Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: using abusive language in Rita Raj vs Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri on 17 October, 2025Matching Fragments
6. The Respondent also referred to an incident in January 2011, where he was allegedly slapped by the Appellant when he expressed a desire to accompany her on a trip.
7. He alleged that she frequently quarreled with him and his mother, used abusive language, and humiliated him in private as well as in professional circles. She allegedly denied him conjugal relations and continuously interfered in his professional engagements.
9. The Respondent further alleged that in the first week of March 2011, upon returning from Lucknow, the Appellant insisted that his parents vacate the matrimonial home. The Respondent also claimed that the Appellant used abusive language against his mother. He claimed that her behavior caused him immense mental agony, causing him to faint and be subsequently hospitalized on one occasion.
(d) In the second week of October 2010, the petitioner took the respondent to his native place Taki in District North 24 Pragana, West Bengal during Durga pooja. At that time, the respondent tormented the petitioner by using abusive language and cursed him for having brought her to a village which lacks amenities and was below her status.
29. In view of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to establish his allegations against the respondent that the respondent was using abusive language against him and his mother. She addressed the petitioner as a bastard. She used abusive language against the mother of the petitioner and called her a prostitute. The respondent made the parents of the petitioner leave her house and shift elsewhere. The respondent called her parents to Delhi who said to the petitioner that he is only an advocate and the advocates do not have any social status and are freely available on streets and the petitioner should feel obliged that their daughter who is a bureaucrat having high social status in the society, has married him. I am of the opinion that these acts would constitute cruelty against the petitioner within the meaning of section 13(1)(ia) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.