Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court recently upheld the divorce decree granted by a family court against a husband on the grounds of mental cruelty.

The division bench of Justice RD Dhanuka and Justice MM Sathaye observed that "the reputation of the wife got damaged because of defamatory news published by her husband in a daily newspaper and she was embarrassed before her peers, colleagues and co-workers.

The court said, "Whether the actual news is defamatory or not is irrelevant to the present purpose. The fact that allegations and accusations are levelled by the husband against the wife in the newspaper, itself has the effect of lowering her reputation in the eyes of her peers and colleagues. Embarrassment is a bitter bonus."

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the husband against a family court order allowing the petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage based on cruelty.

On December 12, 2008, the couple got married according to Hindu rituals at Nasik. At the time of marriage,  the husband was working with Yes Bank. On September 26, 2012, the wife filed a petition for the dissolution of her marriage on the ground of cruelty.

She contended that her husband was very rude, wild, and aggressive and used filthy language after consuming alcohol.

The wife had cleared the exam and joined the police academy. She alleged that on April 14, 2011, her husband, under the influence of liquor visited the academy where the wife was taking training and created a scene using filthy language. Her husband also mortgaged her gold ornaments received from her parents as streedhan for which the wife had filed a complaint under section 498 A of IPC.

On the other hand, the husband contended that the wife had filed the case only due to interference from his mother-in-law and neither ground of cruelty nor specific incidences of cruelty were actually made out. He further contended that his wife and her parents are pressuring him to give a divorce only to harass him.

The family court granted the divorce and rejected the husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The court also directed the husband to return the streedhan.

The high court noted that the husband had filed criminal complaints not only against her mother-in-law but also against the friend and lawyer of the wife including her present lawyer. Court also pointed out that the husband had published a news article in Daily Newspaper, “Divya Marathi” trying to defame the wife because of which she got embarrassed.

Notably, the court also pointed out that "the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent that the parties can't live together without mental agony, distress and torture.

The bench further held, "Physical violence is not essential to constitute cruelty, but a consistent course of conduct inflicting mental agony is sufficient to constitute cruelty."

With regard to the streedhan, the bench said that the gold ornaments received in marriage by the wife become her streedhan, no matter from where she had received them.

Accordingly, the bench upheld the divorce decree and disposed of the present appeal.

Case Title: XYZ vs. ABC

Statute: Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.