It is a matter of utmost significance especially for both married men and married women that the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled ABC vs XYZ in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 178/2016 & CM APPL.9333/2017 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2023:DHC:9365-DB that was reserved on August 21, 2023 and then finally pronounced on December 20, 2023 has minced absolutely no words whatsoever to hold unequivocally that harassing the husband publicly, verbally attacking him and portraying him as womanizer in public is extreme cruelty. It must be mentioned here that the Court was deciding an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 that was preferred by the wife against the judgment of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court which had granted divorce on the ground of cruelty in a partition that had been filed by the husband. It must be noted that the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Hon’ble Mr Justice Suresh Kumar Kait was dealing with the appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Family Court, by which divorce has been granted to the husband on the ground of cruelty under 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
In this leading case, we see that the respondent/husband has asserted that during the pre-nuptial negotiations, it was falsely projected that the appellant/wife is an MBA. However, after the marriage, he came across the educational documents of the appellant and could not find any MBA Certificate. She would frequently pick up fights, suspecting that the respondent had having interest in the other women and thereby, caused embarrassment for him in the restaurants and public spaces. We thus see that the respondent thus, sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty which has been granted rightly by the Family Court and so also concurred and upheld commendably by the Delhi High Court which dismissed the appeal.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Ms Justice Neena Bansal Krishna for a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and herself sets the ball in motion with the motto stating that, “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.”
As we see, the Division Bench states in para 1 of this notable judgment that, “An Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred on behalf of the appellant/wife against the Judgment dated 31.08.2016 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi vide which divorce has been granted on the ground of cruelty, in the petition filed by the respondent/husband under 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as “HMA”).”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 that, “Briefly stated, the parties got married on 28.02.2000 and one son, Rudraksha, was born from their wedlock on 27.04.2004. The respondent/husband has asserted that during the pre-nuptial negotiations it was falsely projected that the appellant/wife is an MBA. However, after the marriage, he came across the educational documents of the appellant and could not find any MBA Certificate. He also found that most of the certificates were in different names and on inquiry from the appellant she stated that her father used to write her name differently in the educational records anything to make the so called DATA look “colorful”. She further admitted that she was not an MBA graduate but was advised to claim so in her matrimonial home.”
Further, the Division Bench then lays bare in para 3 that, “The respondent asserted that he had an excellent schooling and had more than a “literate tag” and the intellectual level of both the parties could not match since the very inception. The appellant being aware of her handicap, joined English Speaking Schools and similar courses for improvement of her speaking skills in the English language. She also joined Priya Warrick Finishing School in the month of May, 2001. The respondent claimed that he spent lot of money in getting her admitted to various English Speaking Schools and Finishing Schools, but to his shock and surprise the appellant did not attend any of these programs for more than 2-3 days, resulting in wasteful expenditure and financial strain.”
Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 37 that, “The learned Family Judge essentially referred to the allegations in regard to the character of the respondent including him having illicit relationship and also of subjecting him to Doppler’s Impotency Test and further acts of harassment by the appellant, to conclude that respondent was subjected to cruelty and thereby granted divorce. The petition for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty was, therefore, allowed.”
Needless to say, the Division Bench states in para 38 that, “Aggrieved by the said judgment for grant of divorce, the appellant/wife has filed the present appeal.”
Most significantly, the Division Bench then minces just no words absolutely to propound in para 50 that, “Hence, it is no more res integra that such reckless, defamatory, humiliating and unsubstantiated allegations by one spouse, which has the impact of publicly tarnishing the image of the other spouse, is nothing but acts of extreme cruelty. In the present case as well, the appellant always had doubts on the fidelity of her husband which necessarily led to harassment resulting in mental cruelty to the respondent/husband. 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. 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 allegation of infidelity during his office meetings in front of all his office staff/guests. She even took to harassing the woman workers of his office and left no stone unturned to portray him as a womanizer in the office. This behaviour is but an act of extreme cruelty to the respondent/husband.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 51 that, “Pertinently, the respondent had also referred to an incident pertaining one Ms. Bharti Singh, who was allotted to him for management of his accounts with American Express Bank. He had deposed that she being the Accounts Manager, used to frequently call him and also at times visit the office, which was not acceptable to the appellant who even called her and used abusive language. Because of her conduct, Ms. Bharti Singh quit the job of the respondent and some other person was assigned to manage their personal account.”
To be sure, the Division Bench discloses in para 52 that, “The respondent had also claimed that the appellant used to come to his office and misbehave with the staff and also used abusive language towards the staff, which again stands corroborated from the testimony of the witnesses,PW-5 Gireesh Nair and PW-6 Mohd. Ruhulla, examined by both the parties.”
It cannot be glossed over that the Division Bench then points out in para 53 that, “The appellant had asserted that she was being beaten and harassed and subjected to various acts of cruelty by the mother of the respondent. The maids in the house were instructed not to assist the appellant in any household affair. However, she herself has admitted that there were two maid servants and that there was a male cook who used to do the household work. Her assertion that she was not provided with the assistance of the servants in the house, is clearly not tenable. This is pertinent in the light of her own admissions in her cross-examination that her mother-in-law never gave her any beatings though she used to abuse her.”
