Date of Order:
31st May 2022
Bench:
Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav; Justice K.S. Hemaleka
SUBJECT
In a case of a wife making unfounded claims that her husband was incapable of consummating the marriage, the court held that the backlash from such claims has an adverse effect on the husband thus amounting to cruelty.
OVERVIEW
- Husband stated that after a month of their marriage, the wife changed and started acting in a very aggressive manner. She disrespected her mother-in-law and flat-out refused to do household chores.
- She started making allegations about the husband in front of his relatives that he was unfit to discharge his matrimonial duties leading to the immense embarrassment of the husband before everyone and causing him mental stress.
- So, the husband decided to file an application for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and filed for the same in the Family Court at Dharwad under Section 13(1) (ia).
- But the application was dismissed and the husband was ordered to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 8000/- to the wife, later he filed for an appeal in the High Court seeking to scrap the order of the family court.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPELLANT
- The counsel for the appellant described the wife’s actions of refusing to do household work and her claims of the husband’s impotency were disrespectful and torture-inducing to the husband and his family.
- And the degree of stress was increased when she made the allegations in front of her husband’s relatives. It is further argued that the allegations were untrue and unsubstantiated as she did not offer any evidence to prove their legitimacy.
- The counsel for the appellant relies on the judgments of K.Srinivasa Sharma vs. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Mamta Goyal vs. Ramgopal, and Susarla Subrahmanya Sastry vs. Smt.S.Padmakshi, in order to bolster his arguments.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- Learned counsel for the respondent states that the husband’s unwillingness to perform his matrimonial duties despite the wife being fully willing created a valid doubt in her mind of his impotency.
- The respondent further denies the accusation of disrespect to mother-in-law and refusal to perform household chores. And claims that her dreams of a happy married life were shattered by the cold distance maintained by her husband.
- She further alleges that the husband has filed this petition to cover his own shortcomings.
- The cases referred by the counsel to the respondent to strengthen his arguments were; Shyamal Samaddar vs. Smt. Sampa Samaddar and S.N. Somasundara vs. Sri. B.N. Mallikarjunaiah.
ISSUES RAISED
- Weather the allegations made by the wife have resulted in mental cruelty as laid out under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act?
- Weather the proceedings before the mediator (which are confidential) ordered by the family court could be used for arriving at a conclusion of whether to grant or reject a divorce application.
JUDGMENT
- The court took notice that there wasn’t any forthcoming evidence from the wife solidifying her claims that the husband was impotent.
- But it was established that her informing all the family members that her husband is unable to fulfill their matrimonial duties are sure to adversely affect the appellant’s reputation.
- It was held that no prudent and reasonable woman would seek the spread allegations of her husband’s supposed impotency among the relatives instead of ensuring that the news doesn’t leak out, creating an atmosphere of immense mental agony for the husband.
- The court observed that the wife had failed to substantiate her claims but on the other hand the husband was completely willing to undergo a medical test as he stated in his affidavit. It was held that the wife’s unsubstantial and false allegations have caused immense mental cruelty and torture to the husband which was enough to book her section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
- The bench also reviewed the family court’s decision of referring to the conciliation proceedings undertaken by the husband and wife before a prescribed mediator to issue their order. It was considered unlawful under Rule 23 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules 2005 which lays down that the conversation between the parties and the mediator is confidential.
CONCLUSION
The Courts, in various judgments, have held that destroying the reputation of the spouse amounts to cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and can be a ground of divorce. This judgment further upheld the settled practice.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
