Calling husband 'hijda' an act of mental cruelty, HC upholds divorce

The Punjab and Haryana high court has upheld the divorce granted by a family court in favour of a man, saying that calling a husband hijda (eunuch) is an act of mental cruelty.

The division bench of justice Sudhir Singh and justice Jasjit Singh Bedi was hearing a woman's plea against the divorce granted in favour of her husband by a family court in July this year.

"If the findings recorded by the family court are examined in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court, it comes out that the acts and conduct of the appellant-wife amount to cruelty," the high court bench said.

"Firstly, terming the respondent-husband as hijda and calling his mother to have given birth to an eunuch, is an act of mental cruelty," it added.

"'...Considering the overall acts and conduct of the appellant-wife and further considering that the parties had been living separately for the last six years, it was rightly found by the learned family court that the marriage between the parties has ruptured beyond repair and it has become a dead wood," the order stated.

The couple got married in December 2017.

The husband, who had initiated divorce proceedings, had claimed that his wife was a 'late riser'. She would ask his mother to send her lunch in the bedroom on the first floor and would call her upstairs 4-5 times a day, ignoring that his mother was suffering from arthritis.

The man alleged that his wife was addicted to watching porn and used to taunt him for not "being physically fit" and wanted to marry some other person, as per the man's plea.

The woman had denied the allegations and claimed that her husband could not produce any evidence to prove that she used to watch porn sites. She even accused her in-laws of administering intoxicating medicines to her.

"They (in-laws) put a 'tabiz' from a 'tantrik' on my neck besides administering intoxicated water so that they could have control over me," she had submitted.

The counsel appearing for the woman argued that the family court had not taken into consideration that it was the husband and his family who committed cruelty against her.

The man's mother deposed in her testimony that the wife used to call her son a hijda, said the order.

On the other hand, the allegations of administering intoxicants to the wife and placing her under the influence of a 'tantrik' could not be substantiated by the wife, it added.

"It is well settled that in order to constitute a cruelty, the party alleging the same must prove on record that the behaviour of the party complained against, is or has been as such that it has made it impossible for the said party to live in the company of the party complained against," the order stated.

"Indisputably, as noticed above, the parties have been living separately for the last six years. In the absence of any resumption of matrimonial obligation and cohabitation between the parties for a long period, there is no possibility of their reunion," it said.

"Undoubtedly, it is an obligation on the part of the court that matrimonial bond should as far as possible, be maintained, but when the marriage has become unworkable and it has become totally dead, no purpose would be served by ordering the reunion of the parties," the bench observed.

"Thus, we find that the findings recorded by the learned family court, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity," it concluded.