The court’s ruling came in a plea filed by a woman against a family court’s December 2020 order which was passed in a divorce petition filed by the husband. The family court opined that the woman had not only filed false and fabricated complaints before the Crime Against Women (CAW) cell after their separation, but had also levelled fake allegations that he beat his son, and ruled that her conduct clearly reflected her intention to permanently abandon him.

The husband, in his divorce petition, had alleged that his wife had a quarrelsome nature, and that she not only refused to live with him but also had an affair with another man, and that she backed out twice when the duo had agreed for divorce by mutual consent.

The man’s petition further stated that though they separated in 2001, eight years later, in 2009, his wife made a complaint before the crime against women (CAW) cell. When the complaint was found to be forged, she filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, wherein she made several allegations.

He also asserted that though he suffered heart attack twice during their period of their separation, she came to meet him only once.

The bench comprising of justice Suresh Kumar Kait  and justice Neena Bansal Krishna, said that indifferent and nonchalant feelings of the wife towards the husband without normal conjugal kindness amounts to cruelty.

“Thus, such conduct of the appellant in driving the respondent to believe every time that their disputes were about to be put to an end and then to repeatedly withdraw from the attempted settlements can cause disquiet, cruelty, and uncertainty in the mind of the respondent. It is evident that when the matters could not be settled amicably, as is expected of any educated couple, she resorted to making false complaints in CAW cell,” the bench said.

The wife, submitted that she was compelled to live out of the matrimonial house due to her husband’s cruel acts and she did not desert him. She further submitted that the husband had made vague allegations of cruelty against her without specifying any time or date of the incidents, and such incidents could not have been relied upon to grant divorce on the ground of cruelty.

The Court found that the appellant’s actions did constitute mental cruelty. Her frequent quarreling on trivial issues, leaving the home without informing her husband, denying cohabitation, and attempting suicide by jumping from a balcony were all considered evidence of her cruel behavior. Moreover, she tried to poison the husband and his parents, falsely accused him of an illicit relationship, and showed a complete lack of intent to fulfill her marital obligations. The Court cited legal precedent to establish that such actions amount to severe cruelty in a matrimonial relationship.

Ultimately, the Court upheld the judgment of the Family Court, finding that the respondent/husband’s claims of mental cruelty were substantiated by the evidence presented. The appeal was dismissed, and the divorce decree remained valid. 

Case Title: Lata Kumari v. Om Prakash Mandal