Theme-Logo
  • This Product is Licensed to ,

    • Notifications
    • Generic placeholder image

  • User-Profile-Image
    • Profile
    • Change Password
    • Logout
Cdj Law Journal
  • D Home
  • Judgments
    • Latest Cases
    • Publication Date
    • Keyword Method 1
    • Keyword Method II
    • Intellectual Search
    • Advanced & Citation
    • Nominal Index
    • Year / Month Search
    • CDJ Chat GPT
    • CDJ AI Search
  • FC E-Books
  • FC Conveyance
  • FC E-Law Dictionary
  • FC Acts
  • FC Law Commision Reports
  • FC WEBINAR MEETINGS
  • FC Articles / Journals
  • FC Office Management
  • FC Legal News
  • FC Legal Chat
  • FC Bookmarked Judgments
  • FC Publisher's Note
Legal News
thumb
CDJ Legal News

Delhi HC upholds judgment granting man divorce on grounds of ‘cruelty’



05:38 AM, Saturday,25 October 2025



The Delhi High Court has upheld a family court’s decision to grant divorce to a man, observing that he and his family were repeatedly subjected to abusive and derogatory language by his wife, which amounted to mental cruelty – a ground for divorce.

The family court, in its judgment pronounced in August 2023, had dissolved the marriage after the man pleaded for divorce on the grounds of cruelty.

The High Court’s October 17 order came on a petition filed by the woman challenging the decision of the family court.

The couple had married in January 2010 but cohabited for barely a year, and have been living separately for over 14 years.

‘Forced to leave home’
A Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan recorded that the woman had alleged that the husband’s mother was “characterless”, which compelled him to leave the matrimonial home.

The woman denied the allegations, asserting that she was the one subjected to cruelty. She claimed that her husband pressured her to misuse her position as a senior officer of the Railways to secure his appointment as a lawyer on a panel, and that when she refused, he turned abusive and hostile.

‘Alimony a tool of justice’
On the issue of alimony, the court noted that such relief is “intended as a measure of social justice and not as a tool for enrichment or equalising the financial status of two capable individuals”.

The Bench said since the woman is a senior government officer with “a steady and substantial income and no dependents”, she is “fully capable of maintaining herself” and, therefore, not entitled to maintenance.