Financial Instability Can be Considered A Form of Mental Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court, in its recent judgment, said that financial instability can be considered a form of mental cruelty. The court made this observation while granting a woman’s appeal for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

A division bench, consisting of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, noted that the appellant (woman) was employed while the respondent (husband) was unemployed, leading to substantial financial disparity between them. The court found that the husband’s inability to establish stable employment created mental anxiety for the wife, which constituted a source of mental cruelty.

The High Court allowed the woman’s appeal, overturning the 2007 family court decision that had dismissed her divorce request. The couple had married on April 9, 1989, but separated on November 27, 1996, after living together for nearly seven years and having no children.

The woman alleged that her husband’s family had initially assured her that they had no dowry demands and would respect her. However, after her father-in-law’s death, the husband and his family began harassing her for money, demanding investments in the husband’s business and claiming a separate residence.

The court, while recognizing the woman’s claims, noted that they lacked sufficient evidence and were appropriately addressed by the family court. The bench emphasized that the wife had a successful career before marriage, while the husband’s income was irregular. He struggled to secure steady employment and resorted to alcohol consumption and gambling. This financial disparity naturally led to marital conflicts.

The High Court highlighted that mental cruelty is not easily defined, but was evident in the wife’s struggle to adapt to a family where the husband was financially unstable and dependent on his mother for income. Moreover, the husband had falsely accused the wife of having illicit relationships, a claim that the court found baseless and highly damaging to her reputation.

Additionally, the court noted that the couple had lived apart since November 1996, with no substantial reconciliation efforts made over the past 27 years, indicating irretrievable breakdown of their marriage.