Patna High Court Rules That Calling a Partner “Bhoot, Pishach” Is Not Cruelty

As to the observations made by the Patna High Court, an estranged couple calling each other names such as “pishach” (vampire) and “bhoot” (ghost) does not constitute “cruelty” even when they use “filthy language”.Speaking during the hearing of a petition submitted by Sahdeo Gupta and his son Naresh Kumar Gupta, both of whom reside in Bokaro in the neighboring state of Jharkhand, the single-judge bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri made the comments. On the basis of a case filed by Naresh Gupta’s divorced wife in Nawada, her home state of Bihar, the father-son team had contested an order issued by courts in the Nalanda district. Back in 1994, the plaintiff had filed a lawsuit against her father-in-law and husband, claiming that they had subjected her to material and physical abuse in order to force her to demand a car as part of the dowry.

After the father-son pair prayed, the case was later moved from Nawada to Nalanda. The Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced the father and son to a year of hard labour in 2008, and their appeal to the Additional Sessions Court was denied ten years later. Meanwhile, the Jharkhand High Court granted the couple’s divorce. The divorced woman’s counsel filed a case before the Patna High Court, arguing that it was “a form of immense cruelty” for her in-laws to call a lady “bhoot” and “pishach” in the 21st century.

Nonetheless, the court noted that it was “not in a position to accept such an argument”.There have been cases where “both the husband and the wife” have “abused each other” with “filthy language” in marriage relationships, particularly in unsuccessful marriage relationships.”However, all such accusations do not come within the veil of cruelty,” it continued.

In addition, the high court stated that “all the accused persons” had “harassed” and “brutally tortured” her, but “no specific, distinct allegations against either petitioner” were there. As a result, the lower courts’ rulings were overturned even though “no order as to costs” was made.