In a reversal of sorts, courts have come to the rescue of husbands who have been subjected to mental cruelty by their wives, either due to their financial constraints or weight problems, and granted divorce
The Delhi High Court recently ruled that continuous taunts by a wife regarding her husband’s financial capacity and pressuring him to fulfil extravagant dreams beyond his means amount to mental cruelty, justifying a divorce. The division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna said that a spouse should not be a constant reminder of financial limitations and unreasonable demands can create persistent dissatisfaction, leading to mental strain.
The Court was dealing with a wife’s appeal, which the bench rejected, challenging a family court order granting divorce to her husband on grounds of cruelty.
On May 22, 1997, the parties had got married, and on June 18, 1999, a son was born to them. The husband asserted that after marriage, both started residing with his parents, but that was not acceptable to the wife. On her insistence, they shifted to Delhi to reside in his brother’s house because he did not have the financial capacity to set up an independent residence in a metropolitan city like Delhi.
However, the wife’s attitude was unaccommodating and temperamental and she had frequent differences with the sister-in-law. Due to such irresponsible, erratic and aggressive behaviour, he was compelled to set up a separate residence in Delhi in 2004. However, even then, the wife’s attitude did not change and she continued to be disrespectful and quarrelsome.
The husband further asserted that his wife would taunt him for taking a loan from her parents, and asked why he got married if he did not have the financial capability to meet expenses. The husband stated that he had tried to meet all the requirements of his wife, despite his financial constraints, and even during her pregnancy, he took good care of her, but continued to suffer her tantrums in the fond hope that things would eventually settle.
The husband stated that in December 2004, the wife and their son left the matrimonial home and went to her parental home without informing him. Despite much counselling by the husband, she did not return. However, she came back with the child in March 2005 for the examination of the child, but again left in June 2005 in his absence and took away all her belongings. Thereafter, when the wife refused to let him meet their minor child, the husband filed a guardianship petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).
The family court held that the husband’s testimony, supported by the witnesses examined by him, established that he had been subjected to cruelty by the wife, and allowed divorce on the ground of cruelty, but divorce on the ground of desertion was rejected. The Court further noted that there had been no re-conciliation or restitution of conjugal rights despite a decree on March 19, 2008, under Section 9 of the HMA, and thus, the husband was also entitled to divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the HMA.
The Court observed: “Pressurising a spouse to fulfill distant and whimsical dreams clearly not within his financial reach may create a sense of persistent dissatisfaction, which would be sufficient mental strain to drain the contentment and tranquillity out of any married life.”
The Court applied the three-pronged test laid down in A Jaychandra vs Aneel Kaur (2005) and opined that it could be easily inferred that the acts of indifference, non-accommodative nature, constant taunts on the husband’s financial capacity, disrupting family relations and an extremely disrespectful attitude were per se a conduct that would cause disquiet in the husband’s mind.
The Court also relied on Gurbux Singh vs Harminder Kaur (2010) and opined that the various incidents narrated by the husband about the wife led to the irresistible conclusion that such conduct was bound to cause a grave apprehension in the husband’s mind, thereby disrupting his mental equilibrium. The Court opined that though these incidents might seem innocuous, insignificant or trifling when considered independently, over a period it was bound to create mental stress of the kind which made it impossible for the parties to survive in their matrimonial relationship. Thus, the High Court concluded that the family court had rightly held that the husband was subjected to cruelty, and granted divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.
The Court referred to Section 13(1A)(ii) of the HMA, stating that relief under this Section, allowing divorce for non-compliance of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, is an absolute right for either party. It rejected the argument that only the party in whose favour the restitution was allowed could seek divorce, stating that the language of the Section indicates that either party can avail the remedy in case of non-compliance.
This is not the first time that the Delhi High Court has given a judgment in the context of cruelty against the husband. Last year, in Deepti Bhardwaj vs Rajeev Bhardwaj, the Court observed that constant use of derogatory and humiliating words by a wife towards her husband and his family amounts to cruelty and is a ground for divorce.
While upholding the dissolution of marriage and consequent divorce of the couple, a Bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Vikas Mahajan noted: “Repeated use of words of the nature as extracted herein hereinabove are clearly humiliating and would certainly amount to cruelty. No person can be expected to live with constant abuse being hurled upon him.” The Court was hearing a challenge by the wife against a family court order allowing the petition filed by the husband under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the HMA seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. The lower court had also passed a decree of divorce in favour of the husband.
In 2016, the Delhi High Court upheld a 2012 lower court order which had granted divorce, saying that taunting a spouse amounted to “mental cruelty”. The husband said his wife regularly “humiliated him for being overweight and incapable of satisfying her sexual desires”.
“The calling of names and hurling of abuses such as ‘Hathi’ [elephant], ‘Mota Hathi’ [fat elephant] by the appellant in respect of her husband—even if he was overweight, is bound to strike at his self-respect and self-esteem,” said Justice Vipin Sanghi. “Obviously, the respondent was sensitive to such taunts, and it is not the appellant’s case that the taunts were made jokingly, or out of love and affection, and without malice,” he added. The woman had said her husband’s allegations were “vague and non-specific”, but the Court rejected her argument.
At the end of the day, mutual respect is a must for any marriage to survive.
—By Abhilash Kumar Singh and India Legal Bureau