In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has determined that a wife’s use of the term ‘Hijda’ (a reference to transgender individuals) to describe her husband constitutes cruelty, warranting the dissolution of their marriage. The court also noted that this derogatory language extended to the husband’s mother, affirming the emotional distress caused by such remarks.
Court’s Observations on Cruelty
The decision was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, who dismissed the appeal filed by the wife challenging the family court’s earlier decision. The court stated, “Terming the respondent-husband as Hijda and calling his mother to have given birth to a transgender is an act of cruelty.”
ALSO READ: Madhya Pradesh: Most Entertaining Street Fight, Aunty Vs. Adversaries Goes Viral! | WATCH
Background of the Case
The couple, married since 2017, had been living separately for six years prior to the ruling. The husband’s plea for divorce was based on claims of cruelty, citing his wife’s alleged addiction to pornography and mobile games. He accused her of imposing strict conditions on their intimate life, including demands for lengthy sexual encounters multiple times a night. He also mentioned her taunts regarding his physical fitness and her expressed desire to marry another person.
ALSO READ: Viral Video: Pakistani Husband Hits Himself With Shoes During Fight With Wife
In his plea, the husband further alleged that his wife had disrespected his ailing mother, asking her to carry food from the ground floor to their first-floor residence.
Wife’s Defense and Allegations
Contrarily, the wife denied all allegations made against her, claiming she was expelled from the marital home. She accused her in-laws of administering intoxicating substances to her, resulting in unconsciousness. According to her, they allegedly placed a talisman from a sorcerer around her neck during this time to exert control over her.
After reviewing the case, the court concluded that the couple’s prolonged separation indicated there was no likelihood of reconciliation. The ruling emphasizes the serious implications of verbal abuse in domestic relationships and reaffirms the need for respectful communication between partners.
