Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while upholding a family court's decree of divorce in favour of a man, said that calling the husband a 'eunuch' amounts to mental cruelty. A bench of Justices Sudhir Singh and Jasjit Singh Bedi was hearing a petition filed by a woman against the divorce granted in her husband's favour by a family court in July this year. "If the findings recorded by the family court are examined in the light of Supreme Court judgments, it appears that the acts and conduct of the appellant wife amount to cruelty," the bench said.

Both of them got married in December 2017

The bench said, 'Calling the respondent husband a eunuch and telling his mother that she has given birth to a eunuch is tantamount to mental cruelty. Considering all the acts and conduct of the appellant wife and also considering that both the parties have been living separately for the last 6 years, the court found that the relationship between the two parties has deteriorated so much that it cannot be repaired now.' The two got married in December 2017. The husband who filed for divorce had claimed that his wife used to 'wake up late'.

'Wife is addicted to watching porn videos'

The husband had claimed that the wife would ask his mother to send lunch to her room on the first floor and would call her upstairs 4 to 5 times a day. "She did not care that her mother was suffering from arthritis. She was addicted to watching porn and taunted him for not being physically fit. She wanted to marry another man," the husband had claimed. The woman denied the allegations and claimed that her husband could not produce any evidence to prove that she watched porn.

'Family committed cruelty against woman'

The woman also accused her in-laws of giving her drugs. The lawyer appearing for the woman argued that the family court did not take into account that the husband and his family committed cruelty against the woman. The order issued by the court said that the man's mother said in her testimony that her son was called ' eunuch ' by his wife. It said that on the other hand, the allegations of giving drugs to the wife and keeping her under the influence of a 'tantrik' could not be proved by the wife.

The family court's decision remained intact

The bench said, 'Of course it is the responsibility of the court to maintain the marital bond as far as possible, but when the marriage becomes impractical and is completely over, no purpose will be served by ordering both the parties to live together.' The court said in its order that thus we find that the decision given by the Family Court is not illegal or perverse in any way.