The division bench of Justices KS Mudagal and KV Aravind also opined that such conduct constitutes sufficient cause for the wife to withdraw from her husband.

“The unsubstantiated allegations of the husband relating to adultery of wife, suspicion on the character of wife, doubting the paternity of the child compelling the wife and son to undergo DNA test amount to the petitioner self-inflicting mental cruelty to wife,” said Karnataka High Court. 

It made the observations while setting aside a decree of divorce granted to a man in 2011. The couple had married in May 1999. 

In 2003, the husband approached the Family Court seeking the dissolution of their marriage. 

He accused the wife of staying with her parents at least fifteen days a month and of frequently quarreling with him. The husband also suspected the wife of adultery and performing ‘black magic.’

While the family court rejected the husband’s allegations of adultery, it granted divorce on the ground of cruelty.

This decree of divorce was challenged before the High Court by the wife.

The wife’s counsel argued that an allegation that drugs were administered to the husband to weaken his physical condition was accepted by the family court without any blood test or forensic evidence. It was further contended that there was no evidence to prove any black magic.  

The Court also took note of the wife’s allegations that demands for dowry were made.

“Also in view of the demands made by the petitioner for dowry, visit of the respondent to her parents’ house once in three months cannot be faulted,” it said.

It further rejected the allegations of black magic and administering of drugs, finding them to be without any basis.

The High Court also noted that the wife had denied that she would stay for fifteen days at her parents’ house. It was found that no evidence was shown during the cross-examination to support the husband’s allegations on this count.

Taking note of the husband’s own admission that the wife used to visit her parents’ house once in three months, the Court said,

“It is natural that a married woman visiting her parents’ house once in three months to inquire the well being of her parents, siblings and other family members. This is normal practice in all families.”

Concluding that the husband had made unsubstantiated allegations of adultery and that the same amounts to mental cruelty, the Court said he cannot be permitted to reap the benefits of his own overall wrongdoing.

The Court found all of the husband’s allegations to be mere accusations.

The conduct alleged as cruelty by the husband does not cause any reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with his wife, the Court concluded.

“Unless the partner alleging cruelty establishes the same, irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for granting divorce,” the Court added.

It proceeded to allow the wife’s appeal.

“On overall appreciation of the evidence on record, we are of the view that it is the petitioner (husband) who caused mental cruelty to his wife and by abusing the process of law filed the petition seeking divorce alleging cruelty. Therefore his conduct warrants imposition of heavy costs,” the Court opined.

Thus, the Court set aside the divorce decree and also imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on the husband.