Labelling husband as 'womaniser', 'alcoholic' in court without evidence amounts to cruelty: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently held that a woman raising allegations against her husband in court by terming him a 'womaniser' or an 'alcoholic' without substantiating the allegations, would amount to cruelty entitling him to divorce [Nalini Nagnath Uphalkar vs Nagnath Mahadev Uphalkar]..A bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Sharmila U Deshmukh, therefore, dismissed an appeal filed by a woman (appellant/wife) challenging a family court's decree that dissolved her marriage to a retired Army officer who had passed away during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. "We find that the petitioner has repeatedly made allegations assassinating the character of the respondent, in both the rounds of litigation. The conduct of the Petitioner in continuing to make unwarranted, false and baseless allegations pertaining to the respondent’ character labelling him as an alcoholic and womaniser has resulted in shredding his reputation in the society," the Court noted..In 2005, the appellant-wife filed a petition before a family court for restitution of conjugal rights. Her husband filed his reply and also a counter claim seeking divorce.In reply to the counter claim, the wife alleged that her husband was a 'womaniser' and an 'alcoholic'. The Court held that the allegations, without substantiation, amounted to cruelty. Hence, it granted a decree of divorce to the respondent-husband..In appeal before the High Court, advocate Vikas B Shivarkar, appearing for the wife, claimed that the family court erred in holding that the allegations constituted an act of cruelty.He told the Court that in previous litigation between the parties, the same allegations were levelled by the appellant against the respondent and it was not held to be an act of cruelty..On the other hand, advocate Onkar Kulkarni, for the respondent-husband, supported the family court's judgment and stated that the allegations made by the petitioner-wife constituted an act of cruelty as she failed to substantiate her allegations. .The Court noted that the appellant's own sister did not corroborate the appellant's case. It, therefore, determined that the evidence on record failed to prove allegations made by her in the pleadings. "Pertinently, the petitioner’s own sister has not corroborated the case of the Petitioner and has merely deposed that the respondent used to consume liquor, but there is no assertion of being alcoholic which has distinct connotation. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent used to visit her sister on one pretext or other, yet the evidence of the petitioner’s sister does not give any details. The evidence on record produced by the petitioner fails to prove the allegations made by her in pleadings," it stated..Further, the Court noted that the allegations were not held to be cruel in previous litigation because her husband had not contended that he suffered mental torture by virtue of the allegations.It stated that in the present case, it was the specific case of the respondent that the petitioner defamed him in society by making false and baseless allegations, causing him mental agony, which he proved..The Court found that the petitioner repeatedly made allegations assassinating the character of the respondent and determined that it resulted in shredding his reputation in society."We find that the petitioner has repeatedly made allegations assassinating the character of the respondent, in both the rounds of litigation. The conduct of the petitioner in continuing to make unwarranted, false and baseless allegations pertaining to the respondent’ character labelling him as an alcoholic and womaniser has resulted in shredding his reputation in the society," it stated.Therefore, it upheld that the husband's stand that he could not put up with such conduct of the wife defaming him and that he cannot continue with the matrimonial relationship in the face of such allegations. Hence, holding that the wife's conduct constituted cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, the Court dismissed her appeal..[Read Judgment]