Publishing article in newspaper levelling allegations against wife lowers her reputation: Bombay High Court upholds divorce decree

The Bombay High Court recently ruled that making allegations against one's spouse in a newspaper, whether defamatory or not, would lower the spouse's reputation [XYZ vs ABC].Justices RD Dhanuka and MM Sathaye observed that whether or not the actual news is defamatory is irrelevant as allegations and accusations themselves have the effect of lowering ones reputation, and that the consequential embarrassment is a bitter bonus.."Whether the actual news is defamatory or not is irrelevant for the present purpose. The fact that allegations and accusations are leveled by a party (husband in this case) against the spouse (wife) in newspaper, itself has an effect of lowering her reputation in the eyes of her peers and colleagues. Embarrassment is a bitter bonus!" the Court said.The Court, therefore, upheld a divorce decree granted by a family court after noting that the husband had published an article in a newspaper raising allegations against the wife..The Court was hearing a challenge by the appellant-husband against a family court order allowing the petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. According to the respondent-wife, her husband was an alcoholic, used to suspect her character, abused her, and showed no interest in maintaining a relationship with her.She also alleged that while she was enrolled at the Police Academy, her husband, under the influence of liquor, visited her and caused nuisance by using inappropriate language. She further alleged that he mortgaged her streedhan and borrowed loans. All of this led her to file a police complaint under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).She further contended that the husband used to threaten her as well as her mother, who also had to lodge a complaint against him. In the circumstances, it had become impossible to reside with the husband and therefore, she filed the divorce petition.The court had also passed a decree of divorce in favour of the wife and additionally, directed the husband to return her streedhan, which was mortgaged with a bank..Before the High Court, the appellant-husband claimed that the family court went beyond the scope of pleadings, and did not follow the principles of the Evidence Act. He said that he had not been convicted in any criminal cases related to the respondent-wife and this his career was destroyed due to her actions. Further, he alleged that his wife and her mother's positions in the police department allowed them to file false complaints and that the Trial Court did not allow the appellant's advocate to submit arguments. He also claimed that the Trial Court wrongly relied on SMS messages without following the Indian Evidence Act. About the streedhan, he claimed that the gold ornaments were given by his family and not the wife's. .On the other hand, the respondent-wife supported the judgment and decree of divorce, stating that the evidence and documents on record were properly considered by the Family Court. The behavior of the appellant-husband, according to her, amounted to mental torture and harassment, leading to a clear case of cruelty. She stated that the husband's opposition to the divorce decree showed his desire to keep harassing her as they had not cohabited since April 2011, and the marriage was irretrievably broken. Further, she called her husband's claim about streedhan 'ridiculous' as it is a matter of common knowledge that such ornaments are a daughter's streedhan. She claimed that he not only harassed the wife but also took away her streedhan and mortgaged it to raise loans. .The Court noted that the fact that the ornaments were given to the respondent-wife by her mother was something that the appellant-husband had admitted in his cross examination. He had stated that they were lying with a bank as security for loans. It also noted that he filed police complaints against his wife's mother, friends, and even lawyer. It therefore concluded that he was a person who was difficult to deal with."In our considered view, a partner in matrimonial relationship who goes to the extent of filing police complaints against mother, friend, well wishers, Prosecutor or Advocate of his own wife, is a kind of person who is difficult to deal with and certainly causing mental harassment," the Court said.Further, it also noted that he had published an article in a newspaper, levelling allegations against his wife..Resultantly, owing to the bitterness between the parties, the Court concluded that the situation could not be reconciled and the breakdown of marriage was irretrievable. Hence, it upheld the decree of divorce by rejecting the appeal."In the overall facts and circumstances of this case, we find that owing to the bitterness that parties have already gathered for each other, it is not possible to reconcile the situation and the bond has been broken irretrievably. The overall conduct of the Appellant/husband, as narrated above, in our considered view, amounts to mental cruelty. Therefore, we find no fault with the decree of divorce granted by the Trial Court to the Respondent / Wife on the ground of cruelty," the Court said..[Read Judgment]