The Delhi High Court holds that making derogatory complaints to the husband's employer to harm his professional reputation amounts to cruelty.

The Delhi High Court has allowed an appeal filed by the husband against the order of the family court which dismissed his petition for divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the facts of the matter the wife too had approached the High Court against the dismissal of her Petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
 
The High Court while allowing the appeal of the husband observed thus:

Further, it is not in dispute that the respondent-wife had sent various complaints to the Reserve Bank of India against the appellant, which fact she has admitted in her cross-examination by stating that these complaints were made after their separation. Whether the complaints were false or true, irrespective of this fact, making derogatory complaints to the Employer of the spouse, with intent to harm professional reputation and financial well-being, is nothing but cruelty. Making such complaints demonstrate lack of mutual respect and goodwill, which is crucial for a healthy marriage and merely by stating that such complaints were made after the parties have separated, in no manner absolves a spouse from the guilt of committing cruelty on the receiving end.
 
In the light of afore-noted narrations of facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that respondent's admission to sending a message containing derogatory language towards the appellant's father and filing of complaints with his employer-RBI, can be considered as cruelty. Such incidents create an atmosphere of tension and instability within the marital relationship, causing emotional harm to both parties involved.

After carefully analysing the impugned judgment and the evidence on record, we firmly conclude that the respondent by absenting herself for cross-examination has willingly opted to not substantiate her allegations against the appellant. By making false allegations of adultery, making complaints to his employer, passing derogatory comments against his father and filing multiple litigations against him, she has committed mental cruelty upon the appellant within the ambit of Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent has lived for a short span of less than one year with the appellant and has deliberately chosen to stay away with his parents and son of the parties, thereby depriving the appellant of marital bliss and fatherhood.

X vs. Y