2002 Supreme(SC) 679

2002(4) Supreme 596
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
D.P. Mohapatra and Brijesh Kumar, JJ.
Parveen Mehta -Appellant
versus
Inderjit Mehta -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3930 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21312 of 2000)
Decided on 11-7-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
 For the Appellant : Ujjagar Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Naresh Bakshi for Mr. Satish Vig, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Advocate, Jasbir S. Malik, Mr. Amar Vivek, Achintya Dwivedi for S.K. Sabharwal, Advocates.

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
In the context of facts and circumstances of the case High Court was right in coming to the conclusion (contrary to Trial Court) that the prayer of respondent for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty (particularly mental cruelty) under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was acceptable.

Headnote:(i) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-Sections 13(1)(ia) and 10(1)(b)-What is the meaning and import of the expression cruelty as a matrimonial offence? Whether it includes physical as well as mental cruelty? (Yes)-Case law discussed.

       Held : The accepted legal meaning in England as also in India of this expression, which is rather difficult to define, had been conduct of such character as to have caused danger to life, limb or health (bodily or mental), or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger [Russel v. Russel [(1897) AC 395 and Mulla Hindu Law, 17th Edition, Volume II page 87]. (Para 14)

       In essence what must be taken as fairly settled position is that though the clause does not in terms say so it is abundantly clear that the application of the rule must depend on the circumstances of each case; that cruelty contemplated is conduct of such type that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. The treatment accorded to the petitioner must be such as to cause an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that cohabitation will be so harmful or injurious that she or he cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent having regard to the circumstances of each case, keeping always in view the character and condition of the parties, their status environments and social values, as also the customs and traditions governing them. (Para 15)

       Clause (ia) of sub-Section (1) of Section 13 of the Act is comprehensive enough to include cases of physical as also mental cruelty. It was formerly thought that actual physical harm or reasonable apprehension of it was the prime ingredient of this matrimonial offence. That doctrine is now repudiated and the modern view has been that mental cruelty can cause even more grievous injury and create in the mind of the injured spouse reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or unsafe to live with the other party. The principle that cruelty may be inferred from the whole facts and matrimonial relations of the parties and interaction in their daily life disclosed by the evidence is of greater cogency in cases falling under the head of mental cruelty. Thus mental cruelty has to be established from the facts (Mulla Hindu Law, 17th Edition, Volume II, page 91). (Para 19)

       (ii) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib)-Divorce petition on grounds of cruelty and desertion-Dismissed by Trial Court-High Court decreed on ground of mental cruelty of wife-Husband remarrying-Wife s appeal to Supreme Court-Allegations of husband right from day one after marriage that wife neither cooperated with him in having sexual intercourse on account of ill health which was not properly disclosed nor cooperated in getting herself properly treated-There was no consumation of marriage-Parties living apart for several years-Whether High Court was right in granting divorce on ground of mental cruelty? (Yes)-Whether subsequent events of re-marriage of husband after sufficient waiting and irretrievable breakdown further justify the divorce? (Yes)-Appeal dismissed.

       Held : Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) is to be taken as a behavior by one spouse towards the other which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behavior or behavioral pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty the mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehavior in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other. (Para 21)

       Applying on facts held : Judged in the light of the principles discussed above what we find is that right from the beginning the matrimonial relationship between the parties was not normal; the spouses stayed together at the matrimonial home for a short period of about six months; the respondent had been trying to persuade the appellant and her parents to agree to go for proper medical treatment to improve her health so that the parties may lead a normal sexual life; all such attempts proved futile. The appellant even refused to subject herself to medical test as advised by the doctor. After 21st June, 1987 she stayed away from the matrimonial home and the respondent was deprived of her company. In such circumstances, the respondent who was enjoying normal health was likely to feel a sense of anguish and frustration in being deprived of normal cohabitation that every married person expects to enjoy and also social embarrassment due to the behavior of the appellant. Further, the conduct of the appellant in approaching the police complaining against her husband and his parents and in not accepting the advice of the superior judicial officer Mr. S.K. Jain and taking a false plea in the case that she had conceived but unfortunately there was miscarriage are bound to cause a sense of mental depression in the respondent. The cumulative effect of all these on the mind of the respondent, in our considered view, amounts to mental cruelty caused due to the stubborn attitude and inexplicably unreasonable conduct of the appellant. (Para 22)

       Held further : In the context of the facts and circumstances on record we are of the view that the learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the prayer of the respondent for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act was acceptable. Therefore, the Division Bench committed no error in upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge. As noted earlier the parties were married on 6th December, 1985. They stayed together for a short period till 28th April 1986 when they parted company. Despite several attempts by relatives and well-wishers no conciliation between them was possible. The petition for the dissolution of the marriage was filed in the year 1996. In the meantime so many years have elapsed since the spouses parted company. In these circumstances it can be reasonably inferred that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably without any fault on the part of the respondent. Further the respondent has re-married in the year 2000. On this ground also the decision of the High Court in favour of the respondent s prayer for dissolution of the marriage should not be disturbed. Accordingly this appeal fails and is dismissed. There will, however, be no order for costs. (Paras 23 & 24)