Neeta Amar Vs Vipul Amar as on 20 December 2023, Delhi HC
- In the case of Prabin Gopal v. Meghna, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 2193 in a similar situation, the Kerala High Court observed that the mother had intentionally distanced the child from the father and had deprived the child from the parental love and affection. It was a case of parental alienation where the child, who was in the custody of one parent, had been psychologically manipulated against the estranged parent. It was a strategy whereby one parent intentionally displayed to the child unjustified negativity aimed at the other parent, with the intent to damage the relationship between the child and the estranged parent and to turn the child emotionally against the parent. It was further observed that the child has a right to love and affection of both the parents and likewise, the parents also have a right to receive love and affection of the child. Any act of any parent calculated to deny such affection to the other parent, amounts to alienating the child which amounts to mental cruelty. Since the child was in the custody of the mother, it was held that the mother had breached her duty which she owed as a custodian parent to instill love, affection and feelings in the child for the father. Nothing more can be more painful than experiencing one’s own flesh and blood i.e., the child, rejecting him or her. Such willful alienation of the child by a parent amounts to mental cruelty to the other parent.
- In the present case as well, the child has not only been totally alienated, but has also been used as a weapon against the father. Nothing can be more painful for a parent to see the child drifting away and being totally against the father. This assumes some significance in the light that the father never failed to provide as required for the child.
- To conclude the evidence on record as adduced by the parties proves that the respondent had alleged about the aggressive and quarrelsome and erratic behavior of the appellant, but she herself has admitted that he is a good husband and takes care of all her as well as of child’s needs. She alleged being ill-treated by the parents of the respondent, but she herself admitted that her mother-in-law had never beaten her. She claimed that she was harassed on account of dowry, but again admitted that in her own testimony that no dowry demands were made. She further alleged extramarital relationship of the respondent which from her own evidence have been proved to be false allegations. She not been satisfied with the sexual relationship with the respondent even coerced the respondent to undergo Doppler’s Impotency Test. To compound all her acts, she used the child as a weapon and has totally alienated him from the respondent. All these acts which happened in a span of about six years that they spent together, proved that the respondent was subjected to cruelty and harassment which is sufficient to create mental agony and trauma in his mind to the extent that he at times even thought of committing suicide. The acts of the appellant, as proved, can only be termed as acts of cruelty towards the respondent.
- We. thus, concur with the findings of the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Courts that the respondent was subjected to acts of cruelty which entitled him to divorce under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the HMA.
