Repeated Accusations of Infidelity Without Proof Constitute Mental Cruelty

Delhi High Court, in Ms. Anupama Sharma v. Shri Sanjay Sharma (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2022, judgment dated 08 October 2025), reaffirmed that repeated, unsubstantiated allegations of adultery or infidelity against a spouse amount to grave mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar upheld the Family Court’s decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband, concluding that the wife’s false accusations, aggressive litigation, and hostile conduct inflicted sustained mental suffering that made cohabitation impossible.

This judgment is a vital reiteration of matrimonial jurisprudence that protects an individual’s dignity and reputation within marriage. It also clarifies that the law does not permit one spouse to tarnish the other’s character through baseless insinuations under the guise of asserting matrimonial rights.

Facts of the Case

The parties, Anupama and Sanjay Sharma, were married on 21 November 1997 in Shamli (Uttar Pradesh). A son was born in 1998. Initially living in Shamli, the couple later shifted to Delhi due to interpersonal disputes.

The husband alleged that his wife was quarrelsome, suspicious, and abusive, which forced him to live separately. The wife, in turn, accused him of dowry demands, physical abuse, and extra-marital relationships.

A series of complaints followed:

• On 8 July 2012, the husband complained to PS Seemapuri alleging abusive and violent conduct.
• On 18 July 2012, the wife accused him of infidelity, claiming she saw him with another woman, Sarita.
• On 21 April 2013, she lodged FIR No. 217/2013 under Sections 498A and 323 IPC, alleging cruelty and illicit relations with one Ms. Snehlata.
• Multiple subsequent complaints alleged dowry harassment, bigamy, assault, and sexual coercion.

Amid this barrage of litigation, the husband filed for divorce on 13 May 2013 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Family Court, Karkardooma, after examining evidence and testimonies, found cruelty proved but not desertion, dissolving the marriage by judgment dated 07 June 2022.

The wife appealed, arguing that the Family Court had erred in appreciating evidence and that mere filing of complaints could not amount to cruelty.

Contentions

Appellant-Wife’s Arguments

• The husband failed to prove cruelty with cogent evidence; allegations were vague and uncorroborated.
• Her complaints and FIRs were bona fide assertions of her legal rights and could not amount to cruelty unless proved false.
• The Family Court wrongly relied on the concept of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage,” which is not a statutory ground under the HMA.
• She was the victim of dowry demands and neglect; hence, the husband could not take advantage of his own wrong under Section 23(1)(a).

Respondent-Husband’s Arguments

• The wife repeatedly insulted and humiliated him, accused him of infidelity without evidence, and physically assaulted him.
• The incident of 21 April 2013, when she entered his clinic with relatives and allegedly assaulted him, showed physical cruelty.
• False and defamatory complaints filed over several years caused immense mental agony and social humiliation.
• The marriage had broken down irretrievably, with no possibility of reconciliation.

Issue

• Whether repeated and unsubstantiated accusations of infidelity, coupled with hostile litigation, constitute “cruelty” under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Findings of the Court

Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court’s conclusion that the wife’s conduct—marked by baseless allegations of adultery, multiple false complaints, and physical aggression—amounted to cruelty of a grave nature.

1. Physical Cruelty

The Court noted that on 21 April 2013, the wife, accompanied by relatives, visited the husband’s clinic at Atairna (Muzaffarnagar) and engaged in an altercation. She later filed FIR No. 217/2013 on the same day, resulting in his arrest. The Family Court found that her visit to his workplace and the ensuing violence were unjustified, demonstrating deliberate aggression.

2. False Allegations of Infidelity

The core of the cruelty finding lay in repeated, unproven imputations of adulterous conduct. The wife alleged that the husband lived with another woman, Snehlata, and produced photocopied certificates and handwritten “messages” but never examined any witnesses to prove authenticity. Even during cross-examination, she failed to question the husband on these allegations. The Court held that such reckless accusations, without corroboration, inflict deep mental pain and injure reputation, satisfying the test of cruelty.

3. Multiplicity of Litigation

The Court tabulated at least seven criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings filed by the wife between 2012 and 2019, all unsubstantiated. These included Sections 498A and 323 IPC charges, bigamy, theft, and defamation. None resulted in a conviction or credible proof. The Court held that such vindictive and vexatious proceedings demonstrate a sustained campaign of harassment, amounting to mental cruelty.

4. Irretrievable Breakdown

Although not an independent ground under the HMA, the Court observed that prolonged separation (over 10 years) and unending litigation made reconciliation impossible.

Citing Rakesh Raman v. Kavita Raman and Anita Sharma v. Naresh Kumar Sharma (2025 DHC 5066 DB), the Bench clarified that while “irretrievable breakdown” per se is not a statutory ground, it can reinforce cruelty when prolonged hostility causes continuous suffering to both parties.

