Delhi HC Upholds Divorce Order As Woman Called Her Husband ‘Mota Haathi’

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that calling your spouse ‘mota haathi’ (fat elephant) is a valid ground for divorce.

While hearing a plea of a Delhi-based businessman, who faced cruelty and humiliation at the hands of his wife for being overweight and incapable of satisfying her sexual desires, Justice Vipin Singh noted:

“The calling of names and hurling of abuses such as ‘Haathi’, ‘Mota Haathi’ and ‘Mota Elephant’ by the appellant (woman) in respect of her husband – even if he was overweight, is bound to strike at his self respect and self esteem.”


Upholding the 2012 family court order which granted divorce to the man, the court rejected the woman petition challenging the order saying, “The respondent was sensitive to such taunts, and it is not the appellant’s case that the taunts were made jokingly, or out of love and affection, and without malice.”

The woman said that the allegations levied on her were vague and non-specific. She argued that the man could not give specific instances of alleged cruelty with dates, time and particulars.

The court observed:

“When two parties are in a marital relationship, neither is expected to maintain a logbook and note down therein each and every instance of matrimonial offence committed by the other.”


The man also said that his wife threatened to immolate herself and implicate him and his family in a dowry case.

“I have lost ten precious years in fighting legal battles. Although I have been granted divorce, I continue to face trial for other charges slapped on me under the Domestic Violence Act and dowry allegations,” the 35-year-old man told Mail Today on basis of anonymity

Stating that he also faced heavy financial losses due to the mental torture, the man added:

“My wife never came to terms with the fact that I was less educated than her. She physically assaulted me on various occasions and taunted me for being overweight. I lost my mother. My father has been terminally ill for years now.”


The high court noted, “Such events are clearly destructive of the matrimonial bond and would naturally give rise to a bonafide and genuine belief and apprehension in the mind of the respondent (husband) that it is not safe for him to peacefully and mentally continue the relationship.”

The man also alleged that on the night of February 11, 2005, his wife hit his private parts when he wanted to have intercourse and injured him.

“Each of this… incidents are grave and weighty matrimonial offences/misconducts by the appellant (woman), which cannot be described as events relating to normal wear and tear of a marriage,” the judge said.


Facebook Discussions