The Delhi High Court has approved a divorce for a man citing mental cruelty inflicted by his wife's "unwillingness to adapt," saying no fruitful purpose would be served in flogging a dead horse.

In a judgment issued on Tuesday, a bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait overturned a family court's decision denying divorce based on the husband's plea. The panel, in allowing the husband's appeal, emphasized that ongoing unjustifiable and reprehensible behavior, adversely impacting the physical and mental well-being of the other spouse, can constitute mental cruelty.

The couple, who entered into matrimony in 2001, decided to part ways after cohabiting for 16 years. The husband, represented by advocate Raavi Birbal, accused the wife of subjecting him to cruelty, while the wife contended that he and his family had demanded dowry.

The bench, which included Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, noted that the conflicts between the parties went beyond the usual challenges encountered in a marriage. Upon a comprehensive evaluation, the court deemed the actions directed at the husband as acts of cruelty, rendering the continuation of their marital relationship a perpetuation of such cruelty.

The bench further emphasized that the absence of legal disputes during the initial 14 years of their marriage did not indicate a smoothly functioning relationship. Instead, it suggested that the husband had been making continuous efforts to salvage their relationship despite underlying challenges.

"It can be concluded that though an endeavour was made by the parties to reside together but despite their efforts which spanned over 16 years, there was constant bickering and disquiet in their relationship, which did not allow their relations to flourish," said the court.

"The incidents, though may not be of much significance when viewed in isolation, when viewed together, clearly depict a non-adjusting attitude of the respondent or wife, who had no maturity to sort out the differences with the husband without his public humiliation, due to which the appellant suffered mental cruelty," it said.

The court underscored that the wife's accusations regarding dowry demands lacked substantial evidence and caused significant mental distress, constituting a form of severe cruelty.

"The consistent and completely unsubstantiated allegations of dowry harassment as made by the respondent in her written statement against the appellant and his family members, that too after sixteen years of marriage, are without any basis and can only be termed as source of great mental pain constituting grave cruelty," the court said.

Additionally, the court highlighted that the wife's unfounded claims of the husband engaging in illicit relationships with colleagues and friends had a detrimental impact on the husband's mental well-being. The court emphasized that if such conduct persisted, it would qualify as an ongoing source of mental cruelty.

"We, therefore, conclude that the appellant (husband) has been subjected to cruelty during his matrimonial life and no fruitful purpose would be served in flogging a dead horse. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and grant divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955," the court ordered.