Case Summary: Gaurav Dixit v. Priyanka Sharma (2025) | Divorce on Ground of Mental Cruelty

The decision of Delhi High Court in Gaurav Dixit v. Priyanka Sharma (2025) presents a detailed judicial examination of how mental cruelty is to be assessed in contemporary matrimonial disputes. The case arose from an appeal filed by the husband challenging the Family Court’s refusal to grant a divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Title of the Case: Gaurav Dixit v. Priyanka Sharma

Citation: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 173/2025

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Judges: Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Renu Bhatnagar

Date of Judgment: 20 November 2025

While the trial court had found contradictions in the husband’s narrative and held that he had not approached the court with clean hands, the High Court undertook a holistic reassessment of the parties’ conduct, the timing of criminal allegations, and the evidentiary value of uncontroverted testimony.

Factual Background

Marriage & Early Discord

• The parties married on 1 March 2016 in Delhi according to Hindu rites.
• The husband alleged that serious marital discord arose soon thereafter.
• His case detailed several date-specific incidents of harassment and mental cruelty.

Husband’s Allegations of Cruelty

According to the husband, the wife repeatedly inflicted mental cruelty through abusive language, humiliation, threats, and unreasonable demands. Key allegations include:

1. Expression of unwillingness to marry (16.12.2016): Wife allegedly stated the marriage was against her will and she wanted to marry another man.
2. Demand to separate from aged parents (17.07.2017): She insisted that her husband live separately; when refused, she allegedly threatened suicide.
3. Financial demands & physical aggression (18.08.2018): She allegedly demanded that a new house be purchased in her name. When the husband said he could not afford it, she threw a cup of tea at him.
4. Repeated verbal abuse of husband’s disabled mother (2019): She allegedly called her mother-in-law “langdi,” discouraging contact with her.
5. Withdrawal from sexual relations (from 10.10.2019): She refused cohabitation and allegedly threatened to implicate the husband in false criminal cases.
6. Desertion (17.01.2020): She left the matrimonial home with jewellery and clothes, refusing to return despite efforts by the husband’s family.

These allegations, the husband said, constituted a sustained pattern of mental cruelty.

Wife’s Defence & Counter-Allegations

The wife denied all claims and made counter-allegations, including:

• Persistent dowry demands by husband and in-laws.
• Harassment by mother-in-law and sister-in-law.
• An alleged attempt to molest her by the husband’s father.
• Physical ouster from the matrimonial home.
• Reliance on dowry list, jewellery bill, and NGO identity card.
• FIR and Section 125 CrPC petition filed after divorce litigation began.

Proceedings before the Family Court

Issues framed included:

• Whether the husband sought to take advantage of his own wrongs.
• Whether he was treated with cruelty.
• Relief to be granted.

After evaluating evidence, the Family Court held:

• Cruelty was not proved;
• Some of wife’s allegations remained uncontroverted;
• Husband had approached the court with unclean hands;
• Petition was dismissed on 20.03.2025.

Submissions before the Delhi High Court

Appellant/Husband

The husband argued:

• His evidence was consistent, date-specific, and unshaken during cross-examination.
• The Family Court wrongly treated incidents in isolation rather than cumulatively.
• Wife’s counter-allegations lacked contemporaneous complaint, indicating they were afterthoughts, filed only after the divorce petition.
• Invocation of Section 23(1)(a) was erroneous because mere allegations of dowry demand without proof cannot constitute "taking advantage of own wrong."

Respondent/Wife

The wife’s counsel supported the Family Court’s findings, contending:

• Husband was attempting to avoid accountability for his own wrongful acts.
• She had presented documents supporting her claims.
• The miscarriage in 2019 and continued cohabitation allegedly showed the absence of cruelty.
• Husband did not cross-examine her on material allegations, and the withdrawal of the father-in-law as a witness indicated suppression of truth.

Issues Before the High Court

1. Whether the husband proved cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia).
2. Whether the Family Court was justified in applying the “clean hands” doctrine under Section 23(1)(a) to deny relief.
3. Whether the Family Court’s appreciation of evidence was perverse or legally flawed.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

Concept of Cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia)

The Court relied on precedents such as:

• V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994)
• Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007)
• K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013)
• Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006)

Principles reiterated:

• Mental cruelty involves conduct that makes it impossible for a spouse to live with the other.
• Courts must consider the overall conduct, not isolated incidents.

Cumulative Assessment of Evidence

The High Court found that:

• Husband’s testimony was consistent, detailed, and substantially uncontroverted.
• Wife’s allegations were unsupported by any contemporaneous complaint—no FIR, medical record, or police complaint existed before March 2021.
• FIR and other proceedings were initiated only after the divorce petition seriously damaged the credibility of her allegations.
• Belated allegations after initiation of matrimonial litigation may themselves amount to cruelty (A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, 2005).

Miscarriage Argument Rejected

Family Court relied on wife’s miscarriage (2019) to infer harmonious relations.

The High Court rejected this reasoning:

• Pregnancy or temporary reconciliation cannot erase earlier and subsequent cruelty.
• Acts of cruelty continued after the miscarriage.

Wife’s Conduct Constituted Mental Cruelty

The Court held that:

• Recurrent verbal abuses, including insults toward a disabled mother-in-law;
• Threats of suicide;
• Denial of conjugal relations;
• Threats to implicate husband in false cases;
• Abandoning the matrimonial home without reason collectively establishes mental cruelty.

These fall squarely within the tests laid down in Samar Ghosh, Srinivas Rao, and Naveen Kohli.

“Clean Hands” Analysis under Section 23(1)(a)

Family Court’s Error

The lower Court held the husband came with "unclean hands" based on:

• Wife’s unproven allegations;
• Withdrawal of father-in-law as witness;
• Lack of detailed cross-examination.

The High Court reversed this finding, holding:

• Section 23(1)(a) prevents a party from deriving benefit from his own matrimonial wrong, not from unproven allegations or conjecture.
• The doctrine is not a weapon to deny relief when statutory grounds are otherwise proved.
• There was no evidence that the husband committed any “wrong” disentitling him from relief.
• The Court relied on Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002), emphasising that Section 23 applies only when the petitioner has committed a matrimonial offence or contributed to the breakdown.

Thus, the Family Court's application of Section 23 was legally unsustainable.

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

The Court noted:

• The parties have lived separately since January 2020.
• No child was born out of wedlock.
• The nature of allegations (e.g., molestation by father-in-law) made cohabitation practically impossible.
• Mutual trust had collapsed beyond repair.

Though irretrievable breakdown is not an independent statutory ground, it was used to support the conclusion that reconciliation was impossible, citing Naveen Kohli.

Decision

The High Court held:

• The husband had successfully proved cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia).
• The bar under Section 23(1)(a) did not apply.
• The marriage had irretrievably broken down.
• Family Court’s Judgment (20.03.2025) was set aside.

Final Order

• Appeal allowed.
• Marriage between the parties dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia).
• Registry is directed to prepare the decree sheet accordingly.

Conclusion

Gaurav Dixit v. Priyanka Sharma is an important matrimonial law precedent clarifying that:

• Mental cruelty includes long-term abusive behaviour, threats, humiliations, and false allegations.
• Courts must avoid a hyper-technical approach and must evaluate marital conduct holistically.
• The “clean hands” doctrine cannot be invoked loosely—only proven wrongful conduct bars relief.
• When matrimonial relations have deteriorated beyond repair, courts should not force parties to continue a dead marriage.

The judgment strengthens jurisprudence on cruelty, false accusations, and judicial dissolution of irretrievably broken marriages.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams