Delhi High Court Holds That False Allegation of Impotency Against Husband Constitutes Cruelty Under Hindu Marriage Act

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

A false allegation of impotency against the husband would amount to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. The written submissions would be considered, even if it was made as a counter-allegation.

Brief Facts

An appeal preferred by the Appellant- wife was being dealt with in the court. This was against an order of the Family Court allowing the Respondent-husband’s petition. It was about the grant of divorce under Section 13(1) (i a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).

Before the HC, the Appellant- wife sought the setting aside of the divorce order. The wife prayed for her petition of restitution of conjugal rights to be heard and decided based on the merits.  Advocates Manish Sharma, Ninad Dogra, Jigyasa Sharma represented the Appellant.  Advocate Prabhjit Jauhar represented the Respondent.

Contentions

The Appellant had pleaded that the Respondent was suffering from impotence /erectile dysfunction. The Appellant -wife had been reinforcing the allegation of impotence throughout the litigation. This was the reason due to which the marriage had remained non-consummated. Another argument of the wife was that the manner in which the impugned order was passed was arbitrary.  She specified that she wanted to save the matrimonial alliance. Allegations were made in a written statement and the relief of divorce was pleaded for. 

The Respondent husband contended that the allegations made were false, reckless and venomous. He argued that the allegations made against him in the written submissions amounted to cruelty. He further contended that no person would continue in a matrimonial alliance with a partner who does not respect the other’s self-respect. 

Court’s Observations

A Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula was set up.  The family court had previously rejected the allegation of the Appellant -wife.  This was noted by the HC. This was on the basis of the testimony of an expert witness. Upon physical examination, the expert found that the husband was a normal male adult with no problem of impotence. The court analysed the testimony. It held that a false allegation of impotence in the written submissions was nothing but mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1) (i a) of the HMA. 

The Court specified that mental cruelty was primarily contextual. It was based on human behaviour or conduct with respect to matrimonial duties and obligations. It was essential to see whether the conduct of the party was that of a reasonable person who would not tolerate a similar act. The situation should be such that no individual would be expected to live with the other party under similar circumstances. The Court laid a lot of importance on the pleadings during matrimonial proceedings. It refused to accept the Appellant -wife’s stand that the allegations of impotence were only a counter.

The Court opined that unproven false accusations were bound to cause deep hurt and anguish to the Respondent. It would be reasonable for him to apprehend that it would be perilous to live with the appellant. The respondent has undergone mental pain, agony and suffering by the false accusations. Thus, he could not be asked to put up with the conduct of the Appellant and to continue to live with her.

The Court remarked that the averments made by a party before Court of law should be given due sanctity and treated with seriousness. The allegations made in the pleadings were brought in the public domain. Thus, the Court was expected to give its verdict on the basis of the allegations and the counter-allegations made by the parties. The recklessness of allegations cannot be considered as a reasonable ground for an excuse before a Court of Law.  The consequences of false assertions had to be followed. The HC considered the case of V. Bhagat. It stated that the Supreme Court had taken a strong view of false allegations. SC opined that such allegations made in a formal pleading filed in the Court went far beyond the reasonable limits of the wife’s defence.

The Court referred to Section 20 HMA with regards to treating averments during pleading as evidence. Hence, the court was empowered to act upon unfounded allegations made in pleadings.

Court’s Decisions

The Court recognized that there was an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. It concluded that the Family Court’s order could not be faulted with. It specified that no infirmity could be found or observed and stated that allegation of impotence clearly comes under the concept of cruelty. The appeal was thus dismissed. 

For more details, click here.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -