The Delhi High Court observed that casting aspersions on a husband’s legitimacy by calling him illegitimate and making derogatory accusations against his mother amounts to matrimonial cruelty, providing valid grounds for divorce.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar upheld the family court’s decision granting a divorce in favor of the respondent-husband.
The appellant-wife had challenged the family court’s ruling, contending that her own grievances of cruelty were overlooked and that the divorce was wrongly granted to her husband.
The appellant contended that the respondent-husband humiliated her with caste-based comments, compelled her to undertake household chores despite her professional commitments, and entangled her in multiple false and baseless legal proceedings.
However, the High Court observed that merely alleging counter-cruelty by the wife does not negate her own proven acts of cruelty.
“Two wrongs do not make a right. The appellant’s established acts of cruelty — including verbal abuse, physical aggression, and social alienation — are independently grave and sufficient to justify the dissolution of the marriage,” the Court remarked.
The Court observed that the appellant had sent the respondent “obscene, derogatory, and scandalous” messages, which included questioning his legitimacy and leveling objectionable allegations against his mother.
““Specific messages dated 09.05.2011, 15.05.2011, and 27.06.2011, which included terms such as “bastard”, “son of a bitch,” and suggestions that his mother should “earn through prostitution”, are by themselves sufficient to constitute mental cruelty of the gravest kind,” it observed.
The Court further stated, “The words and messages established in this case are far from harmless. The law acknowledges that mental cruelty can arise from sustained and intentional verbal abuse and behavior that demeans a spouse, damaging their reputation and self-respect. The text messages at issue included allegations of illegitimacy, offensive epithets aimed at the respondent’s mother, and other degrading remarks—a pattern of conduct which, taken together, the learned Family Court rightly considered as inflicting severe mental anguish on the respondent.”
Accordingly, the Court rejected the wife’s appeal and upheld the divorce decree.