NEWS

Allegations about manhood of husband forcing him

By PRASHANT JHA

The Delhi High Court recently observed that wife raising allegations about 'manhood' of her husband can be very depressing and mentally traumatic which ultimately contributes to mental cruelty and harassment of the husband.

A Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that forcing one’s husband to go through impotency test coupled with allegations of dowry demands, extramarital affair and calling him a womaniser is sufficient to create mental agony and trauma.

“The admissions of the appellant (wife) establish that the respondent was made to undergo the impotency test in which he was found to be fit. Clearly, such averments and allegations about the manhood of a person would not only be depressive but also mentally traumatic for any person to accept,” the Court observed.

It also concluded that making reckless, defamatory, humiliating and unsubstantiated allegations which have the impact of publicly tarnishing the image of the spouse is an act of extreme extreme cruelty.

"Unfortunately, here is a case where the husband himself is being publicly harassed, humiliated and verbally-attacked by his wife, who had gone to the extent of levelling allegations of infidelity during his office meetings in front of all his office staff/guests. She even took to harassing the woman workers of his office and left no stone unturned to portray him as a womanizer in the office. This behaviour is but an act of extreme cruelty to the respondent/husband,” the Court held.

The Court made these observations while dealing with an appeal filed by a woman challenging a family court order granting divorce to her husband on grounds of cruelty.

The couple got married in the year 2000 and had a son.

Disputes arose in the marriage from the very beginning. The husband alleged that the wife was in a habit of bad mouthing him. She would tell people that her mother-in-law beat her, that her husband had extramarital affairs and his family had taken dowry.

In his plea, the husband also alleged that the wife claimed that he suffered from impotency and that he had forced her for an abortion. He said that he was forced to undergo Doppler’s Impotency Test in which he was found to be fit, it was stated.

According to the allegations, the woman also claimed that her husband was a flirt and would fall for any woman, whether 16 years or 60 years, who could speak English.

However, the wife challenged the assertions.

While she fanned ignorance regarding the Doppler’s test being done, she later herself explained that the husband had visited the doctor to address his problem of not being able to perform sexually when under the influence of intoxication, irritated to frustrated.

The Court considered the case and concluded that the admission of the wife establishes that he was made to undergo the impotency test.

The Court noted that in her cross examination the woman had admitted that her husband used to provide everything to her and the child and that he never made any dowry demands.

The Court, therefore, concurred with the family court’s order and held that the husband was subjected to acts of cruelty which entitled him to divorce under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Advocate Navin Sharma appeared for the wife.

Advocates Jai Bansal and Abhishek Verma represented the husband.