Labelling husband a "womaniser" without substance is cruelty: Bombay High Court

The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sharmila Deshmukh has held that false and baseless allegations against the husband, calling him a "womaniser" and "alcoholic" constitutes cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

The case pertains to a petition which was filed by the wife before a family court for restitution of conjugal rights and the husband sought a divorce instead. The family court was also hearing a petition filed by the wife seeking maintenance. The wife averred in her reply to the husband's counter claim before court that her is a husband womaniser and alcoholic. The family court, after hearing both parties, passed a decree granting divorce and monthly maintenance to the wife of Rs. 2000 per month. The wife then filed an appeal against the decree of the family court before the High Court. The Husband, who was an Ex-Army Personnel, who retired as ‘Major’ had died while the appeal was being heard by the High Court

The counsel for the wife argued before the High Court that Family Court Judge erred in granting the decree of divorce on the ground that the allegations made in the reply to the counterclaim constitute an act of cruelty. He also argued that there are instances where the husband has levied allegations, however, they were not considered by the Family Court and only the allegation by the wife in reply to the counterclaim were considered.

The counsel for the husband argued that the allegations made by the wife constitute an act of cruelty as she had failed to substantiate the allegations and hence the Family Court Judge had rightly passed the decree of divorce.

The High Court dismissed the petition after noting that the petitioner had not substantiated her allegation and did not produce any evidence before the court to prove her allegation.

The court also took on record that the wife had caused the husband mental agony by making false and defamatory allegations against him in society. The respondent had informed the court that the wife had approached the members of the institution wherein he was doing social work and leveled the same allegations against him, defaming him in society, and by reason of this conduct, his marital, as well as social life, has been completely destroyed.

The court while dismissing the appeal filed by the wife noted that

“The conduct of the Petitioner in continuing to make unwarranted, false and baseless allegations pertaining to the Respondent’ character labelling him as an alcoholic and womaniser has resulted in shredding his reputation in the Society. In such circumstances, and considering the standing of the Respondent in the society, the stand of the Respondent that he could not put up with such conduct of the Petitioner defaming him in the society where he was carrying out social work and that he cannot continue with the matrimonial relationship in the face of such allegations cannot be said to be unjustified. Considering the above, we find that the conduct of Petitioner constitutes “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955”

Case Title: Nalini Nagnath Uphalkar vs Nagnath Mahadev Uphalkar