Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed by the appellant-wife under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the judgment dated 31-08-2016, the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna*, JJ., opined that, in the present case, the respondent-husband was being publicly harassed, humiliated and verbally attacked by his wife, who went to the extent of levelling allegations of infidelity during his office meetings in front of all his office staffs. The Court opined that the wife even harassed the woman workers of his office and left no stone unturned to portray him as a womaniser in his office and this behaviour was an act of extreme cruelty to the husband. The Court opined that all these acts which happened in the span of six years that the parties spent together, proved that the husband was subjected to cruelty and harassment, which was sufficient to create mental agony and trauma in his mind to the extent that, at times the husband thought of committing suicide. The wife’s act, as proved, could only be treated as acts of cruelty towards the husband. Thus, the Court concurred with the Family Court that the husband was subjected to acts of cruelty which entitled him to divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the HMA’).
Background
In an instant case, the parties got married on 28-02-2000 and from their wedlock, one son was born on 27-04-2004. The husband asserted that during the pre-nuptial negotiations, it was falsely projected that the wife was an MBA, as after the marriage, he came across the wife’s educational documents and could not find any MBA certificate.
Further, the husband also stated that most of the wife’s certificates were in different names and on inquiry from the wife, she stated that her father used to write her name differently in the educational records to make the data look ‘colourful’. The wife also joined English speaking schools and similar courses for improving her speaking skills in English language. However, the husband claimed that he spent a lot of money in getting her admitted to various schools, but she did not attend any of the programs for more than two-three days, which resulted in wasteful expenditure and financial strain.
Further, the husband claimed that the wife used to instruct the staff in the office to keep an eye on the husband and she also used to make allegations against the husband of him visiting the brothels and her cousins had seen him there. The husband further alleged that the wife was in a habit of bad mouthing him and she would discuss her household affairs, personal life with outsiders. Further, the husband stated that the wife’s claims of his impotency and making him go through the impotency tests caused physical pain and mental agony, due to which he even thought of committing suicide.
The Family Court referred to the allegations regarding husband’s character where he was accused of having illicit relationship and was subjected to Doppler’s Impotency Test, and concluded that the husband was subjected to cruelty and thus, granted him the divorce.
Therefore, the wife filed the present appeal.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the parties got married on 28-02-2000 and the litigation commenced between them in October, 2006, therefore the marriage survived barely six years. The Court relied on Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334 and A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22 and opined that such reckless, defamatory, humiliating and unsubstantiated allegations by one spouse, which had the impact of publicly tarnishing the image of other spouse, was nothing but acts of extreme cruelty.
The Court opined that in the present case as well, the wife always had doubts on the fidelity of her husband which necessarily led to harassment and resulted in mental cruelty to the husband. The Court opined that, “the strongest pillars on which any marriage stands is trust, faith and respect, and thus, no person can reasonably be expected to put with such disrespectful conduct of their ‘significant other’ who lacks faith in her partner. Any spouse not only expects their partner to respect them but also envisions that in times of need, the spouse would act as a shield to protect their image and reputation.” The Court opined that, in the present case, the husband was being publicly harassed, humiliated and verbally attacked by his wife, who went to the extent of levelling allegations of infidelity during his office meetings in front of all his office staffs. The Court opined that the wife even harassed the woman workers of his office and left no stone unturned to portray him as a womaniser in his office and this behaviour was an act of extreme cruelty to the husband.
The Court further analysed the witnesses’ statements, wherein it was stated that on visiting the husband’s house, they found that the wife had attempted to slap her mother-in-law and also, beat her with the slippers while abusing her. The Court opined that though there was no documentary proof of this incident, but the ocular evidence of witnesses which had not been sufficiently rebutted by the wife, established her erratic behaviour towards the husband and his family members. Further, regarding the fact that the husband was made to undergo impotency test, the Court opined that such averments and allegations about the manhood of a person would not only be depressive but also, mentally traumatic for any person to accept.
The Court further observed that despite being in the same house as the parents-in-law, she admittedly did not make any effort to make the child interact with the paternal grandparents. Further, when the wife went out for court hearings, the child was left alone and even then, she did not involve the parents-in-law in the child’s care. The Court opined that the wife was also creating a non-conducive atmosphere and instilling bitterness in the child towards the husband and his parents. Further, the Court opined that such absurd explanations by the wife that the child had no interest in meeting the father would lead to conclusion that she had not only alienated the child but also, did not made any effort to bridge the gap between the father and the son despite being in the same house.
The Court relied on Prabin Gopal v. Meghna, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 2193, and opined that in the present case as well, the child had not only been totally alienated, but was also being used as a weapon against the father. The Court opined that nothing could be more painful for a parent to see the child drifting away and being totally against the father, especially when the father had never failed to provide for the child.
The Court opined that all these acts which happened in the span of six years that they spent together, proved that the husband was subjected to cruelty and harassment, which was sufficient to create mental agony and trauma in his mind to the extent that he at times even thought of committing suicide. The wife’s act, as proved, could only be treated as acts of cruelty towards the husband. Thus, the Court concurred with the Family Court that the husband was subjected to acts of cruelty which entitled him to divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.
Further, regarding the wife’s application under Section 24 and 26 of the HMA, seeking Rs. 2 lakhs per month as maintenance and Rs. 2 lakhs on account of expenses of the proceedings, the Court opined that the wife had already been awarded Rs. 25,000 per month as maintenance and an additional amount of Rs. 10,000 for the upbringing of the minor child and also, an amount of Rs. 50,000 for the litigation expenses. The wife was further at liberty to approach the appropriate forum to pursue the application seeking enhancement of maintenance or permanent alimony before the Family Court, in accordance with law.
[A v. B, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8217, decided on 20-12-2023]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Navin Sharma, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Jai Bansal and Abhishek Verma, Advocates.
