Questioning Husband's Legitimacy, Slandering Mother-In-Law Constitutes Mental Cruelty: Delhi HC
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court recently ruled that the wife questioning her husband’s legitimacy and casting aspersions and reprehensible allegations against his mother constitute matrimonial cruelty, and thus will be a ground for divorce.
While hearing the case, a division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar thus upheld the divorce to the husband granted by the family court earlier.
Read Also: Wife Not Accountable For Husband’s Suicide Due To Her Illicit Relationship: Karnataka High Court
The wife had approached the High Court claiming that the family court failed to consider the acts of cruelty against her, adding that the court wrongly granted divorce to her husband. She had claimed that the husband humiliated her by making caste-based remarks, and coerced her to perform domestic chores despite her professional responsibilities.
The woman also claimed that she was subjected to a barrage of false and frivolous litigation. However, the court, stated that a mere assertion of counter-cruelty by the wife would not automatically nullify her established acts of cruelty.
Read Also: ‘Husband Rich’: Court Hikes Wife’s Compensation To Rs 1 Crore From 5 Lakh For Domestic Violence
The court found that the wife sent “vile, derogatory, and scandalous” messages to the husband, including questioning his legitimacy and making reprehensible allegations against his mother. “Two wrongs do not make a right. The Appellant’s proven acts of cruelty, including the use of abusive language, physical violence, and social isolation, stand on their own footing and are severe enough to warrant the dissolution of the marriage,” the Court said.
It pointed out that the words and communications of the sort proved in this case are not innocuous. The text message in question, the court noted, contained imputations of illegitimacy, filthy epithets directed at the husband’s mother and other degrading expressions. The court admitted that they involved a pattern of conduct that was entitled to regard as causing grave mental agony to the husband.
