On February 9, the court made an observation in response to a woman’s challenge of a family court’s divorce order, wherein she claimed that her husband’s allegations of cruelty were baseless and lacked supporting evidence.
The Delhi High Court upheld a divorce granted to a couple and noted that the continuous and frequent use of derogatory and humiliating language by a woman towards her husband and his family constitutes an act of cruelty.
The Delhi High Court, in its judgement on a divorce case, held that the persistent use of disparaging and demeaning language by a woman against her spouse and his family members constitutes an act of cruelty. The Court upheld the divorce granted to the couple based on this observation.
In a recent judgement, a bench of justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Vikas Mahajan declined to grant relief to the petitioner, stating that every individual has the right to live with dignity and respect, and should not be subjected to constant verbal abuse. The court further held that the established evidence of cruelty in the case was sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and accordingly, the petition for divorce was justifiably granted. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the argument presented.
The High Court, after examining the evidence, concluded that the conduct of the wife was of such severity, magnitude, and impact that it would have caused the husband significant mental agony, pain, anger, and suffering on a continuous and consistent basis, thereby constituting cruelty. The court emphasized that every individual has the right to live with dignity and respect, and the use of the derogatory and humiliating language, as presented in the case, is wholly unacceptable and degrading. The repeated use of such language during arguments was found to be humiliating and, therefore, amounted to cruelty. The court held that no person should be expected to live with continuous verbal abuse and affirmed that the conduct of the wife in the present case was unacceptable.
The High Court dismissed the argument put forth by the counsel representing the woman, which stated that the specific dates and times of the alleged acts of cruelty were not mentioned in the evidence. The court held that such omissions were immaterial since the man had testified that the woman used derogatory and humiliating language against him and his family during every quarrel. This implied that the use of those words was a recurring pattern and had taken place repeatedly over the course of their marriage. Therefore, the court concluded that the woman\’s repeated use of such language constituted an act of cruelty.
