“Repeated use of words of the 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 Para 7 Court mentioned that in the petition filed for divorce, the respondent has specifically averred and stated the taunts and the language used by the appellant and her father against the respondent and his family. In the divorce petition, the instances of cruelty have been spelt out as under
- “I am a superintendent in education department, your family is not upto our standard”
- “2 kodi ka policewala hai tera baap, mera kuch nahi bigad sakta, ministry tak pahuch hai mere papa ki (your father has no reputation as a policeman, he can’t harm me, my father has reach in the ministry)”
- “main itna kharch nahi karti jitna teri dawao pe kharch hota hai (I don’t spend as much as your medicines cost)”
- “dikhayi nahi deta baat kar rahi hu, saans ki bimari hai lakwa nahi hai jo khud nahi le sakte dawai (can’t you see, I’m talking, you have respiratory disease, not paralysis that you can’t take medicine yourself)”
In response to these utterances, the Court said,
“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.”
Court further 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 Court also rejected the contention of 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.
Para 22. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the finding returned by the Family Court that respondent has been treated with cruelty. We are also satisfied that the cruelty that has been proved on record is sufficient and constitutes cruelty as required under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Consequently, we find no infirmity in the judgment allowing the petition and granting divorce on the ground of cruelty.
