The Duchess of Cambridge would never have thought that she would be at the centre of a debate on body shaming. But ever since columnist Shobhaa De held that Kate Middleton wouldn’t look good in a sari, social media sites have been slamming the writer for her comments. And it’s just not the Internet that has been frowning at body shaming. The judiciary, too, has pounded its gavel against spouses who taunt their partners about their looks.

The Delhi High Court upheld a ruling of a family court granting divorce to a man on the grounds that his wife mentally tortured him for being overweight. He was granted a divorce by the family court in 2012 for mental cruelty, which was challenged by his wife in the high court. She argued that the allegations were “vague and non-specific” since her husband failed to furnish specific dates, times and other particulars of the alleged cruelty.

Justice Vipin Sanghi of the high court upheld the lower court’s verdict on March 22, saying that calling her husband names — “hathi”, “mota hathi” and “mota elephant” — would have hurt his self-esteem even if he was overweight. “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,” he said.

Body shaming is a term that has gained ground in recent times. The phrase is used for making fun of or abusing a person for his or her body shape or size. This verdict underscores that instances of body shaming are not only growing but have also come to be recognised by the law.

The judiciary is no longer looking at such taunts as flimsy grounds for divorce. On the contrary, it believes that these abuses can cause  grave psychological consequences.

Experts agree. “When you tease, bully or lash out at someone over a point, which is actually his weakness, it hurts his self-esteem,” says Dr Aruna Broota, a clinical psychologist and a retired professor of psychology from Delhi University. Such name-calling, she adds, can even lead to suicide.

Under the law, this form of bullying can be seen as a form of cruelty. Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which deals with “cruelty”, states, “If… the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. The expression ‘Cruelty’... admits in its ambit and scope such acts which may even cause mental agony to the aggrieved party. Intention to be cruel is not an essential element of cruelty. It is sufficient that if the cruelty is of such type that it becomes impossible for spouses to live together.”

The definition is not specific. “It’s not possible to define every form of cruelty, hence the court has taken the right step by equating body shaming with cruelty. In my practice, too, I find there are cases where body shaming has led to divorces on grounds of mental cruelty,” Mumbai lawyer Mridula Kadam says.

The verdict has managed to stir a debate once again among legal experts on what constitutes mental cruelty. The moot point is that in a legal wrangle, the allegation of mental cruelty can be hurled by either side. “This is more a psycho-social issue than a legal one and it cannot be set as a precedent. Mental cruelty is a relative issue, the extent and gravity of which varies, depending upon the tolerance level of an individual,” says lawyer Debashish Banerjee.

Though in this particular case, the husband had been abused as a “mota hathi” (fat elephant) by his wife,  lawyers stress that it is women who are more often subjected to taunts and abuses because of their physical attributes. Many are reviled for being overweight or dark complexioned.

“It affects women more than men as they are constantly commented upon or humiliated for their looks, colour, height or body weight,” says veteran lawyer Flavia Agnes.

Late last year, a woman complained that her husband, a software engineer, had sent her an email asking for divorce because he thought she was too dark. In another case, a man sought a divorce because of his wife’s acne problem, saying that he couldn’t be physically attracted to her because of the spots on her face, and thus there was no physical intimacy in the marriage.

Lawyer Banerjee points out that women who are taunted by their husbands about their physical traits seldom muster up the courage to take legal recourse either because they are scared of the social repercussions of a divorce or are economically dependent on their spouse.

Agnes agrees. “While this constitutes ‘cruelty’ under the Domestic Violence Act, I don’t know how many people will opt for divorce on these grounds,” she says. But she also adds that she knows of  many women who have left their matrimonial home because of the humiliation caused by such comments.

Take the case of Sunita Kumar, who used to suffer from severe depression. It was so severe that she tried to take her life twice. Kumar, now under medical supervision, hated her body and lacked self-confidence.

But she wasn’t always like this. Her husband of two years mocked her in public, calling her overweight. It was believed that because of her weight, she couldn’t conceive. Yet Sunita, who is now living with her parents and has claimed maintenance from her husband, is still in two minds about divorcing him.

At a discussion on “Legal Discourse on Cruelty in Matrimonial Relationship” organised by the Bharati Vidyapeeth’s New Law College, Pune, last month, Bombay High Court judge Madan Joshi pointed out that cruelty was now grounds for divorce. And marriages, the judge said, had three rings, like a circus: “Engagement Ring, Wedding Ring and Suffering.”

Perhaps the time has come to seriously address the third ring.