which he responded by denying the child’s paternity. The court remarked that denying one’s own child’s paternity is an exceptionally cruel act, and the respondent’s behavior was not only unreasonable but also cast aspersions on the woman’s character.
The court further stated that, considering the educational and social backgrounds of both parties and their families, a more reasonable approach to addressing the situation would have been through discussions or other sensible means. The couple, both well-educated and professionally qualified, should have explored alternatives to address their issues, rather than resorting to such an unjustifiable response to a text message.
The couple had married in April 2012, and their child was born in November 2013. However, marital discord arose almost immediately after the marriage, leading the woman to leave her matrimonial home in April 2013. She had filed criminal cases, including charges of cruelty and dowry harassment, against her husband and in-laws, but failed to substantiate the allegations of cruelty against them.
The high court noted that her immediate resort to criminal litigation without attempting reconciliation demonstrated a lack of willingness to mend the relationship, leading to mutual harassment. The court concluded that the husband and wife were equally responsible for their troubled marriage, unable to find common ground, and ultimately, incapable of sustaining their matrimonial relationship.
The court underscored that trust, affection, compatibility, and congeniality form the bedrock of any marriage. The deep-seated differences between the couple had persisted since their separation in April 2013, making reconciliation virtually impossible after a decade of living apart. This prolonged separation, coupled with the deprivation of marital relations, amounted to a severe form of cruelty, affirming the court’s decision to grant the divorce.