2006 Supreme(SC) 247

2006(2) Supreme 662
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
Mrs. Ruma Pal & Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan, JJ.
Vinita Saxena —Appellant
versus
Pankaj Pandit —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1687 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26418 of 2004)
Decided on 21-3-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Mrs. S. Bakshi, Ms. Sunita Dwivedi and Ms. Rani, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Dhruv Mehta, S. Rajappa, Advocates.

Very Important Points1. Where the parties are young and the mental disorder is of such a type that sexual act and procreation of children is not possible, it may furnish a good ground for nullifying the marriage.2. To amount to cruelty, there must be such wilful treatment of the party which caused suffering in body or mind either as an actual fact or by way of apprehension in such a manner as to render the continued living together of spouses harmful or injurious having regard to the circumstances of the case.3. For the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, cruelty may be mental such as indifference and frigidity towards wife, denial of a company to her, hatred and abhorrence for wife or physical, like acts of violence and abstinence from sexual intercourse without reasonable cause.4. As to what constitute the required mental cruelty for purposes of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, will not depend upon the numerical count of such incidents or only on the continuous course of such conduct but really go by the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of it when meted out even once and deleterious effect of it on the mental attitude, necessary for maintaining a conducive matrimonial home.

Headnote:(i) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 13(1)(i-a) and (iii)—Divorce petition by wife—Ground of mental and physical cruelty—Plea of mental insanity—Husband was a case of Paranoid Schizophrenia—Appellant pleading that she could not be reasonably expected to live with him—Marriage has lasted hardly for five months and was never consummated—Parties have been living separately since 1993—13 years have passed, they have never seen each other—Parties are in litigation from the year 1994—Whether Courts below were justified in dismissing the petition for dissolution of marriage filed by wife—(No) —Orders of Courts below have resulted in grave miscarriage of justice to appellant who has been constrained into living with a dead relationship for over 13 years—It is a fit case for interference under Art. 136 of the Constitution and reversal of findings of Courts below—Constitution of India—Art. 136.

       Held : The trial Court failed to appreciate the uncontroverted evidence of the appellant who had proved the case on every count. It has been established beyond doubt by the Medical doctors who had deposed as witnesses and brought the original medical record of the respondent that the respondent is suffering from mental disorder. Further ground for grant of divorce on the plea of mental insanity/mental disorder is different than cruelty. The appellant, in our view, had proved beyond doubt that the respondent suffered from mental disorder and that the appellant suffered cruelty by and at the behest of the respondent. (Para 32)

       Each case depends on its own facts and must be judged on these facts. The concept of cruelty has varied from time to time, from place to place and from individual to individual in its application according to social status of the persons involved and their economic conditions and other matters. The question whether the act complained of was a cruel act is to be determined from the whole facts and the matrimonial relations between the parties. In this connection, the culture, temperament and status in life and many other things are the factors which have to be considered. (Para 38)

       Section 13(1)(iii) ‘mental disorder’ as a ground of divorce is only where it is of such a kind and degree that the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. Where the parties are young and the mental disorder is of such a type that sexual act and procreation of children is not possible it may furnish a good ground for nullifying the marriage because to beget children from a Hindu wedlock is one of the principal aim of Hindu Marriage where sanskar of marriage is advised for progeny and offspring. (Para 45)

       We can also take note of the fact that the respondent had filed a revision against the order of the trial Court’s direction for setting up of a medical Board to examine the respondent. At the time of hearing, this Court directed the counsel for the respondent to ascertain from the respondent as to whether he is willing to submit himself for medical examination. However, the respondent refused to submit himself for medical examination and go before the medical Board. This would but confirm the contention of the appellant that the respondent is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and that this Court can draw adverse inference in view of the conduct of the respondent. (Para 49)

       Humane aspects which this Court should consider :

       * The appellant was 24 years of age when she got married.

       * The marriage lasted for four to five months only when she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home.

       * The marriage between the parties was not consummated as the respondent was not in a position to fulfil the matrimonial obligation.

       * The parties have been living separately since 1993. 13 years have passed they have never seen each other.

       * Both the parties have crossed the point of no return.

       * A workable solution is certainly not possible.

       * Parties at this stage cannot reconcile themselves and live together forgetting their past as a bad dream.

       * Parties have been fighting the legal battle from the year 1994.

       * The situation between the parties would lead to a irrefutable conclusion that the appellant and the respondent can never ever stay as husband and wife and the wife’s stay with the respondent is injurious to her health.

