The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that taunting a husband for being unemployed and making unreasonable demands during financial hardship amounts to mental cruelty under matrimonial law.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad made the observation while granting divorce to a man whose plea had earlier been rejected by the family court.
“It has been clearly deposed that after obtaining a Ph.D. degree and securing a high-paying job as a Principal, the respondent’s behavior towards the appellant changed significantly. She became disrespectful, frequently taunted him for being unemployed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and engaged in repeated verbal altercations over trivial matters. These acts, including insults and humiliation during a time of financial vulnerability, clearly amount to mental cruelty as recognized under law,” the Court observed.
The Bench further noted that the wife’s conduct — instigating the daughter against the father, making unreasonable demands during financial strain, and leaving the matrimonial home with the daughter while abandoning the son — amounted to harassment and disregard for the marriage.
“Her behavior, including instigating the daughter against the father, making unfounded demands during a financially unstable period, and leaving the home with the daughter while abandoning the son, demonstrates a pattern of mental harassment and disregard for the matrimonial bond,” the judgment stated.
The Court highlighted that the wife did not contest the proceedings despite due service of notice, nor did she file any counter-evidence. “Her absence throughout the trial and appeal proceedings further strengthens the unrebutted nature of the appellant’s allegations,” it added, while criticizing the family court for failing to appreciate the implications of uncontroverted evidence.
The husband had alleged that after he supported his wife in obtaining a Ph.D. and securing employment as a school principal, her behavior changed drastically. She allegedly quarreled frequently, insulted him about his employment status during the COVID-19 pandemic when his income had stopped, and eventually deserted him in August 2020, taking their daughter but leaving their son behind.
The wife later wrote a letter to the husband confirming her decision to sever ties with him and the son. Despite repeated attempts by the husband to reconcile, she neither returned nor expressed intent to resume marital life.
On appeal, the High Court held that these circumstances clearly established both cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, noting that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
Accordingly, the family court’s refusal to grant divorce was set aside, and a decree of divorce was passed in the husband’s favour.
Advocate BP Singh appeared for the appellant.
