Unconsummated Marriage, Wife’s Persistent Refusal Of Physical Intimacy, Threats Of False Criminal Cases Amount To Mental Cruelty: Delhi High Court Dismisses Wife’s Appeal, Upholds Divorce
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar has dismissed an appeal by a wife challenging a divorce decree granted in favour of her husband and has affirmed the Family Court’s decision dissolving the marriage. Proceeding on the finding that the marital relationship was never consummated from the outset and that the wife’s persistent refusal of physical intimacy, coupled with threats of false criminal cases and withdrawal from matrimonial obligations, constituted mental cruelty, the Court declined to interfere with the trial court’s assessment of evidence. The Bench further directed the Family Court to correct a clerical error in the decretal portion while maintaining the decree of divorce intact.
The appeal was filed by the wife challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2023, by which the Family Court allowed the husband’s petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act and dissolved the marriage. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 06.05.2017, and they cohabited only briefly before separating in June 2017.
The husband alleged that the marriage remained unconsummated from the beginning, asserting that the wife declined physical intimacy, avoided household and matrimonial obligations, threatened him with false criminal allegations, and left the matrimonial home on 26.06.2017 without returning despite repeated efforts. He also relied on WhatsApp messages, emails, and a legal notice dated 22.04.2018 seeking annulment/divorce.
The wife denied the allegations, stating she was willing to perform her matrimonial duties and alleged neglect, ill-treatment, and dowry demands by the husband and his family. She claimed the husband selectively produced electronic material and asserted that she and her family attempted reconciliation on several occasions. She further initiated separate proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the DV Act, and Section 498A IPC.
The Family Court, after examining oral evidence, pleadings, and the admitted long separation since June 2017, held that the husband had proved mental cruelty.
The Court recorded that “the scope of interference in an Appeal… is limited” and that an appellate court “will not lightly interfere with findings of fact” unless the findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence.
It noted: “The admitted factual background shows that the parties cohabited only for a short duration after their marriage on 06.05.2017 and have remained continuously separated since 26.06.2017. The Family Court noted that despite counselling sessions and several attempts at conciliation during the proceedings, the parties did not resume cohabitation. Long, continuous separation, particularly from the very inception of marriage, constitutes a material circumstance supporting the conclusion that the matrimonial relationship had fractured irreparably at an early stage.”
On the wife’s contention regarding the phrase “almost consummated,” the Court stated that the Family Court “did not rely upon this phrase in isolation” and had considered it along with allegations, communications, testimony, and conduct, concluding that consummation had not occurred “owing to the Appellant’s reluctance.”
Regarding electronic records, it recorded that although the husband had not placed all chats on record, the Family Court “noticed these lacunae and nonetheless undertook a cautious appreciation of the material,” and the wife did not produce contrary electronic evidence. The exhibited communications reflected “reluctance, hesitation and unwillingness… during the crucial initial period of marriage.”
On reconciliation attempts alleged by the wife, the Court stated that the Family Court found these claims “unsubstantiated” and that there was “no material… to conclude that any relevant evidence was ignored or misread.” It held that Section 23(1)(a) did not assist the wife, as the husband was not taking advantage of his own wrong.
The Court recorded that allegations of dowry demand lacked “specificity and absence of corroboration.” Conversely, the husband’s allegations remained “consistent throughout” and were accepted. The Court noted a clerical error in the decree misnaming parties as “Umesh Batra and Shruti Batra,” calling it “regrettable” but “clerical and curable” under Section 152 CPC.
On alleged remarriage during appeal, it stated that the event “has no bearing on the legality, correctness, or sustainability of the Impugned Judgment” and that post-decree conduct cannot invalidate an otherwise lawful decree. Ultimately, the Court “finds no misappreciation of evidence or error of approach” and agreed that the denial of conjugal relations was “wilful and persistent, and therefore amounted to mental cruelty.”
The Court recorded that “The Appeal and pending applications are dismissed. Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned Family Court is hereby affirmed.”
“Learned Family Court is directed to rectify the clerical error in the decretal portion (misnaming of parties as ‘Umesh Batra and Shruti Batra’) and to furnish a corrected decretal order under its seal and signature recording the parties’ names correctly within four weeks from receipt of the certified copy of this judgment; compliance to be placed on record.”
“Decree-sheet to be prepared and an appropriate decretal order to be drawn up by the Family Court in accordance with this judgment.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Satish Pandey, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma and Mr. Ankit Kashyap, Advocates.
Case Title: SK v RR
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:10908-DB
Case Number: MAT.APP. (F.C.) 30/2024
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
