‘Cruelty’: Wife tells Army bosses of husband’s ‘affair with sister-in-law’, court backs divorce

“The armed forces operate on a strict code of conduct, discipline, and high moral standards. Where a spouse writes formal complaints to superior officers, alleging illicit or immoral behaviour, it directly targets the official’s professional standing and credibility within the force,” it added, stating that such allegations are not ordinary domestic squabbles but calculated actions that deeply humiliate the official in front of his colleagues, making it impossible for him to maintain his dignity or command at the workplace.

Court did not accept every allegation

The couple got married on April 23, 2002, and have two children. They lived together on and off for about nine years. The husband said their relationship began to worsen after 2011 and alleged that his wife harassed him and his family and insisted that he live separately from them whenever he returned home on leave. The wife denied this and said it was the husband who avoided living with her and failed to fulfil his marital responsibilities.

Justices Ajay Mohan Goel and Yogesh Jaswal rejected the argument that the husband was required to prove the allegations false.

The high court, however, did not treat every complaint or criminal case cited by the husband as proof of matrimonial cruelty. The husband had alleged that the wife lodged a complaint with his commanding officer claiming that she suffered from a chronic illness and incurred medical expenses, despite having access to treatment through a military hospital. He also alleged that she later lodged a criminal case against him, resulting in his spending a night in police custody.

However, the bench rejected the argument that the mere registration of an FIR automatically amounted to cruelty. It said there was no clear evidence establishing that the criminal complaints had been lodged without justification. There was also no specific evidence that the proceedings had ended with a finding that the allegations were false.

The court similarly found that allegations of quarrelling and abusive behaviour had not been properly proved. The only supporting witness examined by the husband admitted during cross-examination that he had never seen the wife quarrel with or abuse her husband. The court, hence, found his testimony of no assistance to the husband on that aspect.

Allegations about sister-in-law

The case centred on complaints the wife made to her husband’s Army superiors. During cross-examination, she admitted that she had complained to the Army authorities, and her brother also confirmed this. The complaints alleged that the husband was having an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law.

The bench said the allegations directly affected the husband’s “character, honour, and reputation” and that the wife had failed to substantiate them with clear evidence. “These unsubstantiated accusations imputing unchastity, marital infidelity, and an extramarital affair constitute a grave assault on the character and standing of the petitioner-husband,” the court said.

It drew a distinction between a matrimonial allegation remaining within a private dispute and one being communicated to an officer’s professional superiors. The bench observed that the armed forces function within a system based on discipline and professional standards. Allegations of immoral conduct could hence affect an officer’s standing among colleagues and superiors and affect his professional credibility.

The wife had argued that the complaints were made to protect the matrimonial relationship. The high court rejected that explanation, holding that it could not justify a persistent effort to undermine the husband’s dignity and reputation.

The court also rejected the argument that the husband was required to prove the allegations false. It observed that the wife had made the allegations and had the opportunity to establish them, but made no attempt to substantiate the accusations affecting his character. The court concluded that the allegations had caused him mental agony and cruelty.

Divorce upheld, but not on desertion ground

The high court did not accept the husband’s separate plea of desertion. The husband had informed the court that the wife deserted him from around July 2011. But his divorce petition was filed on May 21, 2013. The court noted that the legal requirement of two continuous years of desertion had not been completed when the petition was filed. It, hence, held that divorce could not be granted on the grounds of desertion.

The court, however, held that the unsubstantiated allegations about the husband’s character and alleged relationship with his sister-in-law were sufficient to establish mental cruelty. It thus dismissed the wife’s appeal and upheld the divorce granted by the family court.

The judgment also heard the wife’s application seeking enhancement and realisation of maintenance and held that she had to first pursue it before the family court.