The Delhi High Court recently observed that publicly harassing, humiliating, and verbally attacking the husband by his wife is an act of extreme cruelty. A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna stated that reckless, defamatory, humiliating, and unsubstantiated allegations by one spouse, which have the impact of publicly tarnishing the image of the other, are nothing but acts of extreme cruelty.
Notably, the High Court made these observations while hearing an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The wife had moved the court against the judgment of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, which had granted divorce to the petitioner (husband) on the grounds of cruelty.
While upholding the divorce granted to the husband on the grounds of cruelty by his wife, the Delhi High Court noted that in the present case, the wife’s act of harassing and humiliating the husband publicly and portraying him as a “womaniser” in his office is an act of extreme cruelty to him.
The court noted, “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/guests. She even took to harassing the woman workers in his office and left no stone unturned to portray him as a womaniser in the office. This behaviour is but an act of extreme cruelty to the respondent/husband.”
The court pointed out that trust, faith, and respect are the strongest pillars on which any marriage stands, adding that no person can reasonably be expected to put up with such disrespectful conduct of their “significant other” who lacks faith in her partner.
It noted that any spouse not only expects their partner to respect them but also envisions that in times of need, such a spouse would act as a shield to protect their image and reputation.
The bench added, “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 court also observed that the wife used the child as a weapon and alienated her husband from the child. The bench remarked, “In the present case as well, the child has not only been totally alienated but has also been used as a weapon against the father. Nothing can be more painful for a parent to see the child drifting away and being totally against the father. This assumes some significance in the light that the father never failed to provide as required for the child.”
The court concluded, “To compound all her acts, she used the child as a weapon and has totally alienated him from the respondent. All these acts which happened in a span of about six years that they spent together, proved that the respondent 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, as proved, can only be termed as acts of cruelty towards the respondent.”
In the present case, the couple got married in 2000 and they had a son in 2004. The husband alleged that it was falsely projected that the appellant/wife was an MBA but after marriage, he found out that it was not the case. When he enrolled her in various English-speaking schools and Finishing Schools, the wife only attended the classes for a few days, resulting in wasteful expenditure and financial strain. It was also alleged that the wife is of a suspecting nature and violently reacted publicly on the suspicion that her husband has an interest in the other women.
The court had also highlighted that the other act of cruelty relied upon by the respondent was that the appellant/wife used to allege that the respondent/husband was impotent. She compelled him to go for Doppler’s Impotency Test in which he was found to be fit. Such allegations caused mental cruelty to the respondent. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the wife’s appeal and upheld the divorce.