The Bombay High Court recently made a significant observation regarding the use of Marathi language in a marital context. In a ruling by a division bench consisting of Justices Nitin Sambre and Sharmila Deshmukh, the court asserted that commonly spoken Marathi phrases, such as "तà¥à¤²à¤¾ अकà¥à¤•à¤² नाही, तू वेडी आहेस" (you have no sense, you are crazy), should not automatically be deemed abusive or offensive unless there is evidence to show that they were used with the intention to humiliate or insult.
The court emphasized that when Marathi-speaking parties communicate at home, such expressions are quite common and should not be considered abusive unless it can be proven that they were meant to be hurtful or demeaning. Therefore, the court held that if a wife accuses her husband of using such language without providing the necessary context or evidence to demonstrate the intent to harm, it would not amount to cruelty.
The judgment was delivered in response to an appeal filed by the husband, who had been denied a divorce by a family court. The wife claimed that her husband had subjected her to mental and physical abuse, citing instances where he allegedly used the phrase mentioned above and yelled at her for requesting outings. The husband, in contrast, argued that his wife's conduct constituted cruelty, pointing to a criminal case she had filed against him with unsubstantiated allegations.
The High Court noted that the wife had filed an FIR after the evidence examination stage in the divorce proceedings, and the FIR did not align with her testimony during the trial. The court viewed the wife's irresponsible and false accusations as cruelty in itself, granting the husband a divorce.
Furthermore, the court reasoned that allegations of illicit relationships, dowry demands, offensive language, and assault, without substantiating the claims, amounted to cruelty, particularly considering the affluent status of the parties involved. Consequently, the court allowed the husband's appeal and granted him a divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Advocates Laxmikant M Shukla and Heena Lambate represented the husband, while Advocates Shreesh Oak, briefed by SC Legal, represented the wife.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Bombay High Court Marathi language abusive remarks context division bench justices intention to humiliate cruelty divorce family court mental and physical abuse FIR unsubstantiated allegations illicit relationship dowry demands affluent family Hindu Marriage Act advocates.
