The Delhi High Court, in declining a husband's request for divorce, has noted that his mere exoneration in a criminal case brought by the wife, accusing him of cruelty, does not constitute sufficient grounds for him to seek divorce.

The division bench, consisting of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, made this observation while affirming a family court's decision to deny divorce to a husband who claimed cruelty by his wife. The husband's petition for divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was dismissed by the family court.

The couple tied the knot in 1982 and had two children. The family court issued the contested ruling in 1999.

The court emphasized the fragility of marital ties as intricate emotional connections, highlighting that the interference of a third party could severely damage trust, faith, and peace within the relationship. "The involvement of any external influence has the potential to quietly erode the bond, fostering enduring and irreparable differences," the court remarked.

The court further commented that such relationships inevitably transform into ticking time bombs, where feelings of anguish, despair, rejection, and disappointment become trapped. Eventually, when they explode, the shrapnel of these suppressed emotions inflicts harm on everyone involved, whether they are directly or indirectly affected by the fallout.

The bench, in dismissing the husband's appeal, affirmed that the family court's decision was appropriate. It concluded that the husband bore responsibility for the acts of cruelty toward his wife. Consequently, the family court rightfully denied his petition for divorce.

The court noted that the husband had been involved with another woman since 1994 and had left the matrimonial home during that time. It determined that the husband was the party responsible for inflicting cruelty upon his wife. Additionally, the court emphasized that the wife should not be penalized for raising legitimate concerns and objecting to the extramarital relationship, which had a substantial basis and foundation.

The court also highlighted that the husband had been acquitted in a case filed against him in 2013, along with his sister and brother-in-law, who were discharged when charges were framed. However, the court emphasized that the husband's acquittal subsequent to the divorce proceedings couldn't be used as a basis, given the unique circumstances of the case, to claim that he had suffered any form of cruelty from his wife.

“Merely because there is an acquittal by a Criminal Court, does not wash away the cruelty committed by the appellant of being involved with a young girl during the subsistence of his marriage with the respondent; mere acquittal in a criminal case cannot be a ground to grant divorce,” the court said.