Not fulfilling demand of separate home is NOT cruelty. Minor disputes, difference of opinion which are to be adjusted and tolerated, cannot be treated as cruelty. -wife cannot be allowed to advantage of her own wrong-desertion cruelty not proved-Bom HC

Not fulfilling demand of separate home is NOT cruelty. Minor disputes, difference of opinion which are to be adjusted and tolerated, cannot be treated as cruelty | wife cannot be allowed to advantage of her own wrong desertion cruelty not proved - Bombay HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.77/2003

Mrs.Surbinder Kaur Sandeep Sood,
Age about 36 yrs.Occ.Nil
R/o C/O Shri.Sardulsingh
Re.E.G.55/4,Bhaira Nagar,
Dhanori Road,
Vishrantwadi,
Pune-422 015 Appellant/Ori.Petitioner

Vs.
Sandeep Rajkumar Sood,
Age about 40 yrs.Occ.Business,
Residing at 529/E,Kadamwadi,
Kolhapur 415 003       Respondent/Ori.Respondent
Ms.Ashwini Takalkar i/b Mr.Nitin Deshpande for Appellant
Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar,for Respondent

Coram- A.M.Khanwilkar and    Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,JJ

Reserved On-2nd  May,2011.

Pronounced On- 8th  December, 2011.

J U D G M E N T (Per Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.):

1 The judgment and order dated 23/6/2003 passed by the Judge of Family Court, Pune is challenged in this appeal. The appellant/original petitioner had filed petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion under section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2 The appellant and the respondent got married on 12/5/1993 and stayed together for a period of three years at Kolhapur, in the joint family of respondent consisting of parents and three sisters. It is the case of the appellant that she was not given freedom in the house and  was harassed in  number of ways by the mother and sisters of the respondent. She was not allowed to speak to the respondent and was  asked to do domestic work from morning to night. Many restrictions were imposed on her routine and she hardly could step out of the house. She was deprived of company of the respondent and had to obey the instructions/orders of her mother in law and sisters in law. For want of proper care and rest she had miscarriage. So her parents came to Kolhapur and gave her Rs.5,000/-for her own expenses. However, she was not allowed to spend that money for herself. Subsequently she again conceived and gave birth to male twins on 24/4/1996. She was not allowed to take proper rest and sisters of the respondent used to quarrel with her so the children were neglected. It is contended that in July, 1996 she was not allowed to go to the temple of goddess at Kolhapur. On that issue there was a big quarrel in the house. The respondent slapped the appellant, thereafter her sister in law Anju lodged false complaint with the police  that the appellant tried to commit suicide. On enquiry police called her father and she was sent to Pune alongwith her father.  She resided with her parents for 2-3 months. The respondent was supposed to come to her father’s house to take her back. However, he did not come. Therefore, in the month of January,1997 the appellant alongwith her father went to Kolhapur  to reside with the respondent. However, the respondent and his family members quarreled with the appellant and she alongwith her family members was driven out of the house  at odd hours of night. Since then she has been residing with her parents at Pune.It is contended that the respondent did not pay any maintenance to her and her children and did not bother to call her back. She, therefore, on the ground of cruelty and desertion filed petition for divorce in the Family Court at Pune, but it  was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

3 The respondent has denied all the contentions raised and allegations made in the petition and in the appeal.  He filed written statement and contested the petition that the grounds of cruelty and desertion are false and it is a cooked up story.   The petition was based on false averments and petitioner had withdrawn herself from the company of the respondent without any good cause. She has taken away two children and was not interested from the beginning to live with the respondent alongwith his family members. It is contended by the respondent that the petitioner wanted to reside separately only with the respondent and was interested to enjoy the life without taking any responsibility. She is pampered child of her parents. Despite such behaviour of the appellant, the respondent being a responsible and loving husband filed petition for conjugal rights bearing no.95/97 and it was decided in his favour. The petitioner did not come to stay with him. He filed execution proceedings, however, the petitioner did not show any interest and did not come to Kolhapur to live with him. It is contended that the petition was rightly dismissed as the petitioner could not prove her case of either cruelty or desertion.

