Mental Cruelty

Cruelty can be of both kinds: physical and mental. It is physical when the body is injured. It is mental when feeling and sentiments are wounded. The petitioner may be meted with the cruelty of either or both types. However, cruelty has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. Cruelty has not been defined in the matrimonial laws. It has been the policy of legislation to avoid such a definition. We shall understand the ambit of the word “Cruelty” with some more case laws.

Dastane v. Dastane Case:

In Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane, 1975 AIR SC 1534 case, both the parties were well educated and from reputed families, though the circumstances made the husband file a petition of divorce against his wife on the ground of cruelty.

Allegations of Husband ( Dr.Dastane )

1. The respondent used to describe the appellant’s mother as a boorish woman;
2. On the day of ’Paksha’ (the day oil which oblations are offered to ancestors) she used to abuse the ancestors of the appellant;
3. She tore off the ’Mangal- Sutra’;
4. She beat the daughter Shubha while she was running a high temperature of 104’;
5. One night she started behaving as if she was ’possessed’. She tore off the Mangal-Sutra once again and said that she will not put it on again; and
6. She used to switch on the light at midnight and sit by the husband’s bedside nagging him through the night, as a result, he literally prostrated himself before her on several occasions.

Allegations of Wife (Sucheta ) “Special instructions given by my husband.

1. On rising up in the morning, to look in the minor.
2. Not to fill milk vessel or teacup to the brim.
3. Not to serve meals in brass plates cups and vessels.
4. To preserve carefully the letters received and if addresses of anybody are given therein to note down the same in the notebook of addresses.
5. After serving the first course during meals, not to repeatedly ask ’what do you want?’ but to inform at the beginning of the meals how much and which are the courses.
6. As far as possible not to dip the fingers in any utensils.
7. Not to do any work with one hand.
8. To keep Chi. Shuba six feet away from the primus stove and Shegari.
9. To regularly apply to her ’Kajal’ and give her tomato juice. To make her do physical exercise, to take her for a walk and not to lose temper with her for a year.
10. To give him his musts and the things he requires when he starts to go outside.
11. Not to take a calendar.”

In this case, it was decided that all the facts deal with the behavior of the wife can be amounted to mental cruelty. But as the husband has condoned the cruelty of his wife by continued sexual relation with her, as per section 23(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the divorce petition cannot be granted.

Sec.23 (1) is the exemption of cruelty. If a party condones the cruelty of other party, then the party cannot approach before the court for Divorce or for Judicial Separation. But it is up to the court to decide whether any party has condoned the other one or not.

Mamta Namdeo v. Ghanshyam Bihari Namdeo Case:

In Mamta Namdeo v. Ghanshyam Bihari Namdeo, AIR 2013 CHH. 89 case, the couple were married as per Hindu Rites sometime in June 1994. During this period, four children were born from the wedlock, out of which one has died and three are alive and living with their father. According to the husband, she expressed unwillingness to live with him, as she wanted to marry another person. She was in habit of abusing, misbehaving and threatening to inflict in false criminal cases including dowry cases. Then they started to live in separate rooms and then he was forced to file a divorce petition.

Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi Case:

In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy, AIR 1988 SC 121  case, Shobha Rani, the appellant, the wife was a post-graduate in biological sciences. The husband, Madhukar Reddi was a medical doctor. They were happily married but their happiness did not last long. They started exchanging letters with bitter feelings. Then they began to accuse each other. At one stage, they thought of winding up by mutual consent. But unfortunately, it did not materialize. Ultimately they landed themselves in the Court.

The wife moved the Court for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The wife in her evidence before the Court has stated: “My Mother-in-law always used to make a demand for money from my parents. I used to tell my parents about what was happening to me in that house. I used to keep silent when my mother-in-law made demands for money. The respondent also sometimes used to make demands for money. I used to tell him as to why should I ask money from my parents, and I also used to tell him that I would not ask my parents. But he used to reply that such things were only there in olden times and not now and that therefore, I should ask money from my parents. There were fixed deposits receipts in my name in the Bank up to one and a half to two lakhs. Besides this, there was a house plot in my name at Jubilee Hills. I was afraid of telling my husband and my parents in law that I would not ask my parents for money. This I was afraid because I had an apprehension that something would be done to me either physically or mentally if I told them so. I entertained this apprehension because this went on regularly every day, that is their demands for money. I was afraid to go back again to the respondent’s house because I felt that the pestering for money will go on like this. I, therefore, developed an aversion for going back to the respondent. For that reason, I joined as a school teacher.”