       * The appellant has done her Ph.d. The respondent, according to the appellant, is not gainfully employed anywhere.

       * As a matter of fact, after leaving his deposition incomplete during the trial, the respondent till date has neither appeared before the trial Court nor before the High Court.

       The facts and circumstances of the case as well as all aspects pertain to humanity and life would give sufficient cogent reasons for us to allow the appeal and relieve the appellant from shackles and chain of the respondent and let her live her own life, if nothing less but like a human being. In our view, the orders of the Courts below have resulted in grave miscarriage of justice to the appellant who has been constrained into living with a dead relationship for over 13 years. The resultant agony and injustice that has been caused to the appellant, it is a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and reversal of findings of the Courts below which have resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. (Paras 53 to 55)

       (ii) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 13(1)(i-a) and (iii)—Cruelty—Legal proposition on the aspect of cruelty—General rule in all questions of cruelty is that the whole matrimonial relations must be considered—Indifference and frigidity towards wife, denial of a company to her, hatred and abhorrence for wife and abstinence from sexual intercourse without reasonable cause are covered—Court has to decide whether the sum total of the reprehensible conduct was cruel.

       Held : It is settled by catena of decisions that mental cruelty can cause even more serious injury than the physical harm and create in the mind of the injured appellant such apprehension as is contemplated in the Section. It is to be determined on whole facts of the case and the matrimonial relations between the spouses. To amount to cruelty, there must be such wilful treatment of the party which caused suffering in body or mind either as an actual fact or by way of apprehension in such a manner as to render the continued living together of spouses harmful or injurious having regard to the circumstances of the case. The word ‘cruelty’ has not been defined and it has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. There may be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the 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. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions, their culture and human values to which they attach importance. Judged by standard of modern civilization in the background of the cultural heritage and traditions of our society, a young and well educated woman like the appellant herein is not expected to endure the harassment in domestic life whether mental, physical, intentional or unintentional. Her sentiments have to be respected, her ambition and aspiration taken into account in making adjustment and her basic needs provided, though grievances arising from temperamental disharmony. (Paras 34 to 36)

       The legal concept of cruelty which is not defined by statute is generally described as conduct of such character as to have caused danger to life, limb or health (bodily and mental) or to give rise to reasonable apprehension of such danger. The general rule in all question of cruelty is that the whole matrimonial relations must be considered, that rule is of a special value when the cruelty consists not of violent act but of injurious reproaches, complains accusations or taunts. It may be mental such as indifference and frigidity towards wife, denial of a company to her, hatred and abhorrence for wife or physical, like acts of violence and abstinence from sexual intercourse without reasonable cause. It must be proved that one partner in the marriage however mindless of the consequences has behaved in a way which the other spouse could not in the circumstances be called upon to endure, and that misconduct has caused injury to health or a reasonable apprehension of such injury. There are two sides to be considered in case of cruelty. From the appellant’s side, ought this appellant to be called on to endure the conduct? From the respondent’s side, was this conduct excusable? The court has then to decide whether the sum total of the reprehensible conduct was cruel. That depends on whether the cumulative conduct was sufficiently serious to say that from a reasonable person’s point of view after a consideration of any excuse which the respondent might have in the circumstances, the conduct is such that the petitioner ought not be called upon to endure. (Para 39)

       As to what constitute the required mental cruelty for purposes of the said provision, will not depend upon the numerical count of such incidents or only on the continuous course of such conduct but really go by the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of it when meted out even once and the deleterious effect of it on the mental attitude, necessary for maintaining a conducive matrimonial home. If the taunts, complaints and reproaches are of ordinary nature only, the court perhaps need consider the further question as to whether their continuance or persistence over a period of time render, what normally would, otherwise, not be so serious an act to be so injurious and painful as to make the spouse charged with them genuinely and reasonably conclude that the maintenance of matrimonial home is not possible any longer. (Paras 40 and 41)

       Spouses owe rights and duties each to the other and in their relationship they must act reasonably. In every case where cruelty exists it is possible to say that the spouse at fault has been unreasonable. The list of cruelty, therefore, should be breach of the duty to act reasonably, whether in omission or commission, causing injury to health. Such a list avoids imputing on intention where in fact none may exist. Further all such matters are foresight, desires, wishes, intention, motives, perception, obtuseness, persistence and indifference would remain relevant but merely as matter of evidence bearing upon the requirement to act reasonably or as aggravation of the matters charged. (Para 48)