4 The petitioner examined herself and also three witnesses viz. Nandlal Amarchand Shrishrimal, Sharadsingh Banga, and Captain Deepchandra. The respondent  husband offered himself as a witness and examined Shivaji Sankpal, Vijaya Toraskar and his sister Anju Rajkumar Sood.

5 Learned counsel for the appellant argued that cruelty is an aggravated form of harassment and it can be either expressly  proved or it can be inferred. She submitted that the appellant in her examination in chief has stated that the respondent husband had slapped her and the family members, especially the sisters of the respondent used to torture her by not giving food and not allowing her to go out of the house. Learned counsel pointed out that the application for the Restitution of Conjugal Rights though was decreed in favour of the respondent, the appellant never stayed with the respondent, therefore,  if the decree is not implemented till today then itself forms a ground for divorce.  She submitted that the maintenance ordered by the Court to her was  not paid by the respondent.  These aspects ought to have been considered by the Family Court. In support of her submissions she relied upon (Sanghmitra Ghosh Vs.Kalalkumar Ghosh) reported in 2007(2) SCC,220. She submitted that this being a irretrievable breakdown of the marriage the prayer of divorce be granted and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

6 Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant at the time of evidence could not narrate specific instances of cruelty and failed to bring any evidence to that effect. He pointed out that in her cross examination the petitioner has admitted that she has no grievance against the respondent but she was on inimical  terms and holding grudge against the mother and sisters of the respondent and this cannot be a ground for divorce. Hence the petition is rightly dismissed. 

7 The points framed by the Family Court and findings given are as follows.

POINTS       FINDINGS
1. Whether the petitioner proves thatthe respondent treated her with cruelty after solemnization of marriage ? No
2. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent deserted her withoutjust and sufficient reason for a period of 2 years preceding the date of petition ?No
3. Is there any legal bar u/s 23 of  H.M.Act ?Not survive
4. Is petitioner entitled to decree of divorce? No
5. What about permanent alimony of petitioner and maintenance of children ?Not survive
6.   Is petitioner entitled to continue the permanent custody of children with her ?Yes,presently.

7. What order ?      As per final order

8 Issue nos.1 and 2 are  the ground for divorce i.e. cruelty and desertion. We have carefully gone through the evidence and judgment of the Trial Court. On the point of mental and physical cruelty, following incidents are stated by the appellant. 

Physical Cruelty-
1. Slapping the petitioner in the month of July,1996  when the appellant expressed her desire to
go to the temple.
2. She was driven out of the house at night in July,1997 alongwith her father.
3. Not giving food
4. Asking her to do the domestic work
 
Mental Cruelty-
1. Not allowing to talk to her husband.
2. Not allowing to go out3. Husband was not accepting her wish of separate residence and not to stay with sisters.
4. Not to give her Rs.5,000/- to spend.

9 The petitioner in her evidence, except giving slap and not giving food did not narrate any specific incident of physical cruelty against the respondent. It is oral uncorroborated evidence.  In fact she gave admission and showed readiness to stay  with the respondent and his mother. She did not like the company  of his sisters. House of the respondent is of 12 rooms. Thus, separate residence for the appellant and respondent could be possible,  if the respondent had accepted the offer. At any rate, as the  demand of separate residence cannot be considered as cause of cruelty,  for the same reason, non-acceptance of such demand by the husband also cannot be a cruelty. These are choices given by the spouses to each other and expression of choice and refusal of the choice itself is not a cruelty.   In the evidence of Anju, sister of the respondent, she has stated that she leaves home at 9 a.m. and returns at 6 p.m. Further, the appellant gave admission in her evidence that the mother of the respondent has taken her care during pregnancy. This shows that the appellant did not have any complaint against the mother of the respondent. It appears that the root cause of the dispute was due to stay of the sisters in the house,  an ego problem.

