Wife Calling Husband's Skin Color Dark Amounts To Mental Cruelty: Karnataka High Court Grants Divorce
|The Karnataka High Court has allowed a husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage holding that the Family Court was wrong in not considering the effect of baseless and reckless allegations relating to the character of the husband which amounted to mental cruelty.
The Division Bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde observed that “the wife used to insult the husband on the premise that he is dark. And for the same reason has moved away from the company of the husband without any cause. And to cover up this aspect, has levelled false allegations of illicit relationships against the husband. These facts certainly will constitute cruelty.”
In this case, an appeal was filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the judgment of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. The appellant, referred to as the husband, sought dissolution of marriage under Section 13(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was dismissed.
The marriage between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife took place on November 15, 2007. The husband alleged that the wife humiliated him based on his skin color. He further mentioned that the wife went and lodged a complaint against him and his family under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, causing harassment.
The wife alleged that the husband's family visited daily, and the husband communicated minimally, often returning late. She accused the husband's family of demanding dowry, abusing her, and ill-treating her. She claimed her earnings were given to the family and she was assaulted by her husband. She alleged that the husband had a pre-existing extramarital relationship. The Family Court had dismissed the husband's petition citing the absence of grounds for cruelty.
Aggrieved, with the Family Court's decision, the husband approached the High Court.
Advocate Janardhana G. appeared for the Appellant before the High Court.
The appellant's counsel contended that the wife's cruelty allegations were supported by evidence, which the Family Court wrongly disregarded in dismissing the petition. The wife's baseless claim of the husband's illicit relationship with a woman named Madhumitha is deemed an act of mental cruelty. The counsel asserted that the false complaint lodged against the husband and family caused repeated visits to the Police Station and Court, leading to mental harassment.
The Court reiterated Supreme Court cases of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A.Deepa (2013)5 SCC 226 and Talreja vs. Kavitha Talreja (2017) KHC 635 which emphasized the significance of false accusations and their impact on reputation established that cruelty can be both physical and mental.
The Court was of the view that while the wife's complaint against the husband was acknowledged, its validity is pending. However, her allegation of an illicit relationship with Madhumitha lacked credible evidence. The claim of an extramarital relationship lacks substance, causing unwarranted mental distress. The Family Court overlooked the gravity of such allegations, ignoring the husband's mental agony.
“there is no acceptable evidence on record to accept the said contention of the wife that the husband is having an illicit relationship with a lady by the name Madhumitha. It is also not forthcoming from any records that the husband is having a child from that lady by the name Madhumitha, as the birth certificate produced does not disclose the name of the child. This being the position, this Court is of the view that allegations levelled against the husband that he is having an illicit relationship with the lady by the name Madhumitha is totally unfounded and baseless as well as reckless," the Bench held.
The wife asserted the relationship predated marriage and persisted afterward. The Family Court's dismissal based on ordinary wear and tear failed to address the impact of baseless character allegations.
The Court noted that it was evident that the wife has pursued cases against the husband's family for years, severing contact. She refused to withdraw the complaints even of reuniting, reinforcing the husband's claims of mistreatment.
Accordingly, the Petition for dissolution of marriage was allowed.
Cause Title: K. Murthy v. V. Kalaivani
Click here to read/download Judgment