New Delhi: Delhi High Court has dismissed a woman's plea challenging a special court order passing a divorce decree in favour of her husband, who had alleged cruelty on her part on several counts including calling him a 'fat elephant'.
"The other incidents established on record by the respondent/husband, by themselves, constitute sufficient evidence of the respondent being subjected to cruelty by the appellant. The calling of names and hurling of abuses such as 'Hathi', 'Mota Hathi' and 'Mota Elephant' by the appellant in respect of her husband even if he was overweight, is bound to strike at his self respect and self esteem.
"Obviously, the respondent was sensitive to such taunts, and it is not the appellant's case that the taunts were made jokingly, or out of love and affection, and without malice," Justice Vipin Sanghi said, while upholding the lower court's October 20, 2012 divorce decree.
The other incidents of marital discord that the court referred to included the woman "taunting" her husband "for not being able to satiate her sexual desire on account of his being heavy weight" as well as slapping him and asking him to leave the house.
"Threatening the respondent (husband) that she would immolate herself and implicate the respondent and his family in a dowry case...Leaving the matrimonial home on July 5, 2006 with her jewelry and belongings, and gave an ultimatum to the respondent that he should transfer his property in her name if he desired that she lives like a devoted wife," were also incidents referred to by the court.
"The incident of October 31, 2006 when the parents and other people from Ghaziabad came and fought with respondent; abused him and even assaulted him is also a serious incident, and each of these aforesaid incidents are grave and weighty matrimonial offences/misconducts by the appellant.
"Such events are clearly destructive of the matrimonial bond and would naturally give rise to a bonafide and genuine belief and apprehension in the mind of the respondent that it is not safe for him to peacefully and mentally continue the relationship with the appellant," the court said.
"Having heard counsels for the parties, perused impugned judgment and the evidence brought on record, as well as examined the decisions relied upon by the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in the present appeal calling for interference with the impugned judgment and, consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed," the judge said.