10 On the point of cruelty one Captain Deepchandra was examined by the appellant. He is maternal uncle of the respondent. He has produced one letter, Exh.25, written by the father of the respondent to him. He deposed that in that letter father of the respondent has written that , “ Surbinder was kicked out to Pune”. On reading the said letter the words “kicked out” appear to be added subsequently. However, further it is mentioned in the letter that the family was spending Rs.30,000/- per year on the appellant. Thus, her evidence that she was not given food, cannot be believed on the basis of the letter which is proved and relied by the appellant herself.

11   On 25/7/1996 a police complaint  was lodged by the sister of the respondent alleging that the appellant was trying to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her body. This shows that the sister had diligently  reported the police station so that the police would take preventive measures and no untoward incident should happen. However, the attempt of the appellant to commit suicide when she was mother of 2-3 months old infants cannot be justified.  The evidence of police officer is on record which supports this and that cannot be doubted.  After going through this evidence we are of the opinion that the Judge of the  Family Court has properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses of both the sides and has correctly arrived at the conclusion. It is settled position of law that a routine bickerrings  or petty quarrels cannot be labelled as cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

12 The respondent though denied that amount of Rs.5000/- was received from the father of the appellant, he admitted that he  kept that amount in the Fix Deposit in the name of the appellant and he did not spend that money for himself. Further, the record shows that he had filed application for Restitution of Conjugal Rights which was decreed as the appellant failed to prove that she had withdrawn from the society of the husband with good and satisfactory cause.  Even in those proceedings the appellant had asserted cruelly caused by the respondent and his family members. However, that plea was negatived.  The said decree was not challenged by the appellant in appeal. Though the execution was taken out, she did not respond and the decree could not be executed.

13 It is admitted that on that day i.e. 25/7/1996 father of the appellant was called by the police. With a view to get the things settled she was sent to Pune at her father’s residence for 2-3 months. After two months the respondent did not bring back the appellant, so her father came to Kolhapur. The respondent told him to bring back the appellant to Kolhapur. On 25/1/1997 she came alongwith her father and some family members, out of which one is examined as a witness. There are two versions of the parties before the Family Court  that she was driven out of the house and secondly the father and other member who had gone there,  fought and put stringent condition which were not acceptable to the respondent, therefore, they took their daughter back to Pune. Be that as it may, the fact remains that  the appellant did not go back and continued to stay away from the respondent from July,1996. Any version of either of the parties if accepted, it is not a good ground to stay away from each other and to untie a nuptial knot.

14 Considering the nature of the dispute and the reasons given by the appellant, the separation cannot be justified.  It cannot be held that the respondent has deserted the appellant without any good cause. It appears that the appellant herself opted to stay with her parents at Pune and not to cohabit with the respondent. She did not respond to the decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights and therefore, the findings given by the Family Court that animus deserendi was absent and so the divorce cannot be granted under the ground of desertion is correct. Minor disputes, difference of opinion which are to be adjusted and tolerated, cannot be treated as cruelty.

15 The respondent had filed petition for custody of children. However, it was rejected. He could not succeed in the appeal. The twins were born  in 1996 and now they are around 15 years old. Since childhood they are staying with mother and taking education. So the issue of permanent custody was rightly held in favour of the appellant. Indeed, after attaining majority, it would be open to the children to stay with parent of their choice i.e., continue to stay with the mother or reside with the father (respondent)

16 A demand of permanent alimony was made by the appellant. Our attention was drawn to the orders passed by the Trial Court and this Court in the maintenance petition filed by the appellant. The appellant had filed a petition for maintenance bearing number 218/97 and maintenance of Rs.400/- p.m. to the appellant and Rs.300/- p.m. to each child was granted. It was enhanced to Rs.800/- p.m. for the appellant and Rs.500/- p.m. to each child. The respondent filed an application for cancellation of maintenance, however, it was dismissed. Again the maintenance amount was enhanced by the Family Court to Rs.1,200/-p.m. to the appellant and Rs.1,000/-p.m. to each child. The respondent preferred Revision Applications before this Court bearing nos.654/2007 and 512/2008. The Revision Applications were dismissed by this Court on 18/7/2009. The respondent preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) 7870-7871/2009 and the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court. We do not wish to interfere with finding recorded by the Family Court on issue No.5. We also agree with the Family Court that the appellant is free to resort to other legal
remedies. 

