Key Points: - The judgment discusses Section 13(1)(i-a) grounds, specifically cruelty, including mental cruelty, and how they are established (!) (!) (!) . - It explains that cruelty can be mental or physical, and need not cause injury to health; the conduct must make living together unreasonable given circumstances (!) (!) . - It notes the Hindu Marriage Act amendment in 1976 and the scope of Section 13(1)(i-a) for divorce (not just judicial separation) and the removal of requirement for reasonable apprehension of harm (!) (!) (!) . - It provides decisions and standards on evaluating cruelty, including the impact of cross-examination and pleadings, and that in exceptional cases, a court may grant divorce on pleadings without full trial to resolve an insoluble mess (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The case details the unusual remedies due to irretrievable breakdown and ongoing rancor, leading to dissolution of marriage (!) (!) (!) . - It emphasizes that the cruelty must be evaluated in context, with no exhaustive definition, considering social status, culture, and circumstances (!) (!) (!) .

What is the ground of cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act Section 13(1)(ia) as applied in this case?

What constitutes mental cruelty in the context of dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) and how is it established?

What circumstances justify the extraordinary step of granting a divorce on the basis of pleadings and written statements without a full trial?