In Under a Year, Delhi Family Court Grants Divorce, Holds False Complaints Against Spouse Amount to Cruelty

NEW DELHI: In a matter disposed of in under a year, the Family Court at Patiala House Courts has granted a decree of divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty, holding that his wife's conduct during the marriage, including habitual complaints later found to be without basis and a contradictory stance over her association with another man, amounted to mental cruelty within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Principal Judge Bhupesh Kumar allowed the petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, dissolving the marriage between the parties, who had wed in 2021 and had been living separately since December 2023. The petition was instituted on September 11, 2025, and the judgment was pronounced on August 12, 2026, a turnaround of roughly eleven months, notably swift for a contested matrimonial matter that involved recording of evidence and cross-examination of both parties before a Local Commissioner.

According to the petition, the couple's marriage was solemnised in accordance with Hindu rites in March 2021, but the relationship began deteriorating soon after, with the petitioner-husband alleging that the respondent-wife frequently provoked disputes and later revealed she had been pressured into the marriage by her family. The petitioner further alleged that the respondent maintained contact with another man and, on occasion, invoked that association to threaten him. The respondent, in her written statement, denied the allegations and contended that the petition was a counter-blast to proceedings she had separately initiated against the petitioner, including a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and a criminal complaint.

On the question of cruelty, the court framed two issues, whether the respondent had treated the petitioner with cruelty after the marriage, and whether the petitioner was entitled to a decree of divorce on that ground, with the burden of proof placed on the petitioner. Recording evidence, the court noted that the respondent had denied knowing the man in question in her written statement, but during cross-examination admitted he was a childhood acquaintance and disclosed his telephone number, a contradiction the court found went to the credibility of her defence.

The court also examined a series of complaints the petitioner claimed the respondent had filed against him and his family with the police and his employer, finding that at least one such complaint stood proved on record while others remained unproved but nonetheless reflected serious allegations. The judgment held that the filing of complaints without basis contributes to a finding of cruelty, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Ravi Kumar v. Julmi Devi (2010) 4 SCC 476.

In its analysis of the law on cruelty, the court extensively cited Supreme Court precedent. Referring to Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, (2002) 2 SCC 73, the judgment recorded that "Cruelty may be physical or mental" and that it must be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. The court also drew on Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja, Civil Appeal No. 10719 of 2013, for the principle that reckless and false accusations levelled by a spouse, which lower the other's reputation among their family and peers, can themselves constitute cruelty, while mere filing of complaints with justifiable cause does not. Further reliance was placed on K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, AIR 2013 SC 2176, which sets out illustrative instances of mental cruelty recognised by the Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh, including sustained and unjustifiable conduct that gravely affects a spouse's mental health, and long periods of continuous separation from which it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair.

Applying these principles, the court held that the testimony of the petitioner remained largely unshaken in cross-examination, and that the respondent's shifting position on her association with the other man, combined with the unresolved complaints against the petitioner and his family, established a course of conduct amounting to cruelty. "Filing of false complaints amounts to cruelty" the court observed, holding both issues in favour of the petitioner and finding him entitled to a decree of dissolution of the marriage.

The court accordingly allowed the petition and dissolved the marriage with a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, directing that a decree sheet be prepared and the file consigned to the record room. No order was made as to costs.

Appearances: 

Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate appeared for the Petitioner.

Mr Vaibhav Mishra, Advocate appeared for the Respondent. 

HMA No. 829/2025 — Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (decided 12.08.2026)