17 It is necessary to note that when the appeal was taken up for hearing, we, in the first place, tried to persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable settlement.  However, we found that the parties were still holding grudge against each other and were not in a mood to adjust. Instead, the learned counsel for the appellant has advanced her submission that such a long separation amounts to irretrievable break down of the marriage and so the decree of divorce be granted. In the case of  Sanghmitra Ghosh (supra) the parties were residing separately since January, 2001. In a transfer petition before the Supreme Court to transfer the pending matrimonial petition to some other State;  they filed joint petition for a decree of divorce praying that the Court may grant decree of divorce by mutual consent. The Supreme Court accepted the plea of irretrievable break down of marriage and exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution and granted decree of divorce. In the present matter, having recorded finding on merits on the relevant points/issues raised by the rival side and thus upheld the decree passed by the Family Court which is impugned in this Appeal, we would follow the dictum of our High Court in the case of Ravindra M.Shelar v. Kalpana R.Shelar reported in 2002 (3) MLJ 746.(http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1343342/) The same applies on all fours to the facts of the present case. Inasmuch as, even in this case we have found that the appellant was responsible for non-compliance of decree of restitution of conjugal rights and had committed positive wrong. She cannot be allowed to take advantage of her own wrong as the legal bar in granting the decree of divorce was not lifted. 

18 We, therefore, do not wish to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the Family Court.

19. Hence the Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs

.
(Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) (A.M.Khanwilkar,J.)

http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/judgements/2011/CFCA3090503.pdf

Abuse on spur of moment ( normal wear and tear )not valid ground for divorce - SC

                                                                   REPORTABLE

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5010 OF 2007

Gurbux Singh                                               .... Appellant (s)

            Versus

Harminder Kaur                                             .... Respondent(s)

                             J U D G M E N T

P. Sathasivam, J.

1)     The   appellant,   a   Principal   in   ITI   College,   Sirhali,

Amritsar, has approached this Court against the judgment

and   final   order   dated   11.05.2007   of   the   High   Court   of

Punjab   &   Haryana   at   Chandigarh   in   FAO   No.   252-M   of

2006   whereby   the   learned   single   Judge   dismissed   the

appeal filed by him against the judgment and order dated

11.10.2006   of   the   Additional   District   Judge   (Ad   hoc),

Amritsar, dismissing the petition filed under Section 13 of

                                                                                 1

the   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955   (hereinafter   referred   to   as

"the   Act")   for   a   decree   of   divorce   against   the   respondent-

wife,   who   is   working   as   a   Librarian   in   Government

Institute   DIET   at   Verka,   Amritsar   on   the   ground   of

`cruelty'.     Both   the   courts   have   rejected   the   claim   of   the

appellant herein on the ground that he has failed to prove

`cruelty' sufficient for grant of a decree of divorce. 

The case of the Appellant

2)   (a)   On   23.11.1997,   the   appellant   got   married   with   the

respondent   at   Amritsar   according   to   Sikh   rites   and

customs.     Even   on   the   date   of   marriage,   the   respondent

had   been   working   as   a   Librarian   in   a   Government

Institute   DIET   at   Verka,   Amristar.     From   the   very

beginning,   the   respondent   expressed   her   dislike   towards

the   appellant   and   his   family   and   gradually   started

misbehaving   with   them.     She   started   exhibiting   short-

tempered   behaviour   and   treated   the   parents   of   the

appellant   with   cruelty   and   disrespect.     The   father   of   the

                                                                            2

appellant is aged about 80 years and his mother is more

than 75 years.  In the month of January 1998, on the first

Lohri  festival   after   their   marriage,   the   respondent   being

annoyed with the appellant on a trivial issue, abused his

mother in filthy language in the presence of their relatives

and   neighbours   causing   immense   pain   to   the   entire

family.     Since   then,   the   respondent   started   insisting  that

she cannot live with the parents of the appellant who are

mental   and   nuisance   in   her   life   and   pressed   upon   the

appellant to have a separate abode from his parents. 

