Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. The appellant/wife denied the allegations of sleeping separately.

28. The appellant/wife also denied that she used to hide sensitive files and folders of the respondent/husband or create a lot of problems in day-to-day activities or caused the embarrassment to the respondent/husband.

29. The appellant/wife further asserted that because of shutting down of Café Red Bricks, the respondent/husband came under stress and started smoking and drinking and would remain restless for the entire night. She, disturbed by such conduct of the respondent/husband, advised him to visit the doctor which was acknowledged by him. The appellant/wife, however, denied that she compelled the respondent/husband to undergo the impotency test or cause him embarrassment on that account.

36. The appellant examined herself as RW1. She also examined RW3 Shri Ram Avtar her father, RW3 Smt. Kamlesh Gupta her mother and RW4 Shri Satish Kumar Gupta.

37. The learned Family Judge essentially referred to the allegations in regard to the character of the respondent including him having illicit relationship and also of subjecting him to Doppler‟s Impotency Test and further acts of harassment by the appellant, to conclude that respondent was subjected to cruelty and thereby granted divorce. The petition for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty was, therefore, allowed.

55. Though there was no documentary proof of this incident, but the ocular evidence of the witnesses which has not been sufficiently rebutted by the appellant again establishes her erratic behaviour towards the respondent and his family members.

56. The other act of cruelty relied upon by the respondent was that the appellant/wife used to allege that the respondent/husband was impotent. She compelled him to go for Doppler‟s Impotency Test in which he was found to be fit. Such allegations caused mental cruelty to the respondent.

57. This version has been explained by the appellant who asserted that the respondent/husband suffered losses in his business on account of change of Government policies in regard to the business with European countries because of which he went into depression and took to smoking and drinking. She, out of concern for his health, insisted on his visiting the Doctor. She denied that she got the Impotency Test conducted of the respondent/ husband. The appellant while fanning ignorance about the test being conducted, herself gave the explanation that the respondent had visited the Doctor to address his problem of not being able to perform sexually when under intoxication and irritated and frustrated. The admissions of the appellant establish that the respondent was made to undergo the Impotency Test in which he was found to be fit. Clearly, such averments and allegations about the manhood of a person would not only be depressive but also mentally traumatic for any person to accept.