More Coverage
Twitter Coverage
Satyaagrah
Satyaagrah
Satyaagrah
Satyaagrah
Satyaagrah
JOIN SATYAAGRAH SOCIAL MEDIA
“Talking about justice, doing injustice is indeed unfair conduct and hypocrisy”: HC grants divorce citing cruelty by wife who taunted polio-stricken husband's disability, snatched his crutches, manhandled & threw him around, orders man to pay 25L alimony
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in its order dated September 13, 2022, granted divorce to a man who accused his respondent-wife of taunting his physical disability, snatching his crutches, manhandling, and throwing him around. While the High Court allowed the appeal on grounds of physical and mental cruelty by the wife, the court also ordered the disabled man to pay permanent alimony to a ‘cruel’ wife and minor son.
|
Case:
The appellant-husband and the respondent-wife were married as per Sikh rites and rituals in March 2004 at Nakodar. Out of this wedlock, one son was born in December 2004 at his wife’s maternal home, where she had been residing since September 2004.
|
Allegations by Husband
It is the case of the appellant that he is handicapped and afflicted by Polio since childhood. At the time of his marriage with the respondent, she and her parents had told the appellant that the respondent was 28-29 years old and had been married earlier but as her first husband was an alcoholic and used to beat her, thus they had divorced each other by mutual consent.
It was only subsequently that the appellant found out that the actual age of the respondent was not 28/29 years but was about 38 years, and that she had also had a child with her first husband who had died. It is further stated that only after about 8-10 days of the marriage, the respondent started insulting the appellant and mocking him publicly for his physical disability and used to tauntingly called him lula langra in front of his family and friends.
This behavior of the respondent caused so much trauma to the appellant that he stopped calling his friends and relatives to his house. It is further stated that as a result of bad behavior on the part of the respondent, the appellant’s parents even disinherited him from their property and also told him to live separately.
As such, the appellant was undergoing tremendous mental agony and trauma, as well as physical abuse at the hands of the respondent. It is also alleged and pleaded in the petition that on 15.9.2004, the respondent threatened to kill the appellant. Even her brother threatened the appellant on the telephone that he is handicapped and they (the respondent and her brother) will kill him and his parents and inherit all their property.
The appellant then lodged a complaint with the Sarpanch, and a Panchayat was called. Even in the Panchayat, the respondent openly said that she did not want to live with the appellant as he is not capable of being a husband and also raised false allegations against him, and abused and insulted the parents of the appellant. At the intervention of the Panchayat, the appellant took the respondent to her village Ramuwal on 22.09.2004.
However, while leaving, the respondent cleverly and secretly took all the gold ornaments and cash lying in the house without telling the appellant, and since then the respondent had been living at her parental house. All efforts on part of the appellant to bring her back to the matrimonial home had failed. Accordingly, the appellant stated, the respondent had treated him with cruelty and also deserted him without reasonable cause or excuse. As such, he was left with no alternative but to file the petition under Section 13 of the Act in June 2005.
|
Defense by Wife
In response, the respondent-wife in her written reply admitted to the marriage as well as the birth of the child yet denied that she had treated the appellant with cruelty. She stated that her first husband was an alcoholic and used to beat her and it was thus that they had parted ways by mutual consent. The respondent further stated that her parents had spent a handsome amount on her wedding and had given gifts and dowry articles to the appellant and his family including T.V., a fridge, gold ornaments, utensils, beddings, etc. Despite this, they started demanding more dowry from her and her family and used to ill-treat her. She denied insulting the appellant or calling him ‘lula-langra’.
Respondent alleges that in the month of October 2004 when she was pregnant she was turned out of the matrimonial home by the appellant and that upon the birth of the child no one came to see the newly born child even though intimation regarding birth was sent to the appellant and his family. All the medical expenses relating to the delivery were borne by the parents of the respondent.
She further stated that the Panchayat consisting of respectable, including her brothers, tried their level best to rehabilitate the respondent, but without any result. Ultimately on 7.5.2005, the respondent was sent back with the appellant, but again after a few days the appellant misbehaved and demand Rs1 lakh from the respondent and on 15.5.2005 she was again turned out of the matrimonial home with the minor child.
Respondent stated that since then she is living with her parents and the appellant has filed a divorce petition by leveling false allegations against her.
District Court
In 2010, Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, rejected the husband’s petition for divorce on grounds of ‘cruelty’ and ‘desertion’ under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
An appeal in the High Court was then filed by the appellant's husband against this order. The matter remained pending for 12 years.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court heard both parties and after examining the evidence, held that the respondent had inflicted both ‘mental’ and ‘physical’ cruelty upon the appellant. The division bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Nidhi Gupta observed,
Taunting a person for his handicap, and pushing him around to throw him on the ground when he is helpless and unable to defend himself, constitutes the most inhumane kind of cruelty which can be meted out to any disabled person, and the respondent such actions amount to her inflicting both physical and mental cruelty on the appellant.
Accordingly, the findings of the ld. ADJ, Hoshiarpur in this regard is held to be erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record and is as such, reversed.
Lower Court Erred
The High Court further noted that ADJ, Hoshiarpur had erred by remaining silent on the testimonies of the many witnesses who testified to the ill conduct of the respondent. The Court also noted that the rejection of the contentions of the appellant merely because he could not specify the date and time of such acts of cruelty, was erroneous.
|
Alimony Granted Despite Cruelty by Wife Proven
Granting divorce to the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the High Court concluded,
Though we have held that the acts of the respondent-wife amount to cruelty against the appellant-husband, we are, however, not oblivious to her requirements, and that of the son born of the parties’ wedlock. Accordingly, we direct that the husband shall pay to the wife a sum of Rs 15,00,000 (Rupees Fifteen Lakh only) as one-time permanent alimony and she will not claim any further amount at any later stage; and a sum of Rs 10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) shall be paid to their son Navjot. This amount to be paid within six months from today.
The judgment and decree dated 21.4.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, is set aside. The petition for divorce filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Act is decreed and the marriage of the parties solemnized on 3.3.2004 is dissolved by a decree of divorce.
Besides the above alimony payment, it must be noted that the appellant-husband had been regularly without fail paying maintenance for the minor son as determined from time to time, while the child remained in the sole custody of his wife.
VFMI Take:
- There is no justice for married men in India
- Despite wasting an entire lifetime at the courts, despite the mental and physical cruelty by the wife proven, the high court has ordered the disabled husband to pay permanent alimony to the wife
- The woman, on the other hand, walks away with the last laugh as there are zero consequences for her proven cruel behavior
Karamjit-Singh-v.-Davinder-KaurDownload Order
References:
Support Us
Satyagraha was born from the heart of our land, with an undying aim to unveil the true essence of Bharat. It seeks to illuminate the hidden tales of our valiant freedom fighters and the rich chronicles that haven't yet sung their complete melody in the mainstream.
While platforms like NDTV and 'The Wire' effortlessly garner funds under the banner of safeguarding democracy, we at Satyagraha walk a different path. Our strength and resonance come from you. In this journey to weave a stronger Bharat, every little contribution amplifies our voice. Let's come together, contribute as you can, and champion the true spirit of our nation.
 |  |  |
| ICICI Bank of Satyaagrah | Razorpay Bank of Satyaagrah | PayPal Bank of Satyaagrah - For International Payments |
If all above doesn't work, then try the LINK below:
DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text. The website also frequently uses non-commercial images for representational purposes only in line with the article. We are not responsible for the authenticity of such images. If some images have a copyright issue, we request the person/entity to contact us at satyaagrahindia@gmail.com and we will take the necessary actions to resolve the issue.
