Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while upholding the divorce granted to a man by a family court on the ground that his wife called him “hijda” (eunuch), said calling a husband “hijda” is an an act of mental cruelty.
The order of the High Court came on a plea filed by the estranged wife challenging the family court order granting divorce to her estranged husband on the ground of cruelty in July. The couple had got married in December 2017 and they were living separately for past six years. The divorce proceedings were initiated by the husband.
What did the husband submit before the High Court?
The man submitted before a bench comprising Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi that his wife was addicted to watching porn and she used to taunt him for not “being physically fit” and called him “hijda” and called his mother to have given birth to a eunuch. He further submitted that his wife was a “late riser” and asked his mother, who was suffering from arthritis, to send her lunch in the first floor bedroom and called her upstairs 4-5 times a day. The mother of the man deposed in her testimony before the court that her daughter-in-law used to call her son a ‘hijda’.
The High Court said that if the findings recorded by the family court are examined in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court, the acts and conducts of the appellant-wife amount to cruelty and “terming the respondent-husband as hijda and calling his mother to have given birth to an eunuch, is an act of mental cruelty.”
Rightly found by family court that marriage between parties has ruptured beyond repair: High Court
“Considering the overall acts and conduct of the appellant-wife and further considering that the parties had been living separately for the last six years, it was rightly found by the learned family court that the marriage between the parties has ruptured beyond repair and it has become a dead wood,” the High Court said.
Wife denied allegations levelled by her husband
The woman denied the allegations levelled by her husband and even accused her in-laws of administering intoxicating medicines to her. She further claimed that her husband could not produce any evidence before the court to prove that she used to watch porn sites. He counsel told the High Court that the family court failed to take into consideration that it was the husband and his family who committed cruelty against her.
The High Court said that the allegations of the woman that her husband was administering intoxicants to her and placing her under the influence of a ‘tantrik’ could not be substantiated by the women.
“It is well settled that in order to constitute a cruelty, the party alleging the same must prove on record that the behaviour of the party complained against, is or has been as such that it has made it impossible for the said party to live in the company of the party complained against,” the High Court said.
When marriage has become unworkable and totally dead, no purpose would be served by ordering reunion of parties: HC
The High Court further noted that the parties have been living separately for the last six years and there is no possibility of their reunion in the absence of any resumption of matrimonial obligation and cohabitation between the parties for a long period.
“Undoubtedly, it is an obligation on the part of the court that matrimonial bond should as far as possible, be maintained, but when the marriage has become unworkable and it has become totally dead, no purpose would be served by ordering the reunion of the parties,” the High Court said while holding that the findings recorded by the family court did not suffer from any illegality or perversity, news agency PTI reported.
