The Delhi High Court recently observed that constant use of derogatory and humiliating words by a wife against her husband and his family amounts to cruelty and acts as a ground for divorce.

The Court was hearing a challenge by the appellant-wife against a family court order allowing the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The lower court had also passed a decree of divorce in favour of the husband.

While upholding the dissolution of marriage and consequent divorce of a couple, a Bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Vikas Mahajan
 noted, “Repeated use of words of nature as extracted herein hereinabove are clearly humiliating and would certainly amount to cruelty. No person can be expected to live with constant abuse being hurled upon him.”

In her appeal, the wife contended that her husband was having an extra-marital affair with his co-worker.

It was noted that in the petition filed for divorce, the husband has specifically reproduced the taunts and the language used by the appellant and her father against him and his family.

.”Every person is entitled to live with dignity and honour. If the words as stated herein above are used against an individual, the same would be very derogatory and humiliating for the individual” the court said. 

“It thus found that the conduct of the appellant, which has been proved on record, is of such quality, magnitude and impact as would have caused mental agony, pain, anger and suffering to the husband on a regular and continuous basis, and thus clearly amounted to cruelty”, the bench added.

The Court also rejected the contention of the wife that specific dates and times of instances of cruelty were not mentioned in the plea decided by family court.

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, would lose its significance for the reason that the respondent-husband has in his evidence specifically stated that whenever a quarrel would take place the appellant-wife would use those words against him and his family, which implies that the said words have been used -repeatedly over the period when they were together,” the order stated.

The court thus dismissed the appeal.