The husband in his letter wrote to the wife: “Now regarding Dowry point, I still feel that there is nothing wrong in my parents asking for a few thousand rupees. It is quite a common thing for which my parents are being blamed, as harassment.”

The trial court said: “Though one would not justify demands for money, it has to be viewed in this perspective. The respondent is a young upcoming doctor. There is nothing strange in his asking his wife to give him money when he is in need of it. There is no satisfactory evidence that the demands were such as to border on harassment.” Even honorable High Court has mentioned “Though one would not justify demands for money it has to be viewed in the circumstances from a proper angle. The respondent is a doctor if he asks his rich wife to spare some money; there is nothing wrong or unusual.”

However, the honorable Supreme Court of India treated it as cruelty. To demand dowry is cruelty. The Supreme Court has also held: “the word ‘Cruelty’ has not been defined. Indeed, it could not have been defined. It has been used in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the Court will have no problem to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment and the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused a reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted.”

A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur Case:

In A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, AIR 2005 SC 534 case, considering the question of mental cruelty, the Supreme Court observed that it has to be considered in the light of the social status of the parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, and customs and traditions. On these things, the court has to draw inference and decide on the basis of the probabilities of the case having regard to the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omission of the other spouse. However, where the conduct complained is bad enough in itself and per se unlawful or illegal, the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be considered. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be “grave and weighty” whereupon it can be concluded that the petitioner spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than “ordinary wear and tear of married life”.

Additional District Judge granted the divorce petition on dated 21\9\2004. Hence, an appeal has been filed by the wife in the High Court. Honorable High Court opined that Condonation means forgiveness of the matrimonial offence and restoration of the offending spouse to the same position as he or she occupied before the offence was committed. It means to constitute condonation, there must be two things: (a) Forgiveness and (b) Restoration. The Court further opined that there should be evidence on record of the case to show that the appellant had condoned the cruelty.

It was held that (a) The conduct of the wife has amounted as cruelty. (b) But, the husband had condoned the cruelty of the wife by having sexual relationship with her. Because, at the time of filing of divorce petition, on 25th March 2000, indisputably, both were residing in the same house. Their fourth child, RUBY, was born on 12th May 2000. Even, the husband gave her full support till the birth of the fourth child. So, the appeal was granted in favor of Wife.

Smt. Anita Jain v. Rajendra Kumar Jain Case

In Smt. Anita Jain v. Rajendra Kumar Jain, AIR 2010 Raj 56  case, wife not only instituted a number of cases against husband and his family members; but also made allegations against husband regarding illicit relations with his Bhabhi and niece. She also admitted these allegations to be untrue. The Court held that the conduct of the wife clearly amounts to cruelty to the husband. In view of the fact that the parties have been living separately for a number of years and a large number of cases have been instituted by one party against the other party, it is clear that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of their coming together or living together again. Husband is entitled to a decree of divorce.

Other Case Laws:

In Om Prakash Poddar v. Rina Kumari, MAT.APP.7/2012 Delhi High Court case, the respondent, wife, used to taunt on the sub-standard lifestyle of the husband and his parents. The utensils, furniture and the accommodations were not fit for the servants of her parental house. As both the parties lived separately for Five Years, the honourable Delhi High Court granted the Divorce Petition in favour of the husband.

In Rattan Singh v. Mrs. Manjit Kaur, AIR 2010 P&H 72 case, the court held that the act of the wife in not allowing the husband to live in the matrimonial home certainly is an act which constitutes both physical and mental cruelty. It is settled law that even one act of cruelty is sufficient to grant a decree of dissolution of marriage. The fact of not allowing the appellant to enter the matrimonial home is one such act. And it was held that the wife has treated the husband with cruelty.