It is worth noting that the Division Bench then notes in para 54 that, “The conduct of the appellant was not respectful towards her mother-in-law is brought forth from the testimony of PW3 Remi Kawal and PW4 Smt. Saroj Sarpal who had deposed that because of the misconduct of the respondent, the Kitty members stopped visiting the house of the respondent as they did not want to be humiliated by the appellant. Both these witnesses also deposed about the incident of 08.05.2008, when on receiving a telephone call from other ladies, they went to the house of the respondent where they found that the appellant had attempted to slap the mother-in-law and also beat her with the slippers while abusing her. The PCR was called, but the matter was compromised and it was agreed that the appellant would not enter the room of the mother-in-law. The police got the compromise signed and left. Moreover, the appellant herself admitted in her cross-examination that she was not on cordial terms with her mother-in-law.”
What’s more, the Division Bench then specifies in para 55 that, “Though there was no documentary proof of this incident, but the ocular evidence of the witnesses which has not been sufficiently rebutted by the appellant again establishes her erratic behaviour towards the respondent and his family members.”
In addition, the Bench notes in para 56 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.”
Quite significantly, the Division Bench then lays bare in para 57 noting that, “This version has been explained by the appellant who asserted that the respondent/husband suffered losses in his business on account of change of Government policies in regard to the business with European countries because of which he went into depression and took to smoking and drinking. She, out of concern for his health, insisted on his visiting the Doctor. She denied that she got the Impotency Test conducted of the respondent/ husband. The appellant while fanning ignorance about the test being conducted, herself gave the explanation that the respondent had visited the Doctor to address his problem of not being able to perform sexually when under intoxication and irritated and frustrated. The admissions of the appellant establish that the respondent was made to undergo the Impotency Test in which he was found to be fit. Clearly, such averments and allegations about the manhood of a person would not only be depressive but also mentally traumatic for any person to accept.”
Truth be told, the Division Bench specifies in para 58 stating that, “The appellant had made serious allegations of respondent being abusive, quarrelsome and erratic in his behaviour. However, in her cross-examination she admitted that the respondent used to provide everything to her and the child and that he never made any dowry demands. The allegations of dowry demands by the respondent and his family members clearly get demolished by her own admissions. Learned Addl. Principal Judge has rightly concluded that levelling of such allegations of dowry demands would certainly cause mental cruelty to the respondent and his family members.”
It merits noting that the Division Bench notes in para 59 that, “Undeniably, multiple litigation got initiated interse the parties. The Guardianship Petition was filed by the respondent on 24.12.2008, which he subsequently withdrew, but he again filed a Guardianship Petition which is pending disposal. The appellant admittedly is residing in the same house, though in a separate portion, her dispossession being protected under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, 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. Admittedly, when she goes out for attending the Court hearings, the child is left alone in the house and even then she does not involve the parents-in-law in the care of the child. Her candid admissions in her testimony establish that she has alienated the child from the respondent and the grandparents and all the efforts made by the husband to develop a bond with the child have been thwarted by the appellant. She is also creating a non-conducive atmosphere and instilling bitterness in the child towards the respondent and his parents. She herself asserted that the child does not want to meet the respondent since he wears his hair in a pony tail. Such absurd explanations by the appellant to say that the child has no interest in meeting the father only leads to one conclusion and that she has not only alienated the child from the respondent but has not made any effort to bridge the gap between the father and the son despite she being in the same house where the parents-in-law are residing.”
It deserves mentioning that the Division Bench notes in para 61 that, “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.”
Most forthrightly, the Division Bench observes in para 62 that, “To conclude the evidence on record as adduced by the parties proves that the respondent had alleged about the aggressive and quarrelsome and erratic behaviour of the appellant, but she herself has admitted that he is a good husband and takes care of all her as well as of child’s needs. She alleged being ill treated by the parents of the respondent, but she herself admitted that her mother-in-law had never beaten her. She claimed that she was harassed on account of dowry, but again admitted that in her own testimony that no dowry demands were made. She further alleged extramarital relationship of the respondent which from her own evidence have been proved to be false allegations. She not been satisfied with the sexual relationship with the respondent even coerced the respondent to undergo Doppler’s Impotency Test. 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.”
As a corollary, the Division Bench then mandates in para 63 holding that, “We thus concur with the findings of the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Courts that the respondent was subjected to acts of cruelty which entitled him to divorce under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the HMA.”
Still more, the Division Bench specifies in para 64 that, “The appellant has filed an application under section 24 and 26 of the HMA, seeking Rs. 2 Lac per month as maintenance and Rs. 2 Lac on account of expenses of the proceedings. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant has already been awarded, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month as maintenance and an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- for the upbringing of the minor child as well as an amount of Rs. 50,000/- litigation expenses, in an application under Section 24 and 26 of the HMA filed in HMA No. 319/10/06. The appellant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court/forum to pursue the application seeking enhancement of maintenance or permanent alimony before the Family Court, in accordance with law.”
Finally, the Division Bench concludes by holding in para 65 that, “Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal, which is dismissed as along with the pending application(s).”
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Delhi High Court rightly held that publicly harassing, humiliating and verbally attacking husband is an act of extreme cruelty by wife. So we thus see that the Delhi High Court very rightly concurs with what the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Courts held and upheld the divorce and dismissed the appeal. Very rightly so!
Author Bio
