High Court Rules Father’s Denial of Paternity and False Accusations Against Wife as Mental Cruelty

The High Court recently held that a father’s refusal to acknowledge the paternity of children and making baseless allegations of an extramarital affair against the wife amounts to an act of mental cruelty against the wife.

A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna, citing a Supreme Court judgment, said such allegations are a serious attack on character, honour and reputation and the worst form of cruelty.

The Court said such unproven claims, which cause mental agony, pain and suffering, are sufficient in themselves to amount to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law. The bench dismissed the husband’s appeal while upholding the family court’s decision to dismiss his divorce petition.

The bench said that the Family Judge has rightly observed that making disgusting allegations of impurity and indecent acquaintance with a person outside marriage and alleging an extramarital affair is a serious attack on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as mental health of the spouses.

Such scandalous, baseless allegations of infidelity levelled on the spouses and not even sparing the children, would amount to the worst form of humiliation and cruelty, which is sufficient to deprive the Appellant of seeking a divorce. This is a case where the appellant himself has committed a mistake and he cannot be given the benefit of divorce.

Also read: Delhi High Court Rebukes Kejriwal Government and MCD Over Failure to Provide Textbooks to Over 2 Lakh Student

The husband argued that he met his wife in September 2004 and got married the next year. He said the woman pressured him to marry her after having sex with her while he was drunk and later told him she was pregnant.

The appellant-husband further alleged that the wife threatened to commit suicide and that she had illicit relations with several men. After considering the case, the court rejected the husband’s allegations.

The bench said that the appellant failed to take responsibility for the family after leaving his service and the respondent-wife had to bear not only the financial burden but also struggled to take care of the children and household responsibilities.

The court ruled that the husband could not prove any of the allegations made against the wife. He has made vague and general allegations regarding threats of suicide and implication in criminal cases. As discussed above, it is the respondent who has been the victim of cruelty and not the appellant.