In a landmark judgment, the Orissa High Court has stated that making fun of one's spouse due to his physical infirmity and calling such derogatory names as 'Kempa' (cripple) and 'Nikhatu' (useless) should be deemed mental cruelty, validly constituting grounds for divorce as per Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This decision attaches utmost importance to mutual respect in marital relationships and protection against psychological abuse within marriage.
Background of the Case
- The marriage between the appellant-wife and respondent-husband was solemnized on June 1, 2016, as per Hindu rites. According to the husband, almost immediately after marriage, the wife took to making demeaning comments about his physical disability on a regular basis. Matters took an ugly turn when the wife vacated the matrimonial home in September 2016, only to return in January 2017 after interventions by families.
- The relationship did not improve, however. The wife is said to have continued with her derogatory comments about the husband's physique, seriously disturbing domestic harmony. Eventually, she left the matrimonial home again in March 2018 and subsequently filed a criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC, accusing the husband and his family of cruelty.
- Keeping the husband in continued mental agony, he prayed for the decree of divorce in April 2019 before the Family Court, Puri, which held that dissatisfied with the divorce decree, the wife filed a matrimonial appeal with the Orissa High Court after subjecting her husband to mental abuse.
Court’s Observations and Findings
- The Division Bench of Justices Bibhu Prasad Routray and Chittaranjan Dash upheld the decree of the Family Court.
- The Court noted that the husband was physically handicapped, a fact that remained undisputed on record; that according to him, the wife humiliated him by calling him names such as 'Kempa' and 'Nikhatu', a witness examining in favour of the husband fully corroborated his testimony, whereas the wife during cross-examination failed to effectively challenge or disprove the allegations.
- The Court held that such derogatory remarks made in respect of the husband's physical condition amount to mental cruelty, and that is one of the grounds that the law recognizes even as sufficient for divorce. The judges quoted leading Supreme Court rulings, including in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs) and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, which have held that mental cruelty constitutes any acts causing mental pain or suffering in a spouse.
- The Bench opined that mutual respect and emotional support should be the cornerstones of a marital relationship. The constant reference to the husband's physical infirmity by the wife demonstrated a clear lack of empathy for him and was sufficient to cause him psychological distress.
- Accordingly, the High Court was of the view that the inhuman treatment to the husband amounted to cruelty and accordingly affirmed the decree of divorce.
Observations on Alimony and Streedhan
- The wife had also challenged the Family Court’s refusal to grant permanent alimony and its action in not returning her streedhan. The High Court, however, declined to make detailed observations on these points due to the lack of sufficiently probative materials as to the financial positions of the parties.
- On the basis of sufficient documents and financial disclosures, the High Court did grant the wife the right to independently petition the Family Court on the particularly restricted issues of streedhan recovery as well as perpetual alimony.
Legal Significance
- This judgment has basically established that mental cruelty which includes emotional and verbal abuse vis-à-vis physical disabilities constitutes grounds for divorce and civil remedy for the aggrieved spouse. It further bolsters the principle that marriage being not only a social contract is essentially a relationship that demands some emotional sensitivity, empathy, and respect.
- By including derogatory language under the umbrella of "cruelty," the Court has afforded protection to those who undergo non-physical yet equally detrimental forms of abuse.
The Orissa High Court’s decision in X v. Y (MATA No. 264 of 2023) highlights that emerging judicial views acknowledge and consider mental cruelty as warranted and adequate for filing a divorce. Verbal cruelty besieged by epithets like 'Kempa' and 'Nikhatu' hurled by a spouse against another who is physically handicapped was rightly acknowledged as an act of cruelty to justify dissolution of the marriage.
The judgment stresses again on the sanctity of regard and respect in matrimonial life and strikes down loud and clear that any form of verbal humiliation aimed at mocking a disability of the spouse would never find solace in Indian law.
Sharks of Law offers a comprehensive legal solutions facility, providing an extensive collection of information on diverse areas of law in the legal field by the best professionals in this area. With this law firm, you can search and find a lawyer who can meet your legal requirements for online consultation. The attorneys at Sharks of Law have the necessary expertise across all the fields involved should you have any inquiries that require legal counsel.
Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993
