The Court further ruled that calling one's spouse a "womaniser," slandering him and engaging in other acts of excessive cruelty constitutes harassment of one's spouse.

The Delhi High Court has noted that when a wife makes accusations regarding her husband's "manhood," it can be extremely upsetting and psychologically distressing, which can lead to the husband becoming mentally abused and harassed.

A Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna ruled that branding one's spouse a womanizer, alleging dowry demands, and making him undergo an impotency test are enough to cause mental anguish and stress.

"The respondent was forced to take the impotency test, and the appellant's (wife's) admissions prove that he was judged to be fit.

It is obvious that accepting such claims and accusations against a person's manhood would be psychologically traumatizing and depressing for anyone, the Court noted.

It also came to the conclusion that it is extremely harsh to make careless, slanderous, humiliating, and unfounded accusations that could damage the spouse's reputation in public.

"Unfortunately, in this instance, the wife is openly harassing, humiliating, and verbally abusing the husband.

She even went so far as to accuse him of infidelity in front of all of his employees and visitors at office meetings.

In an attempt to paint him as a womanizer in the workplace, she even started pestering the female employees in his office.

The Court decided that this behavior amounted to an act of severe cruelty toward the respondent/husband.

The Court noted these things in response to an appeal brought by a woman who contested a family court ruling that had granted her husband a divorce due to cruelty.

After getting hitched in 2000, the couple welcomed a kid.

Conflicts emerged in the marriage from the start. The spouse claimed that the spouse routinely disparaged him.

She would tell people that her husband had extramarital affairs, that her mother-in-law had beaten her, and that his family had stolen the dowry.

She pretended to be unaware that the Doppler test had been performed, but she subsequently revealed that the husband had gone to the doctor to address his inability to engage in sexual activity while intoxicated, which left him feeling frustrated as well as angered.

After reviewing the matter, the Court found that the wife's admission proves he was forced to take the impotency test.

The woman confessed during cross-examination that her husband used to provide everything for her and the child and that he never demanded a dowry, which the court observed.

Thus, the Court upheld the decision of the Family Court and determined that the Husband was entitled to a divorce under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act since he had been the victim of cruel acts.