The Delhi High Court recently stated that engaging in derogatory complaints aimed at harming a spouse's professional reputation and financial stability constitutes cruelty.

A division bench consisting of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna emphasized that the act of making such complaints reflects a disregard for mutual respect and goodwill, which are essential elements for a thriving marriage.

The court clarified that simply stating that such complaints were made after the parties had separated does not absolve a spouse from the wrongdoing of inflicting cruelty on the other party.

The bench made these observations while granting divorce to a husband, citing cruelty by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

It allowed the husband's appeal against a family court order that rejected his petition for divorce. The parties were married in 2011 and lived together for only a brief period of 2-3 months.

The husband alleged that the wife made abusive phone calls to him and his parents, and also lodged complaints with his employer, the RBI, with the intention of causing embarrassment in front of his colleagues. On the other hand, the wife claimed that the husband had deserted her and their child, alleging mistreatment and neglect by the husband and his family.

The court observed that the Family Court failed to recognize that spouses using defamatory language directed at each other's families not only tarnishes the dignity and reputation of those individuals but also diminishes the trust and respect essential for a strong marital relationship.

The court added that the persistent involvement of the spouses in prolonged litigation spanning over a decade could be seen as a form of cruelty. The bench noted that the wife, by choosing to absent herself from cross-examination, willingly decided not to substantiate her allegations against the husband.

It further added that the wife's actions, including making false allegations of adultery, lodging complaints with the husband's employer, making derogatory remarks about his father, and initiating multiple litigations against him, constituted mental cruelty within the scope of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.