Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

While rejecting an appeal filed by a woman challenging the Family Court’s divorce order, the Delhi High Court has emphasized that a wife raising damaging allegations about the 'manhood' of her husband constitutes mental cruelty.

The bench, comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, observed, “Any successful marriage is built on mutual respect and faith. If either is compromised beyond a level, the end of the relationship is inevitable, as no relationship can stand on half truth, half lies, half respect, and half faith.”

The bench, in its 21-page judgment, also emphasized that subjecting a husband to an impotency test, coupled with allegations of an extramarital affair and branding him a womanizer, contributes to mental agony and trauma.

The court noted that the husband, the respondent in the case, was forced to undergo the impotency test, during which he was found to be fit. It said, "Such kind of allegations about the manhood of a person would not only be depressive but also mentally traumatic for any person to accept.”

The court upheld the findings and order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Courts, concluding that the husband was subjected to acts of cruelty justifying divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).

The bench remarked, "He (husband) 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  (wife) as proved, can only be termed acts of cruelty towards her husband."

It highlighted that the wife had applied to a trial court seeking maintenance under sections 24 and 26 of the HMA. However, the court found no merit in the appeal, as the wife had already been awarded a monthly maintenance amount, expenses for the upbringing of the minor child, and litigation expenses.

Court condemned the wife's actions, describing them as reckless, defamatory, unsubstantiated, and humiliating, causing extreme cruelty to the husband. It stated instances of public harassment, humiliation, and verbal attacks by the wife, including leveling allegations of infidelity during office meetings and portraying him as a womanizer in the workplace.

"Unfortunately, here is a case where the husband himself is being publicly harassed, humiliated, and verbally attacked by his wife, who had gone to the extent of levelling allegations of infidelity during his office meetings in front of all his office staff and guests. She even took to harassing the woman workers in his office and left no stone unturned to portray him as a womanizer in the office. This behaviour is but an act of extreme cruelty to the respondent or husband,” the court held.

Case Title: X v. Y.