Accusing spouse of adultery is cruel; intention not necessary element for offence of cruelty: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently held that a person levelling disgusting accusations of adultery against spouse would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty to the partner [Kamlesh Thakur vs Sushil Thakur]..A division bench of Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Sandeep Sharma opined that 'intention' is not a necessary element in cruelty and a litigant cannot be denied a relief just because the ill-treatment was unintentional. The absence of intention should not make any difference if the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty."Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to a party cannot be denied because there was no deliberate or willful ill-treatment," the Court underlined. The Court, therefore, upheld a judgment of a family court in Shimla which had on August 14, 2019 granted divorce to the husband on grounds of cruelty. "Needless to say, matrimonial matters are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship and to maintain such relationship for a long, there is requirement of mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection. Since in the case at hand, the wife made serious and scandalous allegations regarding adulterous life of her husband, the court below, rightly arrived at a conclusion that false allegation of adultery constitutes mental cruelty," the bench said in its December 18 judgment. It further emphasised that levelling such allegations of adultery and failing to prove the same harms a person's reputation. "Levelling disgusting accusations of indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship constitutes grave assault on the character, honour, reputation and status of the spouse. Definitely, such aspersions amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, which itself is sufficient to substantiate cruelty in law," the Court underscored. The Court passed the order while dismissing an appeal filed by a wife who claimed that her husband had subjected her to cruelty by ill-treating her. On the other hand, the husband claimed that the wife doubted his character and linked him with one lady from his office. He contended that his entire family was aware about this woman in his office but now they weren't on talking terms. The husband cited an incident wherein the wife had visited his office and created a scene there. The husband further stated that within seven months of the wife giving birth to a daughter, she left him and took up a government job against the family's wishes and even left the child with her in-laws. The wife's workplace was around 50 km away from their residence and thus, she started living separately, the husband highlighted. .The Court observed that the word "cruelty" has not been defined despite it being used in the Hindu Marriage Act in the context of human conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. "It is a course of conduct of one which adversely affects the other. Cruelty can be mental, physical, intentional or unintentional," the bench said. It further explained that in case of physical cruelty, courts have to ascertain the question of fact and also the degree of the same. However, in instances of mental cruelty, courts must look into the nature of the alleged cruel treatment and the impact of such conduct on the spouse."There may be cases where the conduct complained of itself if bad enough and per se unlawful and illegal. Then, the impact of the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into. In such like cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself it proved or admitted," the bench said. .In the present case, the bench opined that the wife failed to prove the allegations that she levelled against her husband, whereas the husband proved his contentions against the wife. As regards the issue of taking up a government job, the Court said the issue was "debatable.""Though this court is persuaded to agree with the wife that she being educated lady is entitled to do job and qua such fact, no objection could have every been raised by the family members including the husband but whether government job could have been taken by the wife at the distance of 50 kms to 60 kms from their native place, that too leaving her seven months daughter is a debatable question," the Court said while upholding the family court verdict. .Senior Advocate Ajay Kochhar along with Advocates Vivek Sharma and Anubhav Chopra appeared for the Wife. Senior Advocate GC Gupta and advocate Meera Devi represented the Husband. [Read Judgment]