(b)     On   15.05.1999,   a   male   child   was   born   out   of   the

wedlock.     Even   after   the   birth   of   the   child,   there   was   no

improvement   in   the   behaviour   of   the   respondent.     She

always   insisted   that   she   being   financially   independent   is

not in need of the appellant and his family. 

(c)    Just  five  days  before  the  third  birthday  of  their  child

i.e. on 10.05.2002, the respondent, without any justifiable

reason   left   the   matrimonial   home   leaving   the   child

                                                                             3

unattended   and   went   to   her   parents   house   and   staying

there since then.  The appellant having failed in his efforts

to   bring   back   the   respondent   to   the   matrimonial   home

and   in   view   of   the   consistent   cruelty   filed   HMA   Case   No.

19   of   2003   before   the   Addl.   District   Judge,   Amritsar,

praying for a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act.

The stand of the Respondent

3)     In   reply   to   the   divorce   petition,   while   denying   all   the

averments   made   by   the   appellant,   the   respondent   has

stated   that   the   appellant   is   a   greedy   person   and   not

satisfied with the dowry articles received in marriage.   He

always   misbehaved   and   maltreated   her   and   abused   on

several   occasions.     She   alleged   that   the   appellant   is   a

habitual   drinker   and   used   to   threaten   her   to   kill   with

poison.  She also alleged that the appellant pulled her hair

and   gave   merciless   beatings   in   the   presence   of   his

parents. 

                                                                              4

Decision of the District Court and High Court 

4)   By judgment dated 11.10.2006, the Additional District

Judge,   Amritsar,   after   analyzing   the   plea   of   both   the

parties,   oral   and   documentary   evidence   concluded   that

the   appellant-husband   failed   to   substantiate   the

allegations  of  `cruelty'  and  dismissed  his  divorce  petition.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the High

Court by filing FAO No. 252-M of 2006.  The learned single

Judge   of   the   High   Court,   by   the   impugned   order   dated

11.05.2007,   while   agreeing   with   the   conclusion   of   the

Additional   District   Judge   dismissed   the   appeal   filed   by

the   appellant.     Questioning   the   above   said   orders,   the

appellant   has   filed   the   present   appeal   by   way   of   special

leave petition. 

5)   Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the

appellant   and   Mr.   Seeraj   Bagga,   learned   counsel   for   the

respondent.

                                                                         5

6)     The   only   question   for   consideration   in   this   appeal   is

whether   the   appellant-husband   has   made   out   a   case   for

divorce on the ground of `cruelty' by the respondent-wife.

7)  Section 13 of the Act specifies the grounds on which a

decree for divorce may be obtained by either party to the

marriage.     Though   in   the   divorce   petition   filed   before   the

Additional   District   Judge,   Amritsar   in   HMA   No.   19   of

2003, the appellant had sought divorce merely mentioning

Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage by decree

of divorce, and did not specify the grounds on which he is

entitled to decree of divorce.  In the petition, the appellant

has   highlighted   only   one   aspect,   namely,   that   after   the

marriage,  in  the  month  of  January  1998,  on  first  festival

of  Lohri,   when   they   were   enjoying   the   festival,   the

respondent-wife   abused   his   mother   and   the   father   in  the

presence   of   relatives   and   neighbours.     In   para   6   of   the

petition, the appellant has alleged that:

                                                                           6

      ".....She  called  nuisance,  idiot  and mental  to the  parents  of

      the   petitioner   and   the   respondent   openly   said   that   she   did

      not   want   to   live   with   the   petitioner   if   he   live   with   his   old

      parents."

In para 10, the appellant has stated:

      "That   on   10th  May   of   2002,   the   respondent   left   her

      matrimonial   home   without   giving   any   information   to   any

      member and she also left her child in the matrimonial home

      this   shows   that   the   respondent   did   not   have   any   love   and

      affections towards petitioner and his family members.  She is

      living in her parental house for the last more than one year.

      Hence,   the   necessity   has   been   arisen   to   file   the   present

      petition....."

