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