The Bombay High Court recently upheld a family court’s divorce decree against a husband on the grounds of mental cruelty.
A division bench comprising Justice RD Dhanuka and Justice MM Sathaye 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.
The bench 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.
“Whether the actual news is defamatory or not is irrelevant to the present purpose. The fact that the husband leveled allegations and accusations against the wife in the newspaper has the effect of lowering her reputation in the eyes of her peers and colleagues. Embarrassment is a bitter bonus,” the bench stated.
The couple married according to Hindu rituals in Nasik on December 12, 2008. The husband was working with Yes Bank at the time of their marriage. On September 26, 2012, the wife petitioned for the dissolution of her marriage based on cruelty.
She claimed that after drinking alcohol, her husband became rude, wild, and aggressive, and used filthy language.
The wife had passed the exam and enrolled in the police academy. She claimed that on April 14, 2011, while under the influence of alcohol, her husband went to the academy where her wife was training and made a scene using filthy language. Her husband also mortgaged her gold ornaments as streedhan, for which the wife filed a complaint under Section 498 A of the IPC.
The husband, on the other hand, contended that the wife had only filed the case due to interference from his mother-in-law and that no ground of cruelty or specific instances of cruelty were established. He also claimed that his wife and her parents are pressuring him to divorce in order to harass him.
The divorce was granted by the family court, and the husband’s suit for restitution of conjugal rights was denied. The husband was also ordered by the court to return the streedhan.
The husband had filed criminal complaints not only against her mother-in-law, but also against the wife’s friend and lawyer, including her current lawyer, according to the high court. The court also stated that the husband published a news article in the daily newspaper “Divya Marathi” in an attempt to defame the wife, which caused her embarrassment.
Notably, the court stated that “the parties’ relationship had deteriorated to such an extent that the parties can’t live together without mental agony, distress, and torture.”
“Physical violence is not required to constitute cruelty,” the bench added, “but a consistent course of conduct inflicting mental agony is sufficient to constitute cruelty.”
Concerning the streedhan, the bench stated that the wife’s gold ornaments received in marriage become her streedhan, regardless of where she received them.
As a result, the bench upheld the divorce decree and dismissed the current appeal.
