Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce Over Non-Consummation Of Marriage, Says Wife's Wilful Refusal Is 'Mental Cruelty'

The Delhi High Court recently upheld the divorce decree granted by the Family Court in favour of a husband, on finding that the marriage remained unconsummated from inception and that the Appellant-wife's conduct amounted to mental cruelty.

A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed,

“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.”

The wife had challenged Family Court order allowing the petition filed by Respondent-Husband under Section 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act.

The case of the husband was that the marriage remained unconsummated from inception and the Appellant allegedly displayed reluctance towards physical intimacy and general matrimonial obligations.

The wife on the other hand denied the allegations and contended that she was always ready and willing to reside with the Respondent and perform her matrimonial duties. She pleaded that the Respondent and his family members subjected her to demands for dowry and monetary contributions and that her refusal to meet such unlawful demands resulted in misbehaviour and ill-treatment.

The High Court observed that allegations of dowry demand raised by the Appellant were rejected by the Family Court for lack of specificity and absence of corroboration.

So far as consummation of marriage is concerned, it rejected the wife's contention that Family Court erred in treating the expression “almost consummated” in her written statement as indicative of non-consummation.

It observed, “The record shows that the Family Court did not rely upon this phrase in isolation. It considered it in conjunction with: i. The Respondent‟s consistent allegations of refusal of physical intimacy; ii. The WhatsApp and email communications placed on record, and iii. The testimonies and the overall conduct of the parties.”

Moreover, it noted that Appellant's subsequent assertions of cohabitation did not sufficiently neutralise her averments in her written statement, especially when the surrounding circumstances supported the Respondent's version.

The Court added,

“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.”

As such, the appeal was dismissed.

Appearance: Mr. Satish Pandey, Adv. for Appellant; Mr. Sanjeev Sharma and Mr. Ankit Kashyap, Advs. for Respondent

Case title: SK v. RR

Case no.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 30/2024

Click here to read order