Principles on Cruelty Cited by the Court

The Court drew upon a line of Supreme Court precedents to explain the concept of “mental cruelty”:

1. Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007 4 SCC 511): Mental cruelty is conduct causing acute mental pain, agony, and suffering such that the aggrieved spouse cannot reasonably live with the other. The judgment listed illustrative instances, including sustained humiliation, neglect, or abusive behaviour.
2. V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994 1 SCC 337): Defined mental cruelty as conduct making cohabitation unreasonable; physical injury is unnecessary if mental distress is grave.
3. A. Jayachandra v. Aneet Kaur (2005 2 SCC 22): Cruelty must be “grave and weighty,” beyond the ordinary wear and tear of marital life.
4. Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi (2010 4 SCC 476): Cruelty defies rigid definition—it may manifest through words, gestures, or silence; its categories are never closed.
5. Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate (2003 6 SCC 334): Held that disgusting accusations of unchastity or extra-marital relations constitute the worst form of insult and cruelty, attacking honour and status.
6. Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja (2017 14 SCC 194): False complaints and defamatory allegations, when proved baseless, are cruel.
7. Mangayakarasi v. M. Yuvaraj (2020 3 SCC 786): Unsubstantiated dowry-related accusations exposing the husband and family to criminal trials amount to mental cruelty.

Delhi High Court in Kitty Bhardwaj v. Lalit Pyare Lal Bhardwaj (2024 DHC 2031-DB): Reiterated that false allegations of illicit relationships strike at the core of marital trust and destroy its sanctity.

Applying these authorities, the Bench concluded that Anupama Sharma’s conduct met every test of mental cruelty: grave, repetitive, humiliating, and destructive of marital harmony.

Court’s Observations

Baseless Allegations Damage Reputation:

The Court stressed that unsubstantiated imputations of infidelity strike at personal dignity and social reputation—values protected by law. Marriage is founded on mutual trust; reckless defamation by a spouse cannot be excused as an emotional reaction.

Filing Multiple Complaints as Harassment:

While legitimate legal remedies are available to an aggrieved spouse, misusing criminal law to settle matrimonial scores amounts to mental cruelty, particularly when complaints are vague, unverified, or timed as counter-blasts to divorce petitions.

Physical Violence and Public Embarrassment:

The wife’s conduct at the husband’s clinic, causing a public scene and leading to police involvement, exemplified intolerable behaviour incompatible with marital obligations.

Long Separation Shows Breakdown:

Living apart since 2012 and engaging in incessant litigation demonstrated that the marriage was “dead in substance though alive in law.” Continuing such a relationship, the Court said, would only prolong suffering.

Ratio Decidendi

Delhi High Court held that:

Repeated, baseless accusations of adultery and infidelity, coupled with filing false or reckless criminal complaints, constitute grave mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. When such conduct causes humiliation, loss of reputation, and continuous mental agony, the aggrieved spouse is entitled to a decree of divorce.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the decree of divorce in favour of the husband was upheld.

Significance

1. Protection of Reputation as a Marital Right

The judgment underscores that reputation is integral to personal dignity, and its deliberate assault through unfounded allegations violates both moral and legal norms. The Court treated social reputation as part of the “mental peace” every spouse is entitled to preserve.

2. Distinction Between Genuine and False Complaints

While courts encourage victims of domestic violence or dowry harassment to seek redress, this case draws a vital distinction: genuine grievances supported by evidence do not amount to cruelty, but maliciously motivated, false, or exaggerated complaints do.

3. Judicial Approach to Modern Marital Conflicts

Recognising that marital relationships today are shaped by evolving societal norms, the Court applied a contextual lens—emphasising equality, mutual respect, and individual autonomy. The misuse of gender-based protections, it observed implicitly, undermines the very justice they were designed to uphold.

4. Cruelty as a Dynamic Concept

The decision reiterates that “cruelty” is a flexible, evolving concept that must be assessed cumulatively, considering education, culture, and emotional resilience of the parties.

5. Emphasis on Finality and Mental Peace

By affirming the decree of divorce, the Court advanced the principle that law should not compel parties to endure an irreparable marriage merely to uphold a legal fiction. Ending prolonged emotional conflict was itself seen as a form of justice.

Conclusion

Delhi High Court’s ruling in Anupama Sharma v. Sanjay Sharma sends a clear and balanced message: legal protections for spouses must not become instruments of vengeance. While the law shields genuine victims of cruelty and dowry harassment, it equally safeguards individuals from false accusations that corrode dignity.

By holding that repeated and unproven allegations of infidelity amount to cruelty, the Court reaffirmed that marriage cannot survive without mutual respect and trust. Mental peace, personal honour, and reputation are not abstract ideals—they are the very foundation of matrimonial life. When these are persistently violated, divorce becomes not a failure of marriage but a restoration of justice.

Important Link