Doubting wife’s character severe mental agony: HC

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, October 3

Advertisement

A husband who becomes one with doubts about his wife’s character and child’s paternity may soon end legally parting ways with her. In a judgment with far-reaching consequences, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that doubting the wife’s character and a child’s paternity was the severest form of mental agony and wild, outrageous and spiteful accusation against the wife would in itself be a ground for divorce.

“The levelling of wild, scandalous and malicious allegations against the wife would entitle her to a decree of divorce. Nothing can be more cruel than doubting the character of a wife and paternity of the child, which would have caused the wife mental agony of the severest form, leaving her to feel deeply hurt,” the Bench of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul ruled.

The matter was placed before the High Court after the wife’s petition for divorce under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed by a lower court. Referring to the evidence and the written statement by the husband, the Bench asserted it was evident that he raised a question mark on the child’s paternity. He also levelled allegations regarding the wife’s character. While appearing before the court, he admitted in his cross-examination that the allegations about the wife’s character were made by him in anger.

The Bench asserted it was of the opinion that the trial court indulged in “grave error” by not appreciating the fact that levelling of disgusting accusations and doubting the wife’s character and daughter’s paternity would amount to nothing but “acute cruelty”. The husband had even doubted the wife’s character in his reply before the High Court on the wife’s plea for transfer of the petition from one place to another. The trial court also failed to appreciate that the wife’s averments of being harassed for insufficient dowry were not without substance. The husband, in his written statement, submitted it was a simple marriage sans dowry. But the claim stood falsified by his deposition wherein he admitted that dowry given at the time of marriage was still in his possession.

  “The respondent-husband is himself responsible for creating circumstances which forced the appellant-wife to stay away from her matrimonial home. It is evident that the matrimonial life of the parties was mired in misery and acrimony from the very beginning. It is no different even now,” the Bench asserted before setting aside the judgment and decree passed by a lower court. 

  Before parting with the order, the Bench added the marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent on June 26, 2012, stood dissolved by a decree of divorce.