Taunting Husband For Being Unemployed During Financially Vulnerable Period Amounts To Cruelty: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that taunting husband for being unemployed and making unfounded demands during a financially unstable period, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, amounts to 'mental cruelty' and constitutes a valid ground for divorce.The present case involved the wife (respondent)— who was a school principal school in Kurud, taunting her advocate husband (appellant) on his unemployed status during the pandemic, making unreasonable demands, engaging in verbal altercations over trivial issues, and subsequently deserting him and their son without according any reason, which compelled the husband to file for divorce.Against this backdrop, Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad observed,“It has been clearly deposed that after obtaining a Ph.D. degree and securing a high-paying job as a Principal, the respondent's behavior towards the appellant changed significantly. She became disrespectful, frequently taunted him for being unemployed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and engaged in repeated verbal altercations over trivial matters. These acts, including insults and humiliation during a time of financial vulnerability, clearly amount to mental cruelty as recognized under law.”“Her behavior, including instigating the daughter against the father, making unfounded demands during a financially unstable period, and leaving the home with the daughter while abandoning the son, demonstrates a pattern of mental harassment and disregard for the matrimonial bond.”, the Court stated.Facts:The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the husband challenging an order passed by the Family Court (impugned order), whereby it dismissed an application for divorce filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on grounds of cruelty and desertion.While the husband and wife had two children— a daughter and son, out of the wedlock, after some years of marriage, disputes arose between them and the wife was alleged to have changed her behaviour towards her husband, becoming proud of her position, frequently quarrelling over trivial matters and taunting him regarding his job. When the husband became unemployed during the pandemic due to Court closures, she verbally abused him over his unemployed status and demanded unnecessary things which he could not afford. She then deserted him and their son, and left her matrimonial home only with her daughter, without any justifiable reason.When application was filed for divorce, she did not appear, enabling the Family Court to dismiss the application ex-parte. Aggrieved, the husband approached the High Court.The husband argued that his wife neither appeared before the Family Court nor filed any written statement or evidence on her behalf. It was further submitted that the Family Court failed to consider a letter written by her whereby she clearly expressed that she was leaving on her own will, implying that the desertion was voluntary. While the Family Court had relied on a counselling report expounding that it was the husband who did not want to live with her wife, and the wife wanted to continue the marriage, the same was never exhibited. Lastly, it was contended that the wife's absence in the hearings, even in the High Court, demonstrated her unwillingness to contest or deny the husband's allegations.Court's Findings:At the outset, the Court noted that taunting husband for being unemployed during a financially vulnerable period and engaging in verbal altercations over trivial matters amounted to mental cruelty.Further, as no rebuttal or counter-evidence was filed by the wife, the Court stated,“Her absence throughout the trial and appeal proceedings further strengthens the unrebutted nature of the appellant's allegations. The Family Court failed to appreciate the legal implications of this uncontroverted evidence and wrongly concluded that cruelty was not established.”Additionally, the Court observed that the wife voluntarily deserted and severed all ties with her husband and son without any justifiable cause or allegations against the husband, thereby establishing animus deserendi (intention to permanently desert). As the desertion continued from 16.09.2020, it fulfilled the statutory requirement of a two-year period of desertion prior to the filing of the divorce petition in 2022. The Court thus stated,“Her conduct indicates a deliberate and willful decision to end cohabitation and abandon her matrimonial obligations, thereby justifying a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”The Court further acknowledged that the Family Court had erred in relying on a non-exhibited mediation report and failed to appreciate the legal effect of a clear, unambiguous act of desertion. Against, this backdrop, the Court concluded,“Since the parties have been residing separately and there is no possibility of their reunion, this Court is of the view that there has been an irretrievable break-down of the...

Taunting Husband For Being Unemployed During Financially Vulnerable Period Amounts To Cruelty: Chhattisgarh High Court

Saahas Arora

Tags