Denying Child’s Affection to Other Spouse Cruelty: High Court
Image Source: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi ruled that the deliberate denial of a child’s attachment to one parent by a spouse constitutes mental cruelty and upheld the divorce of an estranged couple.
The court denied the wife’s appeal against the divorce decree issued by the family court in 2018 and noted that the daughter in this case had been “totally alienated” and had been used as a weapon against the husband, an army commander.
“The Chief Justice of the Family Courts has rightly concluded that such alienation of children is extreme mental cruelty to the father who has never shown any indifference to the child,” wrote Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna in a recent decision.
According to the courtroom, “the actions of one parent determine, intended to withhold such love from the opposite parent, alienate the kid and represent intellectual cruelty… There is nothing more stressful than being abandoned by way of one’s flesh and blood or by a child. The intentional alienation of a younger man is capricious and terrible.”
The Court also disregarded the appellant’s wife’s concerns about the husband’s regular alcohol usage, stating that “just because someone drinks every day does not make him an alcoholic or add up to a bad character” when there hasn’t been a bad occurrence.
Additionally, it stated that forming friends at work while parties were living apart owing to professional obligations could not be viewed as cruel. A person who is primarily alone may take comfort in having friends, and the simple fact that he once spoke to them cannot be seen as either neglecting the appellant or acting cruelly.
It must be understood that both parties were forced to develop acquaintances at their places of employment and elsewhere due to their professional obligations; these friendships, in and of themselves, cannot be characterized as cruel, the court ruled.
It stated that when a husband’s “intimate relationship” with another woman had previously been “condoned” by the wife, it could not be viewed as an act of cruelty while evaluating a divorce petition.
The wife’s behavior in filing complaints with the department against the husband was also criticized, with the statement that it “cannot be expected from an educated spouse” and “proves her vengeance to bring down the respondent (husband)”.
“As the desire for revenge crept in and the applicant went on the warpath and filed complaints with the department, and also initiated various civil/legal cases since 2011, i.e. about 12 years, and even estranged his daughter from the accused,” the court noted. “This leads to the irresistible conclusion that various atrocities were committed against the accused.”
As an Army officer, the husband frequently received postings to different locations. He filed for divorce from his wife in front of the family court for several reasons, including the fact that she never showed any interest in joining him there and prevented him from speaking to their daughter. To break off contact between the father and the child, he also claimed that the wife moved to Pune and pulled the daughter out of her Delhi school.
Additionally, the husband asserted that the wife ended their relationship on her initiative in June 2008, made false reports to Army officials, and made scandalous accusations against him. Although the wife was not the subject of a desertion claim, the court upheld the divorce based on cruelty, according to its order.
Team Profile
Latest entries
Article30 September 2023Can RPF Personnel Be Treated As ‘Workman’ For Compensation Purposes? SC Decides
English30 September 2023High Court Expounds: The Statement of an Eyewitness Must Be Free from Blemish and Devoid of Any Ambiguity, Uncertainty, and Loopholes
News29 September 2023Radhasoami Satsang Bhawan: The High Court Directs to Maintain the Status Quo On Land in Agra until Oct 5- News28 September 2023Denying Child’s Affection to Other Spouse Cruelty: High Court
