Ridiculing Husband Over His Physical Infirmity, Calling Him 'Kempa' & 'Nikhatu' Constitutes Mental Cruelty: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that a wife ridiculing and passing disparaging comments about physical disability/infirmity of her husband and using derogatory words over his condition like 'Nikhatu' or 'Kempa' is a form of mental cruelty, which is a sufficient ground for grant of divorce.

While upholding the decree of divorce passed by the Family Court, the Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed –

“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.”

Case Background

The marriage between the appellant-wife and respondent-husband was solemnized on June 01, 2016 according to Hindu rituals. The husband alleged that ever since their marriage, the wife kept on passing comments towards his physical infirmity. In September 2016, the wife left her matrimonial home and came back only in January 2017 after negotiations.

The husband further alleged that even after returning to the matrimonial home, there was no change in the attitude of the wife, who continued to cast aspersions on his physical limitations. It was pleaded that such regular unpleasant comments from the wife resulted in a serious dispute between the spouses leading to her voluntary departure from the matrimonial home again in March, 2018. Furthermore, she lodged a criminal case under Section 498-A (cruelty) of the IPC against the husband and her in-laws.

Therefore, the husband filed a petition for divorce in April 2019. The Judge, Family Court, Puri framed five issues including whether the wife treated the husband with cruelty. Considering the facts and evidence on record, the Court came to the relief of the husband and answered all issues in his favour, and ultimately granted the divorce. Being aggrieved, the wife filed this matrimonial appeal challenging the divorce order.

Court's Observations

The High Court noted that the respondent-husband is a physically handicapped person, which is beyond any dispute. Deposing for himself, the husband testified that the wife used to pass derogatory comments on his physical condition and called him 'Kempa', 'Nikhatu' etc. The Bench further underlined that though the appellant-wife cross-examined the husband, she could not bring out anything to disprove his allegations.

Another witness on behalf of the husband had also testified in similar line and affirmed the stance taken by him. The wife also admitted to have filed a criminal case against the husband and the in-laws.

Before coming to the repercussions of such admitted facts and evidence, the Court reiterated the settled principle of law that cruelty also includes 'mental cruelty' which has time and again been affirmed by the Apex Court in its landmark judgments V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs) and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh.

Having regard for the established legal principles, the Court opined that the unrebutted evidence suggesting the act of wife passing pejorative comments towards the physical infirmity of the husband indeed causes mental pain and such use of words also discloses abominable thoughts and disrespect on the part of wife.

Justice Routray, who authored the judgment, further said that in a marital relationship, the spouses are expected to respect and support each other. However, in this case, the wife made disparaging comments towards a sensitive issue of physical deformity of her husband, which is undoubtedly a 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.

Notably, the wife was also aggrieved by non-grant of permanent alimony and non-return of streedhan properties. However, the Court granted liberty to the wife to approach the Family Court for decision on the above limited issues since there was lack of material to show incomes of both husband and wife, which is essentially required to be assessed before passing any order granting permanent alimony.

Case Title: X v. Y

Case No.: MATA No. 264 of 2023

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. M.B. Das, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. H. Mohapatra, Advocate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 76

Click Here To Read/Download Order