Judicial Suspicion Invoked By Wife’s Claimed Inability To Recall Overnight Stays | Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce In Appeal Over Alleged Extra-Marital Relationship
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed an appeal filed by a wife challenging the divorce decree granted on the basis of her alleged extra-marital relationship with two men. The Court noted that she had sought to present her prolonged communications with them as part of a professional association, but the Family Court had found she failed to satisfactorily explain her overnight stays and the nature of her interactions. In affirming that assessment, the Bench held that the husband had established conduct amounting to mental cruelty and upheld the dissolution of the marriage, finding no ground to interfere with the decree.
The matter arose from a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife whose marriage, solemnised in 1991, and a daughter born out of the said marriage. The husband approached the Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging mental cruelty. His allegations included the wife’s neglect of household responsibilities, financial improprieties, and, significantly, her sustained communication and association with two men. He relied on mobile phone records, email exchanges, and suggestions of overnight stays to substantiate these claims.
The wife denied all accusations, asserting instead that the marriage broke down due to the husband’s conduct. She alleged that he had made unauthorized withdrawals from her accounts, engaged in an adulterous relationship, and committed corporate misconduct by forging her signatures to remove her from company directorships. She maintained that her communications with the two men were strictly professional and aimed at generating business for the husband’s firm. She also filed complaints before investigative and regulatory bodies concerning financial and corporate disputes.
Both parties appeared as their sole witnesses. The Family Court examined their testimonies, cross-examinations, documentary material such as phone bills, emails, and the Forensic Science Laboratory report on disputed signatures. These proceedings culminated in the appeal heard by the High Court.
The Court recorded that “the pivotal finding recorded by the learned Family Court, which forms the fulcrum of the Impugned Judgment, pertains to the Appellant-Wife’s sustained and unexplained association with two individuals” It noted that “the material on record unmistakably indicates that the Appellant maintained an extraordinary degree of communication with these individuals, reflected in numerous telephonic conversations extending over several hours, often during late-night or odd hours, without any credible or verifiable professional justification.”
The Court stated that “the Appellant-Wife sought to explain these interactions as being purely professional in nature, asserting that her communications with the said individuals were confined to business matters. However, as rightly observed by the learned Family Court, the Appellant failed to produce even a single document, such as a contract, invoice, email trail, or any other record, that could substantiate the existence of a genuine professional relationship with either of them. The absence of such evidence, despite ample opportunity, casts serious doubt upon the credibility of her explanation.”
The Court recorded that “the email correspondence marked as ‘Mark X’ before the learned Family Court further reinforces the inference of impropriety. The content of these emails contains material of an obscene and indecorous nature, wholly inconsistent with professional communication. The Appellant-Wife’s failure to categorically deny either the authorship or receipt of these emails raises a strong presumption against her, suggesting that her relationship transgressed the limits of professional engagement and thereby caused mental cruelty to the Respondent-Husband.”
The Court Observed: “...the Appellant repeatedly answered that she “does not recollect” or “does not remember”. Far from being categoric denials, the evasive responses, given to direct and specific questions, naturally invite judicial suspicion, for it is implausible that a person of ordinary faculties would fail to recall overnight stays at particular locations in the company of a named individual.”
On the legal standard, the Court stated that “infidelity need not always be proved through direct or ocular evidence. Continuous conduct that perpetuates a situation wherein more than a mere reasonable apprehension of unfaithfulness or moral betrayal persists… constitutes mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.” It added that “infidelity, whether physical or emotional, corrodes the very foundation of marriage… a slow, silent, and devastating form of cruelty that destroys mutual trust and companionship.”
Regarding the allegation of forgery, the Court noted that “another compelling aspect of mental cruelty arises from the Appellant-Wife’s unfounded and reckless allegation that the Respondent-Husband had forged her signatures to remove her from the Directorships of M/s Leptons Exim Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Leptons Designtek Pvt. Ltd.” It recorded that her assertion was “undermined by her own admissions whereby she acknowledged that the FSL report confirmed the authenticity of her signatures on the resignation documents, and she further admitted that she ‘might have signed the documents without reading them’, having relied upon the Respondent’s instructions.” This conduct “demonstrates a deliberate attempt to malign the Respondent’s character and integrity by imputing criminal conduct where none existed.”
Finally, the Court stated that “viewed in its totality, such behaviour inflicted profound mental anguish, humiliation, and emotional estrangement upon the Respondent-Husband, corroding the fundamental pillars of mutual trust, regard, respect, and affection that sustain the institution of marriage” and that “the cumulative effect of the Appellant-Wife’s conduct satisfied the statutory test of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.”
The Court concluded that “in view of the foregoing discussion and the material on record, we find no merit in the present Appeal and no infirmity in the Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 19.11.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, which correctly held that cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA has been established.”
“The Impugned Judgment and Decree are affirmed, and the Appeal, being entirely devoid of merit, stands dismissed. The present Appeal, along with pending application(s), if any, is disposed of in the above terms No Order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Ashish Upadhyay and Mr. Pardeep Kumar Mishra, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Mr. Sanchit Sahani, Ms. Neha Jain, Mr. Taarak Duggal, Ms. Sneha Mathew, Ms. Vaishnavi Saxena, Ms. Sakshi Jain and Mr. Chaitanya, Advocates
Case Title: KA v SA
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9406-DB
Case Number: MAT.APP. (F.C.) 5/2023
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetrapal; Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
