Calling husband impotent in presence of relatives is cruelty: Karnataka High Court
A double bench of Karnataka High Court, Justices Sunil Dutt Yadav and KS Hemalekha opined that no prudent woman would ever make such allegations against her husband in front of others. Calling a husband impotent in front of relatives without substantiating the same would amount to mental cruelty, the Karnataka High Court recently held while granting a decree of divorce in favor of a man.
Para 21. “The allegation of impotency in the presence of others and her husband would necessarily affect the reputation of the husband. No prudent woman would think of making allegation of impotency in the presence of others, rather she would take necessary steps to see that the reputation of the husband is not affected and not thrown out in public. The complaining of incapacity of the husband to bear children, without any proof creates an intense mental agony and anguish of the husband,”
Para 22. “Having not proved the allegation, the unproved/unsubstantiated false allegations about impotency has led to mental disturbance of the husband causing disharmony between the husband and wife, which makes the husband unable to stay with the wife,”
The bench was seized of an appeal filed by a man challenging orders of a Family Court in Dharwad, which dismissed his divorce petition. According to the appellant, after he got married in May 2015, his wife behaved normally for a month but later her conduct changed altogether. He claimed that she would call him incompetent to discharge his marital obligations and would also call him impotent, even in front of their relatives. The wife, on the other hand, claimed that her husband would often stay away from her leading to her suspicion that he must be impotent.She claimed that she wanted to live with the husband but the husband would find some reason or the other to stay away from her.The Court noted that the wife couldn’t place on record any material to substantiate her allegations against the husband about impotency and incapacity to discharge matrimonial obligations.
The actions of the wife would amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act , the Court held
Viewed in this light, the Court opined that the trial court was not justified in holding that the cruelty asserted by the husband was not proved.
Therefore, it set aside the the judgment and decree of the Family Court and allowed the petition filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, granting a decree of divorce in favour of the husband.
Considering the fact that the husband earned ₹38,000 per month, the Court ordered him to pay ₹8,000 per month towards the maintenance of the wife, till she remarries.
Court cite several supporting judgments.
