1999 Supreme(SC) 403

1999(3) Supreme 358
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
V.N. Khare & R.P. Sethi, JJ.
S. Hanumantha Rao -Appellant
versus
S. Ramani -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3763 of 1995
Decided on 31.3.1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : U.R. Lalit, Sr. Advocate, S.V. Deshpande, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Pramit Saxena, Suhas Halwaikar, Advocates.
For the Respondent : P.S. Narasimha, Advocate for V.G. Pragasam, Advocate.

Important Points
1. Mere preserving of copies letters written by a spouse of his/her partner cannot constitute cruelty.
2. Where Hindu wife used to remove mangal sutra at the asking of her husband when they were in privacy to place her husband, the husband could not be allowed to complain later that the act of removal of mangal sutra amounted to mental cruelty; removal of mangal sutra in the circumstances does not amount of cruelty within meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act.

Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act 1955-Sec­tion 13(1)(ia)-Cruelty-Wife allegedly removed mangal sutra and threw at her husband-She prescribed copies of letters sent by her of husband-Evidence revealed wife used to remove mangal sutra and bangles at asking of husband when­ever they were in privacy to please her husband-Throwing of mangal sutra not proved-She preserved copies of letter as husband never replied her letters-Whether above acts of wife constituted cruelty-No-Removal of mangal sutra was at instance of husband only to please him-Did not amount to cruelty within 13(1)(ia)-Preserving copies of letter by wife normal behaviour of human being is the circumstance the wife was placed and could not amount to cruelty-Soliciting help of women protection cll by parents of wife to reconciliate cannot be branded as cruelty caused to husband.

       Held: Mental cruelty broadly means, when either party causes mental pain, agony of suffering of such a magnitude that it severs the bond between the wife and husband and as a result of which it becomes impossible for the party who has suffered to live with the other party. In other words, the party who has committed wrong is not expected to live with the other party. (Para 8)

       The respondent after having admitted the removal of Mangalsutra stated, that while in privacy the husband often used to ask her to remove the chain and bangles. She has also stated that in her parent’s house when her aunt and mother used to go to bathroom they used to take out Mangalsutra from their neck and therefore she thought that she was not doing anything wrong in removing Mangalsutra when she was asked to do so by her husband. She also stated that whenever she removed Mangalsutra, she never thought of bringing an end to the married life and was still wearing her Mangalsutra; and it is when her husband made hue and cry of such removal of Mangalsutra, she profusely apologized. From all these evidence the High Court concluded that the incident was blown out of proportion and the appellant attempted to take advantage of the incident by picturising the same as an act of cruelty on the part of the wife. The question, therefore, arises whether the removal of the Mangalsutra by the wife at the instance of her husband would amount of mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. It is no doubt true that Mangalsutra ground the neck of a wife is a sacred thing for a Hindu wife as it symbolises continuance of married wife. A Hindu wife removes her Mangalsutra only after the death of her husband. But here we are not concerned with a case where a wife after tearing her Mangalsutra threw at her husband and walked out of her husband’s house. Here is a case where a wife while a privacy, occa­sionally has been removing her Mangalsutra and bangles on asking of her husband with a view to please him. If the removal of Mangalsutra was something wrong amounting to mental cruelty, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, it was the husband who instigated his wife to commit that wrong and thus was an abettor. Under such circumstances the appellant cannot be allowed to take advantage of a wrong done by his wife of which he himself was responsible. In such a case the appellant cannot be allowed to complain that his wife is guilty of committing an act of mental cruelty upon him, and further by such an act, has suffered mental pain and agony as a result of which married life as broken down, and he is not expected to live with his wife. It also appears to us that, whenever the appellant asked her wife for removal of her Mangalsutra, the respondent never comprehended that her husband at any point of time would react to such occurrence in the way he did. Under such circumstances, the appellant was not expected to have made an issue out of it. We are, therefore, of the view that removal of Mangalsutra by the respondent would not consti­tute mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. (Para 8)

       The view taken by the High Court was that mere retention of copies of the letters would not amount to mental cruelty. We also find that if the wife had any intention to use copies of those letters she would have filed the same before the trial Court. Excepting filing a counter affidavit the respondent-wife did not file any copy of the letters sent to her husband, whereas the husband has filed all the letters sent to him by his wife in the court which were exhibited. The re­spondent wife in her testimony stated that she wrote several letters to her husband, but her husband did not reply any of them and as such she started preserving the copies of the letters sent by her to her husband. This act of the respondent, according to us, is a most natu­ral behaviour of human being placed in such circumstances. Thus, we find mere preserving the copies of the letters by the wife does not constitute an act which amounts to mental cruelty, and a result of which it becomes impossible for the husband to live his wife. (Para 10)

       One of the functions of the Women Protection Cell is to bring about reconcil­iation between the estranged spouses. There is not evidence on record to show that either the appellant or any member of his family were harassed by the Cell. The Cell only made efforts to bring about recon­ciliation between the parties but failed. Out of panic if the appel­lant and members of his family sought anticipatory bail, the respond­ent cannot be blamed for that. Thus, we are of the opinion, that representation made by the parents of the respondent to the Cell for reconciliation of the estranged spouses does not amount to mental cruelty caused to the appellant. (Para 11)