Except   the   above   allegations,   the   appellant   has   not

highlighted   any   other   instance(s)   about   cruelty   by   the

respondent.     Though   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant

attempted   to   argue   "desertion",   in   the   absence   of   any

plea/evidence and material, we disallowed him to pursue

the said point. 

8)  In the reply to the petition under Section 13 of the Act,

the   respondent   has   highlighted   her   stand   and   in   fact

denied all the allegations against her.   She also projected

her   case   that   the   custody   of   the   child   was   forcibly   taken

                                                                                               7

by the appellant when she returned from her matrimonial

home.     She   also   highlighted   that   the   appellant   used   to

force her to bring cash from her parents as he wanted to

purchase a car in the month of February 2000.  When she

refused   to   bring   cash,   she   was   mercilessly   beaten   by   the

appellant.   She also stated that in February 4, 2000, her

parents gave Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant and thereafter

the   appellant   agreed   to   keep   the   respondent   in   her

matrimonial home.   She also alleged that the appellant is

habitual of taking liquor and under influence of liquor, he

used to beat her.   She further alleged that the appellant's

maternal uncle's daughter used to interfere in their family

affairs. 

9)     Apart   from   the   above   pleadings,   both   parties   filed

statement in the form of an affidavit/petition and also let

in   evidence   reiterating   their   respective   pleas.              As

discussed   earlier,   the   only   instance   highlighted   by   the

appellant for divorce was that the respondent-wife abused

                                                                         8

his parents on the day of festival of  Lohri  in the presence

of relatives and neighbours. 

10)  In Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511,

a   three-Judge   Bench   of   this   Court   while   considering

Section   13(1)(i-a)   of   the   Act   laid   down   certain   guidelines.

The   analysis   and   ultimate   conclusion   are   relevant   which

reads as under:-

      "98.  On   proper   analysis   and   scrutiny   of   the   judgments   of

      this   Court   and   other   courts,   we   have   come   to   the   definite

      conclusion   that   there   cannot   be   any   comprehensive

      definition of the concept of "mental cruelty" within which all

      kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. No court in

      our   considered   view   should   even   attempt   to   give   a

      comprehensive definition of mental cruelty.

      99.  Human   mind   is   extremely   complex   and   human

      behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity

      has   no   bound,   therefore,   to   assimilate   the   entire   human

      behaviour   in   one   definition   is   almost   impossible.   What   is

      cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case.

      The   concept   of   cruelty   differs   from   person   to   person

      depending   upon   his   upbringing,   level   of   sensitivity,

      educational,   family   and   cultural   background,   financial

      position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs,

      human values and their value system.

      100.  Apart   from  this,   the   concept  of  mental   cruelty   cannot

      remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time,

      impact of modern culture through print and electronic media

      and value system, etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now

      may not remain a mental cruelty after  a passage of time or

      vice   versa.   There   can   never   be   any   straitjacket   formula   or

      fixed   parameters   for   determining   mental   cruelty   in

                                                                                        9

matrimonial   matters.   The   prudent   and   appropriate   way   to

adjudicate   the   case   would   be   to   evaluate   it   on   its   peculiar

facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors

in consideration.

101.  No   uniform   standard   can   ever   be   laid   down   for

guidance,   yet   we   deem   it   appropriate   to   enumerate   some

instances   of   human   behaviour   which   may   be   relevant   in

dealing   with   the   cases   of   "mental   cruelty".   The   instances

indicated   in the  succeeding   paragraphs   are  only  illustrative

and not exhaustive:

(i)   On   consideration   of   complete   matrimonial   life   of   the

parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not

make   possible   for   the   parties   to   live   with   each   other   could

come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.

(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life

of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is

such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to

put   up   with   such   conduct   and   continue   to   live   with   other

party.

(iii)   Mere   coldness   or   lack   of   affection   cannot   amount   to

cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner,

indifference   and   neglect   may   reach   such   a   degree   that   it

makes   the   married   life   for   the   other   spouse   absolutely

intolerable.

