No One Can Be Expected To Live With Constant Abuse Hurled Upon Him: Delhi HC

While taking a very simple, sensible, straightforward and strong stand on a man being constantly abused by the woman who was his wife, the Delhi High Court has in an extremely laudable, landmark, learned, logical and latest oral judgment titled Deepti Bhardwaj vs Rajeev Bhardwaj in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 138/2022 & CM APPL. 39648/2022 that was pronounced as recently as on February 9, 2023 has dismissed a woman’s plea challenging the decree of divorce granted to her husband on the grounds of cruelty. The Court noted that the conduct of the appellant-wife 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 respondent-husband. It must be mentioned that the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikas Mahajan observed without mincing any words that, “No person can be expected to live with constant abuse being hurled upon him.” Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva for a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikas Mahajan sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Appellant impugns the judgment dated 27.07.2022, whereby the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty has been allowed and a decree of divorce has been passed.”
Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 7 that, “We notice 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:

4. That since beginning the nature, conduct and behaviour of the respondent and her family members was very cruel towards the petitioner and his family. The father of the respondent always used to taunt petitioner that “I am a superintendent in education department, your family is not upto our standard”. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent also did never perform her matrimonial duties towards the petitioner and his parents. However the petitioner tried all his best to please the respondent but all in vein.
5. That the respondent, whenever the petitioner tried to make her understand on petty issues, packed her beg and left for her parental house. After the birth of children, the poor petitioner thought that everything will be alright, but all in vein. Now the respondent started leaving for her parental home along with infants. The respondent always cross questioned with the petitioner and never replied him anything in right manner. She always used to argue with petitioner and his parents in filthy and unparliamentary language saying “2 kodi ka policewala h tera baap, mera kuch nahi bigad sakta, ministry tak pahuch hai mere papa ki”.
6. That it is pertinent to mention here that being more educated than the petitioner, the respondent always dominated him. She always insulted him in this way or that. The respondent was too stubborn to her demands. If sometimes due to lack of money or some other reason, the petitioner did not fulfill any demand of respondent, she got furious, used to throw households, TV remote, shouting in abusive language and threatened to kill the petitioner. But the petitioner left all his fate upto the almighty God thinking one day seeing growing children the respondent will prevail good senses and the atmosphere of the house will be harmonious, but all in vein due to the unnecessary intervention of the parents and sisters of the respondent, as they always used to instigate the respondent against the middle class culture and amenities of the petitioner. Every month petitioner gave 15,000/ to the respondent for household, groceries and upbringing of the children. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent used to incur huge expenses of mobile use unnecessarily conversing with different relatives without any reasonable cause. It was difficult to bear expenses of about Rs. 100/- on mobile phone each day. The petitioner then tried to make her understand that both the children are growing up, we must reduce our expenses for their upbringing. Then the respondent got furious and replied “main itna kharch nahi karti jitna teri dawao pe kharch hota hai”. The poor petitioner felt helpless and dejected and left the room. It is submitted that the poor respondent took a personal loan of 70,000/- from Home Credit India Finance Limited to do some side business to meet the desires of petitioner to appease her, which is still being repaid by the respondent of EMI Rs.5,000/- per month.
7. That it is specific to mention here that the petitioner is an asthmatic patient and is on regular medicines since last 25-26 years. He regularly consumes Wisolone 20mg tablet, theoesthaline SR tablet and the same inhaler in case of breathing stops and many a times taken to the hospital for admission while on duty by his colleagues and this fact was also in knowledge of the Defendant. But still the quantum of cruelty of the respondent towards petitioner does not get less. The respondent has failed to discharge her matrimonial obligations towards her husband and family.
8. That in the year 2008, the petitioner got selected in DTC as Driver as he was just 10th standard pass. Since then the greedy in-laws of the petitioner started forcing him to shift to their place as he was the govt. employee now, and to succumb to the petitioner to their illegal demand, the parents and sisters of the respondent started harassing and insulting the petitioner as they all wanted the petitioner to fulfill their own expenses, but petitioner refused. On this the respondent started abusing the petitioner and declared strike in kitchen and brought meals for her from outside. However the old aged mother of the petitioner managed the situation and started cooking meals for entire family including the respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that for the sake of the respect of the family, in 2009, the father of the petitioner constructed the first floor and shifted the petitioner alongwith the respondent and their children there.
9. That after getting separated, the respondent was happy for some time. But still she had to be indulged in household chorus. She used to talk with her mother and sisters for several hours over phone. Whenever the petitioner even asked her to pick his medicines, she replied “dikhayi nahi deta baat kar rahi hu, saans ki bimari hai lakwa nahi hai jo khud nahi le sakte dawai”.
10. That in April 2015, the respondent instigated her younger son to beat the petitioner and she herself threw utensils and hurled sleeper on the petitioner. Petitioner narrowly managed to escape and called Police dialing 100 no. The petitioner also gave written complaints to the concerned SHO and ACP on dt. 27/08/2017 vide D.D. No. 69-B and 28/02/2015 respectively. Under these backdrop and with deep anguish, pain and untold atrocities, torture and cruelties tried out to the petitioner by the respondent and her family members, the petitioner hereby enumerates the facts, circumstances and instances of cruelty inflicted on the petitioner by the respondent and the circumstances which led the petitioner to leave home in July 2016.”
    Do note, the Division Bench points out in para 13 that, “Family Court in the impugned order has noticed that the respondent-husband has duly proved the allegations of cruelty and held that the behaviour of the appellant was not cordial towards her in-laws and the husband. Further, the appellant-wife used to abuse the respondent and his parents in filthy language.” Most significantly and also most forthrightly, the Division Bench then minces just no words to mandate in para 16 stating that, “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. The contention of the respondent-husband is that whenever there was a quarrel, the appellant-wife would use the words and humiliate him and his family. 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.” Needless to say, the Division Bench then enunciates in para 19 that, “In the present case, the conduct of the appellant-wife 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 respondent-husband on a regular and continuous basis and thus clearly amounting to cruelty.” It cannot be glossed over that the Division Bench then hastens to add in para 20 stating that, “The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that specific dates and time is not mentioned, 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. This specifically, in view of the fact that there is no rebuttal of cross-examination or even an attempt to disprove the said imputations, shows that the same have been duly proved and established.”
    As a corollary, the Division Bench then holds in para 22 that, “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.”
    Finally, the Division Bench concludes by mandating in para 23 that, “We, accordingly, find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is consequently, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.” In a nutshell, it must be said that the Delhi High Court after taking into account all the facts of the case and the evidence before it was unequivocal in upholding the divorce decree that was granted to a man by the Family Court. It was also thus rightly held by the Court that no one can be expected to live with constant abuse being hurled upon him by the wife as has been discussed hereinabove quite in detail. No denying it!