Calling Husband a ‘Bastard’ and Making Offensive Remarks Against His Mother Amounts to Mental Cruelty and Constitutes Ground for Divorce: Delhi High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that calling a husband a “bastard” and making offensive remarks against his mother amount to matrimonial cruelty warranting divorce. The Bench upheld the Family Court’s decree dissolving the marriage in favour of the husband, finding that the wife’s repeated verbal abuse and derogatory messages constituted grave mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife had appealed against the decision, contending that the Family Court ignored her allegations of cruelty and erred in granting the decree of divorce to the husband.
The marriage between the appellant, a Group ‘A’ officer of the Indian Railway Traffic Service, and the respondent was solemnized on 25 January 2010 in Delhi according to Hindu rites. It was the second marriage for both parties, and no children were born out of the union. Marital discord arose within months of the wedding, and the respondent left the matrimonial home on 8 March 2011. He subsequently filed a petition seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty.
The husband alleged that the appellant subjected him to severe mental cruelty by using profane and demeaning language towards him and his family. He relied on several text messages sent between March and June 2011, in which she allegedly called him a “bastard” and questioned his legitimacy. One message dated 27 June 2011 read: “Now I realise why you resemble jethu (uncle). Yr character speaks of yr illegitimate origin. Goodbye.” Another message accused his mother of being a prostitute. He further alleged that she denied him conjugal relations, humiliated him in front of family members, and forced his parents to vacate their home.
In contrast, the appellant claimed she was the victim of cruelty. She alleged that her husband pressurized her to misuse her official position to secure his appointment as a panel lawyer. She also accused him and his mother of making financial demands and subjecting her to humiliation. She cited incidents where she was allegedly locked inside their home, compelled to cook non-vegetarian food against her customs, and threatened with false complaints to her superiors.
The appellant contended that the Family Court failed to consider her defence and ignored her plea of condonation. She asserted that after the filing of the divorce petition in 2011, the parties resumed cohabitation between 2011 and 2013. She also alleged that the respondent and his mother had filed multiple frivolous cases against her, including theft and defamation suits, which were either dismissed or not prosecuted.
The Family Court, after examining the evidence, dissolved the marriage on 31 August 2023, concluding that the appellant’s actions amounted to cruelty. The wife appealed to the High Court seeking reversal of the decree and permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court observed that “the evidence on record unequivocally establishes a sustained pattern of mental cruelty inflicted by the Appellant upon the Respondent.” The Bench held that the abusive and scandalous messages sent by the appellant constituted the most compelling evidence of cruelty. The Court recorded that “Specific messages dated 09.05.2011, 15.05.2011, and 27.06.2011, which included terms such as ‘bastard,’ ‘son of a bitch,’ and suggestions that his mother should earn through prostitution, are by themselves sufficient to constitute mental cruelty of the gravest kind.”
The Bench held that the Family Court was correct in considering the messages as admissible evidence since “Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, allows a Family Court to receive any report, statement, or document that may assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not it would be admissible under the Evidence Act.”
The Bench noted that “words and communications of the sort proved in this case are not innocuous” and that “the cumulative conduct was sufficient to cause grave mental agony to the Respondent.” The Court also recorded that the appellant’s own evidence did not establish her claims of physical or emotional cruelty by the husband.
The Bench further observed that mere counter-allegations could not nullify proven acts of cruelty, stating that “each averment must be judged on its evidential merits.” It held that the plea of condonation was unsupported by credible evidence, noting that “condonation requires full knowledge of the wrongs and a conscious intention to forgive and restore the marital relationship,” which was absent in this case. The Court stated that the appellant’s later conduct, including her monetary demands as a precondition for divorce, negated any inference of forgiveness.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, including Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) and A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur (2005), the Bench held that mental cruelty encompasses sustained abusive conduct that renders cohabitation impossible. It quoted, “A consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.”
The Court also noted that the couple’s prolonged separation since March 2011 demonstrated irretrievable breakdown of marriage. “Long separation causes a marriage to become a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties,” the Bench recorded.
The Bench stated that: “For the reasons stated above, which demonstrate the proved and serious nature of the abusive communications and related conduct by the Appellant, the corroborative contemporaneous incidents, the inadequacy of the Appellant‟s counter-case on material points and the legitimate inference available to the learned Family Court that the Appellant‟s stance was motivated by a monetary element, we are satisfied that the learned Family Court was fully justified in concluding that the Respondent had established cruelty and no case of permanent alimony has been made out by the Appellant.”
“Accordingly, we find no merit in the present appeal, which is therefore dismissed. No Order as to costs.“
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. Sarim Naved and Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Wadhawan, Advocate.
Case Title: XX v. YY
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9233-DB
Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 2/2024
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
