Taunting Polio-Stricken Husband's Disability, Snatching His Crutches, Pushing & Throwing Him Around Is The Most Inhumane Kind Of Cruelty: P&H HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while disposing of an appeal filed by the husband, held that the act of the respondent-wife in taunting the husband's physical disability, snatching his crutches and manhandling and throwing him around, amounted to both physical and mental cruelty. The appeal was filed by the appellant-husband against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, rejecting his petition of divorce on grounds of 'cruelty' and 'desertion' under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case of the appellant was that he was disabled – afflicted with polio since childhood. Immediately after his marriage with the respondent-wife, the wife started insulting and mocking him publicly for his physical disability, started tauntingly calling him 'lulalangra' in front of his family and friends, and started manhandling and throwing him around which caused him immense trauma to the extent that he stopped calling his friends and relatives to his house and was also disinherited from his parent's property. After the couple started living separately, the respondent continued taunting him regarding his virility, used to snatch his crutches and physically throw the appellant on the ground in the presence of his friends and relatives, which resulted in tremendous mental agony and trauma as well as physical abuse at the hands of the respondent, it was alleged. The appellant also argued that his wife had even threatened to kill him. Furthermore, the appellant adduced evidence through witnesses who testified of the respondent's ill behaviour towards the appellant and to the fact that the respondent used to file false complaints against the appellant under the Dowry Act and the IPC. The respondent wife, on the other hand, denied all allegations and alleged that the appellant-husband demanded dowry from her. She argued that her parents had spent handsome amount on her wedding and had given gifts and dowry articles to the appellant and his family despite which they used to ill-treat her. She argued that when she was pregnant, she was turned out of the matrimonial home by the appellant and that upon birth of the child no one came to see the newly born child despite having sent intimation regarding birth of the new-born. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, after hearing both the parties and examining the evidence, held that the respondent had inflicted both 'mental' and 'physical' cruelty upon the appellant. The division bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Nidhi Gupta noted: "Taunting a person for his handicap, and pushing him around to throw him on the ground when he is helpless and unable to defend himself, constitutes the most inhumane kind of cruelty which can be meted out to any disabled person; and the respondent's such actions amount to her inflicting both physical and mental cruelty on the appellant. Accordingly, the findings of the ld. ADJ, Hoshiarpur in this regard are held to be erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record, and are as such, reversed." Reversing the order of the ADJ, Hoshiarpur, the High Court noted that the Court below had erred by remaining silent on testimonies of the many witnesses which testified to the ill-conduct of the respondent. The Court also noted that the rejection of the contentions of the appellant merely because he could not specify the date and time of such acts of cruelty, was erroneous. The Court also relied on the decisions in Rani Narsimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani, SLP (Civil) 1981 of 2019, Sushma Taya v. Arvind 2015 (2) RCR 888 (P&H), A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, 2005 (2) SCC 22, among others, to reach its finding that the conduct of wife in filing false complaints against the husband also amounted to matrimonial cruelty. Accordingly, the Court decreed the divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. "Though we have held that the acts of the respondent-wife amount to cruelty against the appellant-husband, we are, however, not oblivious to her requirements, and that of the son born of the parties' wedlock. Accordingly, we direct that the husband shall pay to the wife a sum of INR 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) as one time permanent alimony and she will not claim any further amount at any later stage; and a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) shall be paid to their son Navjot. This amount be paid within six months from today. The judgment and decree dated 21.4.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, is set aside. The petition for divorce filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Act is decreed and the marriage of the parties solemnized on 3.3.2004 is dissolved by a decree of divorce." Case Title: Karamjit Singh v. Davinder Kaur Case No: FAO-M-190 of 2010 (O&M) and FAO No. 3554 of 2016 Coram: Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Nidhi GuptaCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 284 ...

Taunting Polio-Stricken Husband's Disability, Snatching His Crutches, Pushing & Throwing Him Around Is The Most Inhumane Kind Of Cruelty: P&H HC

Rahul Garg

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rahul Garg

Taunting Polio-Stricken Husband's Disability, Snatching His Crutches, Pushing & Throwing Him Around Is The Most Inhumane Kind Of Cruelty: P&H HC

Rahul Garg

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rahul Garg

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers