The Orissa High Court has held that a wife’s act of ridiculing or making disparaging remarks about her husband’s physical disability—using terms like ‘Nikhatu’ or ‘Kempa’—constitutes mental cruelty and serves as a legitimate ground for divorce.
Affirming the divorce granted by the Family Court, the Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash noted that such conduct causes emotional trauma and qualifies as cruelty under matrimonial law.
“A person is expected to give respect to another person in general and where it comes to relationship of Husband and Wife, it is expected that the Wife should support the Husband despite his physical infirmity, if any. Here it is a case where the Wife made aspersions to Husband towards his physical infirmity and passed comments regarding the same. This definitely in our opinion amounts to mental cruelty leading to draw an inference against the Wife that she treated her Husband with cruelty owing to his physical deformity.”
The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on June 1, 2016, following Hindu customs. The husband alleged that from the outset, the wife repeatedly made disparaging remarks about his physical disability. In September 2016, she left the matrimonial home, returning only in January 2017 after reconciliation efforts were made.
However, according to the husband, her attitude did not change upon her return, and she continued to demean him over his physical condition. He stated that her persistent humiliating behavior led to severe marital discord, ultimately prompting her to leave the matrimonial home again in March 2018. Thereafter, she lodged a criminal complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, accusing the husband and his family of cruelty.
Subsequently, the husband filed a divorce petition in April 2019. The Family Court Judge in Puri framed five issues for determination, including whether the wife had subjected the husband to cruelty. Upon evaluating the facts and evidence on record, the Court decided in the husband’s favor on all counts and granted the divorce. Aggrieved by this outcome, the wife challenged the judgment through a matrimonial appeal.
The High Court noted that the respondent-husband is physically disabled—an uncontested fact. In his deposition, the husband stated that his wife repeatedly made demeaning remarks about his condition, calling him ‘Kempa’ and ‘Nikhatu’. The Bench observed that although the appellant-wife cross-examined him, she failed to effectively rebut the allegations made against her.
Furthermore, another witness appearing on behalf of the husband corroborated his claims and testified in a similar manner. The wife also admitted to having filed a criminal case against the husband and his family members.
Before analyzing the legal consequences of the established facts and evidence, the Court reiterated the settled legal position that cruelty includes not only physical harm but also mental cruelty—a view consistently upheld by the Supreme Court in landmark rulings such as V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.) and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh.
Relying on these precedents, the Court concluded that the unrefuted evidence regarding the wife’s derogatory comments about the husband’s physical condition amounts to clear mental cruelty. Such conduct, the Court noted, not only displayed insensitivity but also revealed a deep-seated attitude of disrespect and disdain on the wife’s part.
Justice Routray, authoring the judgment, underscored that mutual respect and emotional support form the foundation of any marital relationship. In this case, however, the wife’s demeaning remarks about the husband’s physical disability—a matter of deep personal sensitivity—unquestionably constituted mental cruelty.
“On such ground, we are satisfied that the requirement in terms of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act is attracted to grant the decree of divorce. We thus confirm the impugned judgment granting the decree of divorce between the parties dissolving their marriage,” the Court observed while upholding the impugned order.
Significantly, the wife also raised concerns regarding the denial of permanent alimony and the non-return of her streedhan property. However, the Court granted her the liberty to seek appropriate relief from the Family Court on these limited issues, observing that there was a lack of adequate material on record to assess the financial status of both parties—an essential consideration before passing any order on permanent alimony.
