The Orissa High Court has ruled that when a wife mocks or makes demeaning remarks about her husband’s physical disability—using derogatory terms such as ‘Nikhatu’ or ‘Kempa’—it amounts to mental cruelty, thereby constituting valid grounds for divorce.
Upholding the divorce decree granted by the Family Court, the Division Bench comprising Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed that such behavior inflicts emotional distress and qualifies as cruelty under matrimonial law.
“A person is expected to give respect to another person in general and where it comes to relationship of Husband and Wife, it is expected that the Wife should support the Husband despite his physical infirmity, if any. Here it is a case where the Wife made aspersions to Husband towards his physical infirmity and passed comments regarding the same. This definitely in our opinion amounts to mental cruelty leading to draw an inference against the Wife that she treated her Husband with cruelty owing to his physical deformity.”
The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on June 1, 2016, in accordance with Hindu customs. The husband alleged that from the beginning of their marriage, the wife persistently made derogatory remarks about his physical infirmity. In September 2016, she left the matrimonial home and returned only in January 2017 following intervention and reconciliation efforts.
According to the husband, her behavior remained unchanged even after her return, as she continued to belittle his physical condition. He claimed that her constant disparaging comments led to serious marital discord, eventually resulting in her voluntary departure from the matrimonial home once again in March 2018. Subsequently, she filed a criminal complaint against the husband and his family under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, alleging cruelty.
Accordingly, the husband filed a divorce petition in April 2019. The Family Court Judge in Puri framed five issues for consideration, including whether the wife had subjected the husband to cruelty. After examining the facts and evidence on record, the Court ruled in favor of the husband on all counts and granted the divorce. Dissatisfied with the decision, the wife challenged the order by filing a matrimonial appeal.
The High Court observed that the respondent-husband is physically disabled—an undisputed fact. In his testimony, the husband stated that his wife frequently made derogatory remarks about his condition, referring to him as ‘Kempa’ and ‘Nikhatu’. The Bench noted that although the appellant-wife cross-examined the husband, she failed to refute his allegations effectively.
Additionally, another witness supporting the husband corroborated his claims and testified along similar lines. The wife also acknowledged having filed a criminal case against the husband and his family members.
Before examining the implications of the admitted facts and evidence, the Court reiterated the well-established legal principle that cruelty encompasses not only physical but also mental cruelty—an interpretation consistently upheld by the Supreme Court in landmark cases such as V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs) and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh.
Applying these settled principles, the Court held that the unchallenged evidence indicating the wife’s derogatory remarks about the husband’s physical disability clearly amounts to mental anguish. Such language, the Court observed, reflects not only insensitivity but also a deep sense of disrespect and contempt on the wife’s part.
Justice Routray, writing the judgment, emphasized that mutual respect and emotional support are fundamental to a marital relationship. However, in the present case, the wife’s derogatory remarks targeting the husband’s physical deformity—a deeply sensitive matter—clearly amounted to mental cruelty.
“On such ground, we are satisfied that the requirement in terms of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act is attracted to grant the decree of divorce. We thus confirm the impugned judgment granting the decree of divorce between the parties dissolving their marriage,” the Court observed while upholding the impugned order.
Notably, the wife also expressed grievance over the denial of permanent alimony and the non-return of her streedhan property. However, the Court granted her the liberty to approach the Family Court for adjudication on these limited issues, noting that there was insufficient material on record regarding the financial status of both parties—an essential factor that must be evaluated before issuing any order related to permanent alimony.