Not corroborated by medical opinion

• “Cruelty” under matrimonial law consists of conduct so grave and weighty as to lead one to the conclusion that one of the spouses cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other spouse.
• It must be more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of married life.
• Cruelty must be of such a type which will satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship between the parties has deteriorated to such an extent that it has become impossible for them to live together without mental agony.
• The cruelty practiced may be in many forms and it must be productive of an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse that it is dangerous to live with the erring party.
• In the instant case, it is evident that on the starting day of marriage there was happy conjugal life in between the parties but after some days the relationship soured.
• The wife made a serious allegation of impotency against her husband, which has not been corroborated from the medical opinion.
• The family court while appreciating the issue of cruelty has considered all the evidence available on record at length and thereafter has given its finding that the statement of the wife against her husband that he is impotent comes under the purview of cruelty.
• The wife has failed to establish the element of perversity in the impugned judgment, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Accusations

• The marriage between the parties was solemnised in February 2021.
• The husband sought divorce alleging that the wife and her family made false accusations regarding his sexual capacity and lodged criminal cases, including under Section 498A IPC.
• He contended that such allegations caused irreparable harm to his and his family’s reputation.
• The wife, on the other hand, accused the husband and his family of dowry harassment, physical and mental cruelty, and refusal to maintain marital relations.
• The husband approached the family court seeking a decree of divorce against his wife.
• The family court allowed the suit filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and dissolved the marriage.
• It further directed the husband to pay Rs 5 lakh as permanent alimony to the wife.
• Feeling aggrieved by the order the wife approached the high court.

Arguments

• The counsel on behalf of the wife submitted that the factual aspect which was available before the family court supported by the evidence adduced on behalf of the wife was not considered.
• The counsel for the wife argued that she was ready to lead her conjugal life with her husband despite being subjected to cruelty by her husband.
• On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the husband argued that imposing false allegations of demand of dowry or impotency by his wife amounts to cruelty.