(iv)   Mental   cruelty   is   a   state   of   mind.   The   feeling   of   deep

anguish,   disappointment,   frustration   in   one   spouse   caused

by the  conduct of  other  for a  long time  may  lead  to  mental

cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment

calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of

the spouse.

(vi)   Sustained   unjustifiable   conduct   and   behaviour   of   one

spouse   actually   affecting   physical   and   mental   health   of   the

other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant

danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and

weighty.

(vii)   Sustained   reprehensible   conduct,   studied   neglect,

indifference   or   total   departure   from   the   normal   standard   of

conjugal   kindness   causing   injury   to   mental   health   or

deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.

(viii)   The   conduct   must   be   much   more   than   jealousy,

selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and

dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for

grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of

the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not

                                                                                      10

      be   adequate   for   grant   of   divorce   on   the   ground   of   mental

      cruelty.

      (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few

      isolated instances  over a period  of years will not amount to

      cruelty.   The   ill   conduct   must   be   persistent   for   a   fairly

      lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an

      extent   that   because   of   the   acts   and   behaviour   of   a   spouse,

      the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the

      other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.

      (xi)   If   a   husband   submits   himself   for   an   operation   of

      sterilisation   without   medical   reasons   and   without   the

      consent   or   knowledge   of   his   wife   and   similarly,   if   the   wife

      undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or

      without  the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an

      act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.

      (xii)   Unilateral   decision   of   refusal   to   have   intercourse   for

      considerable   period   without   there   being   any   physical

      incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.

      (xiii)   Unilateral   decision   of   either   husband   or   wife   after

      marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to

      cruelty.

      (xiv)   Where   there   has   been   a   long   period   of   continuous

      separation,  it  may  fairly  be  concluded  that  the  matrimonial

      bond   is   beyond   repair.   The   marriage   becomes   a   fiction

      though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie,

      the   law   in   such   cases,   does   not   serve   the   sanctity   of

      marriage;   on   the   contrary,   it   shows   scant   regard   for   the

      feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations,

      it may lead to mental cruelty."

11)   A Hindu marriage solemnized under the Act can only

be dissolved on any of the grounds specified therein.   We

have   already   pointed   out   that   in   the   petition   for

dissolution   of   marriage,   the   appellant   has   merely

mentioned   Section   13   of   the   Act   and   in   the   body   of   the

petition   he   highlighted   certain   instances   amounting   to

cruelty   by   the   respondent-wife.     Cruelty   has   not   been

                                                                                          11

defined   under   the   Act.     It   is   quite   possible   that   a

particular conduct may amount to cruelty in one case but

the same conduct necessarily may not amount to cruelty

due   to   change   of   various   factors,   in   different   set   of

circumstances.  Therefore, it is essential for the appellant,

who   claims   relief,   to   prove   that   a   particular/part   of

conduct or behaviour resulted in cruelty to him.   No prior

assumptions   can   be   made   in   such   matters.   Meaning

thereby   that   it   cannot   be   assumed   that   a   particular

conduct will, under all circumstances, amount to cruelty,

vis-`-vis the other party.  The aggrieved party has to make

a   specific   case   that   the   conduct   of   which   exception   is

taken amounts to cruelty.  It is true that even a single act

of   violence   which   is   of   grievous   and   inexcusable   nature

satisfies   the   test   of   cruelty.     Persistence   in   inordinate

sexual   demands   or   malpractices   by   either   spouse   can   be

cruelty   if   it   injures   the   other   spouse.     There   is   no   such

complaint by the appellant. In the case on hand, as stated

earlier,   the   appellant   has   projected   few   instances   in

                                                                           12

which,   according   to   him,   the   respondent   abused   his

parents.     We   have   verified   all   the   averments   in   the

petitions, reply statement, written submissions as well as

the evidence of both parties.   We are satisfied that on the

basis of such instances, marriage cannot be dissolved. 

12)    The married life should be assessed as a whole and a

few isolated instances over certain period will not amount

to cruelty.   The ill-conduct must be precedent for a fairly

lengthy   period   where   the   relationship   has   deteriorated   to

an   extent   that   because   of   the   acts   and   behaviour   of   a

spouse,   one   party   finds   it   extremely   difficult   to   live   with

the  other  party  no longer  may amount  to mental  cruelty.