In Mrs. Flora Bose v. Suproti Bose, AIR 2011 Delhi 5  case, a petition was filed on the ground of cruelty by the husband. In this case, the husband remained unemployed during his stay with his wife. He started spending money on liquor indiscriminately. He used to come home late at night, gave physical beatings as well as mental torture to wife. He also demanded a share in her flat. The Court held that the conduct of the husband can be construed as cruelty.

In Shashi Kumar v. Smt. Neelam, AIR 2011 HP 1 case, a divorce petition was filed by husband on the ground of mental cruelty by the wife. In this case, the wife not allowed her husband to consummate the marriage. He was subjected to abuse, locked out of his room and kicked out of bed. She also abused her mother-in-law and did not perform any household work. The court held that husband who has been insulted, humiliated and denied sexual access cannot be expected to make his predicament public and was entitled to divorce on the ground of cruelty.

In Kamma Damodar Rao v. Kamma Anuradha, AIR 2011 Andhra Pradesh 23  case, a divorce petition was filed under Section 13 (1) (i-a) on the ground of mental cruelty by the husband. The husband was addicted to vices like alcoholism and drugs and in said mental and physical state, he was abusing his wife in filthy language and was beating her rudely. He was moving with people of low class in the state of drunkenness and was staying in the hotel, causing a nuisance to inmates of the hotel. It was held that facts of husband spending time in hotels without paying bills would prove disrespect of husband to family and wife. It amounts to causing mental agony, which can be treated as mental cruelty and the wife was entitled to a decree of divorce.

In Broja Kishore Ghosh v. Smt. Krishna Ghosh, AIR 1989 CAL 327 In this case honorable Calcutta high court opined that : “What act would constitute mental cruelty depend upon the circumstances of each case, e.g. environment, status in society, education, cultural development, local customs, social condition, physical and mental conditions of the parties. Each case depends upon a variety of facts and circumstances.”

In Smt. Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad, AIR 2007 SC 1426 case, the appellant used to demand money from her husband for her father. She used to quarrel with her husband and she also used to beat her children. Once she left her husband’s house with her three children who thereafter found in the well. The dead bodies of the children were taken out along with her. Then she was convicted for the murder of the children under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. All the facts were taken as res geste cruelty to her husband. The trial court and High court of Rajasthan confirmed her cruelty and divorce. On appeal, the Supreme Court also affirmed the same.

In Mrs. Deepalakshmi Sachin Zingade v. Sachin Rameshrao Zingade AIR 2010 Bom 16 case, the petitioner/wife filed a false case against her husband on the ground of ‘Husband Having Girl Friend’ which is proved as false in a court of law so the Court held that it can be considered as cruelty against the husband.

In Smt. Suman Khanna v. Shri. Muneesh Khanna, ILR (2011) V Delhi case, the wife was a constant influence of her parents and she used to leave the matrimonial house time and again at the instance of her parents. She also tried to commit suicide. Instead of serving food to the invited friend of the husband, she served merely tea and biscuits. Honourable Justice Shri Kailash Gambhir has held that parents should not become uninvited judges of the problems of their daughters. Further, it has been held that in this case, the parents, instead of putting out the fire have fuelled and fanned it. All the matters were treated as Cruelty and the Divorce was allowed. The appeal of the wife was not allowed.

In Smt. Shashi Bala v. Shri. rajiv Arora,  FAO No.185 OF 2001 case, the Petitioner of the case, the wife, was complaining from the beginning that the husband, the respondent was not a man of her taste. She did not respond to participate in the traditional ceremony of dud-mundri. She also did not take interest in the dinner after the wedding. Even she did not allow her husband to have sexual intercourse on the first wedding night. She also filed false cases against her husband. All these were treated as Mental cruelty and the Court held that sexual intercourse is a means and an integral one of achieving oneness in marriage.

In Vishwanath Agrawal v, Sarla Agrawal, Civil Appeal No. 4905 OF 2012 case, the wife had publicized in the newspapers that her husband was a womanizer and drunkard. She had also made false cases against her husband. All were treated as Mental Cruelty. The Divorce was granted in the appeal.