Bombay HC: Wife defaming husband by calling him 'womaniser and alcoholic' without evidence is cruelty
The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a 50-year-old woman challenging a November 2005 decree issued by a family court in Pune dissolving her marriage to a retired Army officer. According to the Bench, the wife's making unwarranted and false allegations about her husband's character harms his reputation in society and amounts to cruelty.
FollowThe Bombay High Court ruled that defaming the husband and labelling him a womaniser and alcoholic without providing evidence amounts to cruelty and upheld a family court order dissolving the marriage of a Pune-based couple.
In an order issued on October 12, a division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Sharmila Deshmukh dismissed an appeal filed by a 50-year-old woman challenging a November 2005 decree issued by a family court in Pune dissolving her marriage to a retired Army officer.
The man died while the HC appeal was being heard, so the court ordered that his legal heir be added as a respondent.
In her appeal, the woman claimed that her husband was a womaniser and an alcoholic, and due to these vices, she was deprived of her conjugal rights.
According to the bench, the wife's conduct in making unwarranted and false allegations about her husband's character harms his reputation in society and amounts to cruelty.
The HC noted in its order that, aside from her own statement, the woman had not produced any evidence to support her claims.
According to the deceased man's lawyer, the petitioner woman caused mental agony to her husband by making false and defamatory allegations against him.
The court cited the husband's deposition in family court, claiming that the petitioner had separated him from his children and grandchildren.
The high court stated that it is a settled legal position that 'cruelty' can be broadly defined as conduct that causes the other party such mental pain and suffering that that party can't live with the other.
The bench also noted that the petitioner's husband was an ex-Army man who retired as a Major, belonged to the upper classes, and had social standing.
The petitioner's conduct in making unwarranted, false, and baseless allegations about the respondent's character and labelling him as an alcoholic and womaniser have harmed his reputation in society, according to the HC.
Considering the preceding, we conclude that the petitioner's conduct constitutes cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court said, adding that the case was suitable for divorce.
(With inputs from PTI)
Also Read:Â SC suspends Bombay HC decision acquitting Saibaba; ex-DU professor to remain in jail
Also Read:Â Bombay HC orders demolition of portions of 48 high-rise structure near airport
Also Read:Â 'Villages have helipads but no roads...' Bombay HC raps Maha govt
