Making public harassment, calling husband womaniser acts of cruelty: Delhi HC

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has said that a woman's behaviour of indulging in public harassment, humiliation, and verbal attack against her husband and making all possible bids to term him a womaniser in his office would be called "acts of extreme cruelty".

A bench of Justices Neena Krishna Bansal and Suresh Kumar Kait on December 20 dismissed an appeal filed by the woman against a decree of divorce granted to her by the family court after finding her allegations of impotency and forcing him to undergo an impotency test were other acts of mental cruelty.

"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," the bench said.

The parties got married on February 28, 2000. However, the marriage could survive barely six years as litigation started between them in 2006. A son was also born to them in 2004.

The man approached the family court, which granted him divorce on the grounds of cruelty.

After hearing the woman's appeal, the bench noted that the wife, for her part, accused her husband of visiting the brothels and whores. She also claimed he has an illegitimate relationship outside the marriage.

"It is no more res integra that such reckless, defamatory, humiliating, and unsubstantiated allegations by one spouse, which have the impact of publically tarnishing the image of the other spouse, are nothing but acts of extreme cruelty," the bench said.

In the present case as well, the appellant always had doubts about the fidelity of her husband, which necessarily led to harassment resulting in mental cruelty to the husband, it said.

"The strongest pillars on which any marriage stands are trust, faith, and respect, and thus, no person can reasonably be expected to put up 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 bench said.

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 an allegation of infidelity during his office meetings in front of all his office staff/guests. She even took to harassing the female workers in his office and left no stone unturned to portray him as a womaniser in the office, the bench said.

Further, the court noted the woman's candid admissions that she has alienated the child from the respondent and the grandparents.

"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," the bench said.