Matrimonial disputes often expose the fine line between ordinary marital discord and conduct legally amounting to “cruelty” under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). Delhi High Court in Puja Pasricha v. Aishwarya Pasricha (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 138/2023) addressed precisely this issue. The case concerned an appeal against a Family Court judgment that dissolved the parties’ marriage on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.
The Court, speaking through Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar (Justice Anil Kshetarpal concurring), engaged in a detailed analysis of the evidence, principles of natural justice, and evolving judicial standards on mental cruelty, parental alienation, and prolonged matrimonial discord.
Factual Background
Marriage and Early Discord
- The marriage between Puja Pasricha (Appellant-wife) and Aishwarya Pasricha (Respondent-husband) was solemnised on 27 March 2007 in Delhi according to Hindu rites.
- A son, Aditya, was born on 8 January 2008.
- Discord arose almost immediately after marriage.
Allegations by the Husband
The husband alleged persistent acts of cruelty by the wife:
- Pressure to separate from his widowed mother and divorced sister, insisting on the partition of family property.
- Neglect of household duties and frequent absences from the matrimonial home.
- Conflicts with in-laws, including misbehaviour and public humiliation of the husband.
Specific incidents:
- May 2007: Wife removed her chudha at her spiritual guide’s place, ignoring a family ceremony.
- 2009: Misbehaviour at an office party and a public quarrel at the workplace.
- 27 August 2009: Violent quarrel, wife called police; husband forced to shift to her parental home until May 2010.
- 2010: Mundan of the child performed at her guruji’s place against family tradition.
- 2011: Multiple police complaints and confrontations with in-laws, culminating in her father giving an undertaking not to enter the respondent’s mother’s residence.
Alienation of child: Denied the husband and his family emotional access to the son.
Allegations by the Wife
The wife denied cruelty and counter-alleged:
- Harassment by mother-in-law and sister-in-law.
- Interference in domestic life, humiliation, denial of resources, even during pregnancy.
- Pressures to conform to unreasonable expectations.
- Absences explained by medical exigencies (her schizophrenia treatment, son’s hospitalisation).
- Efforts to preserve marriage, including approaching the Family Counselling Centre in 2010–2011 and filing for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 HMA.
Proceedings Before Family Court
- The husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA seeking divorce for cruelty.
- The wife filed a petition under Section 9 HMA for restitution of conjugal rights.
- Both cases were clubbed, and common evidence was recorded.
- On 21 January 2023, the Family Court granted a divorce to the husband, holding that cruelty was proved.
Procedural History
The wife appealed under Section 19 Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 HMA to the Delhi High Court.
Key grounds of challenge:
- Violation of natural justice: Her evidence was closed without fair opportunity; she was denied oral arguments.
- Merits: The Family Court ignored her evidence, disregarded her Section 9 petition, and failed to appreciate that her disagreements stemmed from hostile in-laws.
- Disproportionate assessment: Incidents relied upon were ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life.
The husband resisted, highlighting:
- Repeated indulgence given to the wife, who defaulted despite numerous opportunities.
- His consistent evidence, corroborated by his sister, remained unrebutted.
- Parties lived apart since 2011 (over 14 years).
- He suffered serious health issues; prolonging the bond served no purpose.
Issues Before the High Court
- Whether the wife’s conduct constituted “cruelty” under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA.
- Whether the Family Court’s judgment violated principles of natural justice, especially regarding closure of evidence and denial of arguments.
Legal Analysis
1. Cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA
The Court revisited the Family Court’s findings:
- Acts of cruelty included pressure to separate from family, neglect of household duties, misbehaviour at social/professional gatherings, repeated police complaints, unilateral religious ceremonies, and parental alienation.
- Evidence of the husband and his sister was consistent and unrebutted.
- The wife failed to complete her cross-examination or adduce cogent evidence.
The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents:
- A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur (2005) 2 SCC 22: Cruelty need not involve physical violence; consistent conduct causing mental agony suffices.
- K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226: Filing false complaints portrays a vindictive mind and constitutes extreme mental cruelty.
- Narendra v. K. Meena (2016) 9 SCC 455: Wife’s persistent attempt to alienate husband from parents is cruelty.
- Kanwal Kishore Girdhar v. Seema Girdhar, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1468: Parental alienation amounts to extreme cruelty.
Applying these, the Court held:
- Police complaints (2009, 2011) and threats of false cases created an intolerable environment.
- Public humiliation (office parties, workplace) caused mental agony.
- Unilateral religious ceremonies (chudha, mundan) disregarded family traditions.
- Parental alienation (denying access to the child) was an extreme act of cruelty.
- Persistent pressure to separate from family, without a justifiable reason, constituted cruelty.
Thus, cruelty was established beyond ordinary marital discord.
2. Principles of Natural Justice
The wife argued that her evidence was unfairly closed. The Court traced the chronology of Family Court orders (2021–2022):
- Multiple “last and final opportunities” were granted.
- Adjournments sought on grounds of counsel’s absence, medical reasons, etc.
- On 29.10.2022, despite reminders of pendency since 2012, she was given a final opportunity for cross-examination on 29.11.2022.
- On 29.11.2022, neither she nor her counsel appeared. Evidence was closed.
- Her application under Section 151 CPC to reopen evidence was rejected on 11.01.2023, found to be excuses lacking merit.
The Court held:
- She was not denied opportunity; rather, she repeatedly defaulted.
- No breach of audi alteram partem occurred.
- Family Court rightly exercised discretion in closing evidence.
As for oral arguments:
- Order dated 11.01.2023 allowed both parties to file written submissions.
- The wife failed to do so.
- Hence, no violation of natural justice.
3. Policy Considerations: Delay in Matrimonial Litigation
The Court emphasised expeditious disposal mandated by Section 21B HMA and the Family Courts Act:
- Appeals to conclude within three months; trials within six months.
- Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353: Procrastination is the “greatest assassin” of matrimonial litigation.
- Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh (2018) 1 SCC 1: Family disputes must not meander endlessly.
Here, the case dragged from 2012 to 2023 due to the wife’s repeated adjournments. Allowing further delay would defeat legislative intent.
Court’s Decision: Divorce Decree Affirmed
- The husband proved acts of cruelty through consistent and unrebutted testimony.
- The wife failed to establish her counter-allegations.
- No violation of natural justice occurred; she was given ample opportunities.
- Given over 14 years of separation, an irretrievable breakdown was evident.
- The appeal was dismissed.
- The Family Court’s decree of divorce (21.01.2023) was affirmed.
Conclusion
The judgment emphasises that matrimonial ties cannot be sustained solely on allegations, but must be based on trust, respect, and mutual responsibility. In this case, the husband’s testimony stood firm while the wife’s repeated defaults weakened her defence. Recognising the long-standing separation and failed reconciliation, the Court held that the marriage had effectively collapsed and therefore affirmed the divorce, bringing finality to prolonged litigation.