Making certain statements on the spur of the moment and

expressing   certain   displeasure   about   the   behaviour   of

elders   may   not   be   characterized   as   cruelty.     Mere   trivial

irritations,  quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life

which happens in day to day life in all families would not

be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

                                                                           13

Sustained   unjustifiable   and   reprehensible   conduct

affecting   physical   and   mental   health   of   the   other   spouse

may   lead   to   mental   cruelty.     Both   the   appellant   and

respondent   being   highly   qualified   persons,   the   appellant

being Principal in ITI College, the respondent working as a

Librarian   in   a   Government   Institute,   an   isolated   friction

on some occasion like festival of Lohri even in the presence

of   others   cannot   be   a   valid   ground   for   dissolving   the

marriage.

13)    Learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant   by

drawing   our   attention   to   certain   allegations   made   by   the

respondent-wife in the reply to the petition under Section

13   of   the   Act   before   the   Addl.   District   Judge   submitted

that   by   considering   all   these   aspects   it   is   just   and

reasonable to consider and grant divorce on the ground of

cruelty.   In support of the same, he relied on the decision

of   this   Court   in  Vijaykumar   Ramchandra   Bhate  vs.

Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334.   No doubt,

                                                                       14

in that decision, this Court has held that allegations made

in   the   written   statement   or   suggested   in   the   course   of

examination   and   by   way   of   cross-examination   satisfying

the requirement of law has also to be taken note of while

considering the claim of either party.  In the case on hand,

it   is   true   that   the   respondent-wife   has   made   certain

allegations   against   her   husband-appellant.   However,

admittedly   based   on   the   same,   the   trial   Court   has   not

framed any issue and no evidence let in in support of the

same.     In   such   circumstances,   the   said   decision   is   not

helpful to our case.  Admittedly, no such issue was framed

by   the   trial   Court   or   any   point   determined   by   the   High

Court   based   on   such   averments   in   the   reply/written

statement.  Accordingly, we reject the said contention.

14)    As   regards   the   allegations   about   beating   her   child

and   not   feeding   him,   the   High   Court,   after   analyzing   the

entire materials, disbelieved the same.   It is also brought

to our notice that the appellant condoned the alleged act

                                                                        15

of   cruelty   as   he   wanted   to   bring   back   the   respondent   to

his   house.     As   such,   the   allegations   of   cruelty   do   not

appear to be truthful.   It is also proved that the appellant

is not interested to keep the respondent as his wife and he

wants divorce by any means.   As observed earlier, except

the grounds enumerated in Section 13, a Hindu marriage

solemnized   under   the   Act   cannot   be   dissolved   on   any

other grounds.

15)    Finally,   a   feeble   argument   was   made   that   both   the

appellant and respondent were living separately from 2002

and   it   would   be   impossible   for   their   re-union,   hence   this

Court   exercising   its   jurisdiction   under   Article   142   of   the

Constitution   their   marriage   may   be   dissolved   in   the

interest of both parties.   Though, on a rare occasion, this

Court   has   granted   the   extraordinary   relief  de   hors  to   the

grounds   mentioned   in   Section   13   in  view   of  the   fact  that

the   issue   has   been   referred   to   a   larger   Bench   about

permissibility   of   such   course   at   present,   we   are   not

                                                                         16

inclined to accede to the request of the appellant.  If there

is   any   change   of   law   or   additional   ground   included   in

Section 13 by the act of Parliament, the appellant is free to

avail the same at the appropriate time.

16)    In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to

accept   the   claim   of   the   appellant,   on   the   other   hand,   we

are in entire agreement with the conclusion arrived at by

the   Addl.   District   Judge   as   well   as   the   High   Court.

Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed

with no order as to costs.                

                                            ..........................................J.

                                          (P. SATHASIVAM)

                                           ..........................................J.

                                        (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 8, 2010.                      

                                                                          17

 

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt

news @http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article820303.ece