Husband is entitled to seek divorce from a wife who calls him ‘womanizer’ in her pleadings without leading any cogent evidence: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

To be called a womanizer and corrupt by his own spouse, would have caused such pain and suffering to the respondent as would lead him to entertain the apprehension that it would not be conducive to his physical and mental well being to live with the wife, the Court said.

The Delhi High Court has upheld the divorce granted to a husband from a wife who in her written statement alleged that he is a womanizer and corrupt. Justice Vipin Sanghi observed that such reckless statements made in the pleadings would have caused immense pain and suffering to the husband, as the allegations impinge on his character and morality.

The wife had appealed to High Court against Divorce granted to husband. In her written statement before the family court, she had said that her husband is a corrupt officer, and has obtained various awards by adopting corrupt means. She also alleged that he is a known womanizer among his colleagues and in the society.

The Court observed that harsh and reckless allegations like those made in the written statement, assumes a difference when serious allegations are made by one spouse against the other, not in the heat of the moment, but in a premeditated and planned manner in legal proceedings. The court said “It is one thing for a spouse to speak harshly to the other in the course of an argument and in the heat of moment. Harsh words and utterances so spoken are bound to cause pain and anguish and also result in anger and a grouse being experienced by the other spouse. However, such wear and tear in a matrimonial relationship is normally healed, and the parties move on in life”.

The Court observed that none of these allegations had been established by the wife by leading any cogent evidence. To be called a womanizer and corrupt by his own spouse, would have caused such pain and suffering to the respondent as would lead him to entertain the apprehension that it would not be conducive to his physical and mental wellbeing to live with the wife, the Court said.

Read the Judgment here.