A man in Delhi was granted a divorce after his wife called him a ‘mota haathi’ (fat elephant).

According to the Times of India, the husband was subjected to a serious of verbal and physical abuse from his wife including being taunted by her "for not being able to satiate her sexual desire on account of his being heavy weight" as well as slapping him and kicking him on his penis.

Speaking in Delhi High Court, Justice Vipin Sanghi said, ‘It has come on record that she taunted the respondent for not being able to satiate her sexual desire on account of his being heavy weight.

‘It has also come on record that she not only slapped the respondent but asked him to leave the house.

‘She also caught hold of kerosene can and opened its lid threatening the respondent that she would immolate herself and implicate the respondent and his family in a dowry case.’ It is reported that the wife left their home with her jewellery and belongings, and told her husband to transfer his property in her name if he wanted her to stay a 'devoted wife.'

Judge Vipin Sanghi continued, ‘Each of these incidents are grave and weighty matrimonial offences by the appellant, which cannot be described as events relating to normal wear and tear of a marriage.

‘The other incidents established on record by the respondent by themselves, constitute sufficient evidence of the respondent being subjected to cruelty by the appellant.

‘The calling of names and hurling of abuses such as 'Hathi', 'Mota Hathi' and 'Mota Elephant' by the appellant in respect of her husband - even if he was overweight, is bound to strike at his self-respect and self-esteem.

‘Obviously, 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.

‘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 that it is not safe for him to peacefully and mentally continue the relationship with the appellant.’