New Delhi: Making defamatory complaints against a spouse's employer with the intention of causing harm to professional reputation and financial well-being amounts to cruelty, the Delhi High Court has ruled.
A bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, while granting divorce between a couple, said filing such complaints reflects lack of mutual respect and goodwill, which is vital for a healthy marriage.
The appellant husband challenged the order of the family court refusing to divorce her, saying that she had suffered severe mental torture and agony in the relationship. He alleged that the wife sent complaints to his employer with the intention of embarrassing and humiliating him in front of colleagues.
The bench said, "Regardless of whether the complaints are false or true, making defamatory complaints against the employer of the spouse with the intention of causing harm to the professional reputation and financial well-being is nothing but cruelty, in which Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was also included., in the order passed earlier this month.
"Making such complaints reflects a lack of mutual respect and goodwill, which is vital for a healthy marriage and merely stating that such a complaint was made after the separation of the parties would in no way amount to cruelty to the spouses. cannot be acquitted of the crime," said. court.
The parties were married as per Hindu customs and ceremonies in January 2011 and were living separately since September 2011.
In the order, the court took into account the husband's allegation that the wife sent a message using derogatory language to her father-in-law and opined that it reflected a lack of respect and consideration within the relationship.It says that the inevitable conclusion from the conduct of the wife is that her conduct has caused serious anxiety in the mind of the husband, thereby disturbing his mental peace and making it untenable for the parties to maintain their marital relationship .
"The respondent's admission of sending messages containing derogatory language towards the father of the appellant and filing a complaint with her employer can be considered as cruelty. Such incidents create an atmosphere of tension and instability in the marital relationship, causing emotional harm to the parties concerned. It happens." " the court said.
Moreover, long-running litigation between the spouses reduces the chances of an amicable resolution as it increases animosity and hinders their ability to move forward constructively, the court said.It added that his continued engagement in prolonged litigation – including allegations of excessive guardianship of his son and domestic violence – could be seen as a form of cruelty, lasting more than a decade. , This may be regarded as cruelty.
"The respondent (wife) has lived with the Appellant for less than a year and has knowingly chosen to live with his parents along with a son of the parties, thereby depriving the Appellant of marital bliss and fatherhood " ,
The court also held that the filing of a petition by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights and then not acting on the same was a deliberate attempt to delay the divorce proceedings, thereby causing further harassment to the appellant husband.
The court said, “Accordingly the present appeal is allowed and the appellant is granted divorce under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955."
A bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, while granting divorce between a couple, said filing such complaints reflects lack of mutual respect and goodwill, which is vital for a healthy marriage.
The appellant husband challenged the order of the family court refusing to divorce her, saying that she had suffered severe mental torture and agony in the relationship. He alleged that the wife sent complaints to his employer with the intention of embarrassing and humiliating him in front of colleagues.
The bench said, "Regardless of whether the complaints are false or true, making defamatory complaints against the employer of the spouse with the intention of causing harm to the professional reputation and financial well-being is nothing but cruelty, in which Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was also included., in the order passed earlier this month.
"Making such complaints reflects a lack of mutual respect and goodwill, which is vital for a healthy marriage and merely stating that such a complaint was made after the separation of the parties would in no way amount to cruelty to the spouses. cannot be acquitted of the crime," said. court.
The parties were married as per Hindu customs and ceremonies in January 2011 and were living separately since September 2011.
In the order, the court took into account the husband's allegation that the wife sent a message using derogatory language to her father-in-law and opined that it reflected a lack of respect and consideration within the relationship.It says that the inevitable conclusion from the conduct of the wife is that her conduct has caused serious anxiety in the mind of the husband, thereby disturbing his mental peace and making it untenable for the parties to maintain their marital relationship .
"The respondent's admission of sending messages containing derogatory language towards the father of the appellant and filing a complaint with her employer can be considered as cruelty. Such incidents create an atmosphere of tension and instability in the marital relationship, causing emotional harm to the parties concerned. It happens." " the court said.
Moreover, long-running litigation between the spouses reduces the chances of an amicable resolution as it increases animosity and hinders their ability to move forward constructively, the court said.It added that his continued engagement in prolonged litigation – including allegations of excessive guardianship of his son and domestic violence – could be seen as a form of cruelty, lasting more than a decade. , This may be regarded as cruelty.
"The respondent (wife) has lived with the Appellant for less than a year and has knowingly chosen to live with his parents along with a son of the parties, thereby depriving the Appellant of marital bliss and fatherhood " ,
The court also held that the filing of a petition by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights and then not acting on the same was a deliberate attempt to delay the divorce proceedings, thereby causing further harassment to the appellant husband.
The court said, “Accordingly the present appeal is allowed and the appellant is granted divorce under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955."
