The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that a wife referring to her husband as "Hijda" (transgender) constitutes mental cruelty.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi was hearing an appeal filed by a wife challenging the divorce decree granted in favor of her husband by a family court on July 12. During the proceedings, the husband's mother testified that the wife would refer to her son as a "Hijda."

“If the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, are examined in the light of the … judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it comes out that the acts and conduct of the appellant-wife amounts to cruelty. Firstly, terming the respondent-husband as Hijda (transgender) and calling his mother to have given birth to a transgender, is an act of cruelty,” the Bench said.

The couple married in December 2017. In his divorce petition, the husband alleged that his wife would stay up late at night and would also demand that his ailing mother bring her lunch from the ground floor to the first floor.

The husband further alleged that his wife was addicted to pornography and mobile games. He claimed she would insist that he record the duration of their sexual activity, stating that it "must last at least 10-15 minutes each time" and that they "must engage in it at least three times per night."

The husband also alleged that his wife would taunt him for not "being physically fit to compete with her" and had revealed that she wanted to marry someone else, according to the plea.

On the contrary, the wife denied all allegations and claimed that it was her husband who had forcibly thrown her out of their matrimonial home.

The wife further alleged that her in-laws had given her intoxicating medicines, causing her to lose consciousness. She claimed that, while she was in that state, they placed a tabiz from a tantrik around her neck and gave her intoxicating water, intending to control her.

In her appeal, the wife argued that the family court had wrongly relied on the testimonies of her husband and his mother to conclude that she had inflicted cruelty. She also contended that her allegation regarding the administration of intoxicants had been unfairly dismissed as self-serving.

However, the High Court found that this allegation was unsubstantiated, noting that the wife had not called upon her parents or any close relatives to testify about the cruelty she claimed to have suffered. Additionally, the Court observed that the wife's domestic violence petition against her husband had been dismissed by the trial court, with no evidence on record indicating that this decision had been overturned in appeal or revision.

“Considering the overall acts and conduct of the appellant-wife and further considering that the parties had been living separately for the last six years, it was rightly found by the learned family court that the marriage between the parties has ruptured beyond repair and it has become a dead wood,” the Court further said.

The Court further noted that the parties had been living separately for the past six years, with no possibility of reconciliation. As a result, it upheld the family court's decision to dissolve the marriage and dismissed the wife’s appeal.

Advocates Vaibhav Jain, Akshat Dalal and Anil K Sokal represented the wife.