Labelling Husband As 'Alcoholic', 'Womaniser' Without Substance Is Cruelty: Bombay High Court

A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant/wife challenging family court's decision to grant divorce decree to her husband.

"We find that the Petitioner has repeatedly made allegations assassinating the character of the Respondent, in both the rounds of litigation. The conduct of the Petitioner in continuing to make unwarranted, false and baseless allegations pertaining to the Respondent' character labelling him as an alcoholic and womaniser has resulted in shredding his reputation in the Society. In such circumstances, and considering the standing of the Respondent in the society, the stand of the Respondent that he could not put up with such conduct of the Petitioner defaming him in the society where he was carrying out social work and that he cannot continue with the matrimonial relationship in the face of such allegations cannot be said to be unjustified."

In 2005, the appellant filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court. The respondent/husband filed his reply and a counter claim seeking divorce. The wife in a reply to the counter claim alleged that the respondent is an alcoholic, a womanizer, and used to physically and mentally harass the petitioner. The family court dismissed the appellant's petition and granted divorce decree. The appellant approached the High Court. The respondent passed away during the pendency of the appeal and his legal heir continued the case.

Advocate Vikas Shivarkar for the appellant contented that the family court erred in granting divorce on the ground that the appellant's allegations constitute cruelty. He argued that in the previous round of litigation between the parties in 2002, same allegations were made by the appellant and it was not held to amount to cruelty.

Advocate Onkar Kulkarni for the respondent supported the decision of the family court to grant divorce and submitted that the allegations made by the appellant amount to cruelty.

The court noted that the appellant's sister did not corroborate her case and only testified that the husband used to consume liquor. The court said that there is no evidence produced by the wife to prove her allegations. "The petitioner has alleged that the respondent used to visit her sister on one pretext or other, yet the evidence of the petitioner's sister does not give any details. The evidence on record produced by the petitioner fails to prove the allegations made by her in pleadings", the court said in its order.

It was the respondents case that the petitioner has caused him mental agony by making false and defamatory allegations against him. The respondent deposed that the wife had approached the members of the institution where he was doing social work and levelled the same allegations against him. He further said that the petitioner has separated him from his children and grandchildren.

The court observed that in this case there is no evidence that the respondent's case against the petitioner is false.

On the other hand, the petitioner has failed to substantiate the allegations made by her in the reply to the counterclaim, said the court.

The court noted that in earlier round of litigation between the parties the same allegations were not held to be cruelty. However, in this case the respondent has come with a specific case that his wife has defamed him in society by making fear false allegations against him and caused him mental agony.

The court said that while considering the conduct of a party in the context of cruelty, the state of society to which the party is belong is also relevant. The court noted that the respondent retired as Major and belongs to upper strata of society having a standing in the society.

The court concluded that the petitioner assassinated the character of the respondent which resulted in shedding his reputation in the society. The court said that the respondent's stand that he could not put up with the petitioner's conduct cannot be held to be unjustified.

The court said that the conduct of the petitioner amounts to cruelty under section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act.

Case no. – Family Court Appeal No. 45 of 2006

Case title – Nalini Nagnath Uphalkar v. Nagnath Mahadev Uphalkar,

Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 409