Calling husband the ‘son of a prostitute’ can be ground for divorce, rules Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Saturday said that a wife abusing her husband as the ‘son of a prostitute’ can amount to mental cruelty, further leading to ground for divorce.

A bench of Justices Vikramajit Sen and A M Sapre said: “The trial court examined the evidence at great length and came to the reasoned conclusion that the actions of respondent Saraswathi Palaniappan amounted to cruelty. If a spouse abuses the other as being born from a prostitute, this cannot be termed as ‘wear and tear’ of family life. Summoning the police on false or flimsy grounds cannot also be similarly viewed. Making it impossible for any close relatives to visit or reside in the matrimonial home would also indubitably result in cruelty to the other spouse.”

In this case, the appellant Vinod Kumar Subbiah was married to Saraswathi Palaniappan in 2004 and they moved to the USA. She returned to India after becoming pregnant and did not go back to the US after the birth of her child. During her stay in the US, it was alleged by the husband that his wife was verbally abusive, she would insult his family, she would threaten to lodge false police complaints and would threaten to commit suicide placing the blame on him and his family. After she left for her parental home in June 2006, the appellant attempted to bring her back but she refused. He claimed he had been put through intolerable mental agony and could no longer continue to be married to her.

A trial court in Madurai granted them divorce and asked him to pay Rs 25,000 to his wife towards legal expenses. On appeal from the wife, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside the order, stating that in a matrimonial relationship, parties must be prepared to subject themselves to the normal ‘wear and tear’ of life, and that the situation at hand was no more than that. The present appeal by the husband is directed against this judgment.

Allowing the appeal, Justice Sen, who wrote the judgment, said: “After a cursory discussion of the evidence which the Trial Court had discussed threadbare, the High Court was not justified to set aside the conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court without giving substantiated reasons.” The bench restored the order of divorce granted by the trial court.