1. Divorce petition alleging mental cruelty — refusal to cohabit, unilateral refusal to have children, humiliation, and driving spouse from matrimonial home. (Para 17020072810001 , 17020072810002 , 17020072810003 , 17020072810004 , 17020072810005 , 17020072810006 , 17020072810007 , 17020072810008 , 17020072810009 , 17020072810010 )
Back
Next 
2007 Supreme(Raj) 486
Supreme Court
Honble B.N. AGRAWAL, J. Honble P.P. NAOLEKAR, J. Honble DALVEER BHANDARI, J.
Samar Ghosh - Appellant
Versus
Jaya Ghosh - Respondents
Appeal (Civil) No. 151 of 2004
Decided On : March 26, 2007
Subject
Divorce Law - Mental Cruelty
Act Referred
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT : S.13(1)(1)(a)
Headnote
(a) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sec. 13(1)(i)(a) – Divorce petition on the ground of ``mental cruelty – Scope of the word ``mental cruelty, explained eleborately – Held – It listed specific actions as amounting to mental cruelty – Conduct must be persistent for a fairly long period and is so offensive that the other party finds it difficult to live together – The behaviour patterns so mentioned must persist over a period of time to warrant the conclusion that the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down and qualified to be the ground for divorce.(b) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sec. 13(1)(i)(a) – Divorce on the ground of ``mental cruelty – While deciding any divorce petition based on the ground of ``mental cruelty, married life should be reviewed as a whole and that a few isolated incidents over a period of years will not amount to cruelty.(c) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sec. 13(1)(i)(a) – ``Mental Cruelty – Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty but made allowance for the fact that frequent rudeness of language, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse intolerable. (Paras 91 to 95)
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
family law
-
divorce
-
mental cruelty
- refusal to cohabit (Para 17020072810028, 17020072810069)
- refusal to have children (Para 17020072810025, 17020072810094)
- neglect during illness (Para 17020072810029, 17020072810030)
- humiliation and driving out (Para 17020072810009, 17020072810021)
- irretrievable breakdown (Para 17020072810033, 17020072810053, 17020072810095)
-
mental cruelty
-
divorce
Table of Contents
2. Appellant alleges mental cruelty; respondent denies cruelty and contends appellant condoned the acts and started living with respondent. (Para 17020072810011 , 17020072810012 , 17020072810013 , 17020072810014 , 17020072810015 , 17020072810016 , 17020072810017 , 17020072810018 , 17020072810019 )
3. Supreme Court restores divorce decree granted by trial court, sets aside High Court reversal, and directs parties to bear own costs. (Para 17020072810097 )
4. What constitutes mental cruelty as a ground for divorce under matrimonial law?
Mental cruelty is a course of conduct by one spouse causing reasonable apprehension that cohabitation is unsafe. It need not be physical; it includes abusive, humiliating treatment causing mental anguish making married life intolerable. (Para 17020072810037 , 17020072810038 , 17020072810044 , 17020072810048 , 17020072810049 )
5. Does unilateral refusal to have children after marriage amount to mental cruelty?
Yes. A unilateral decision by either spouse after marriage not to have children may amount to cruelty as it causes mental suffering and destroys the foundation of marital life. (Para 17020072810025 , 17020072810094 )
6. Does refusal to cohabit amount to mental cruelty?
Yes. Refusal to cohabit, when proved, constitutes mental cruelty as it violates the marital bond and makes continued cohabitation impossible or intolerable. (Para 17020072810028 , 17020072810069 )
7. Does long-term continuous separation amount to irretrievable breakdown of marriage?
Where parties live separately for a long period with no interaction and no prospect of reconciliation, the marriage has broken down irretrievably and divorce may be granted. (Para 17020072810033 , 17020072810053 , 17020072810095 )
8. Can neglect and indifference during the spouse's illness constitute mental cruelty?
Yes. Total indifference and neglect of a spouse during illness, including failure to enquire about health even by telephone, can amount to mental cruelty causing grave annoyance. (Para 17020072810029 , 17020072810030 )
Honble BHANDARI, J.–This is yet another unfortunate matrimonial dispute which has shattered the twenty two year old matrimonial bond between the parties. The appellant and the respondent are senior officials of the Indian Administrative Service, for short IAS. The appellant and the respondent were married on 13.12.1984 at Calcutta under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The respondent was a divorcee and had a female child from her first marriage. The custody of the said child was given to her by the District Court of Patna where the respondent had obtained a decree of divorce against her first husband, Debashish Gupta, who was also an I.A.S. officer.
(2). The appellant and the respondent knew each other since 1983. The respondent, when she was serving as the Deputy Secretary in the Department of Finance, Government of West Bengal, used to meet the appellant between November 1983 and June 1984. They cultivated close friendship which later developed into courtship.
(3). The respondents first husband, Debashish Gupta filed a belated appeal against the decree of divorce obtained by her from the District Court of Patna. Therefore, during the pendency of the appeal, she literally persuaded the appellant to agree to the marriage immediately so that the appeal of Debashish Gupta may become infructuous. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.12.1984. According to the appellant, soon after the marriage, the respondent asked the appellant not to interfere with her career. She had also unilaterally declared her decision not to give birth to a child for two years and the appellant should not be inquisitive about her child and he should try to keep himself aloof from her as far as possible. According to the appellant, there was imposition of rationing in emotions in the arena of love, affection, future planning and normal human relations though he tried hard to reconcile himself to the situation created by the respondent.
(4). The appellant asserted that the apathy of the respondent and her inhuman conduct towards him became apparent in no time. In February 1985, the appellant suffered prolonged illness. The respondents brother was working in Bareilly. Her parents along with her daughter went there for sojourn. The appellant could not go because of high temperature and indifferent health. She left him and went to Bareilly even when there was no one to look after him during his illness. On her return, the respondent remained in Calcutta for about four days, but she did not care to meet the appellant or enquire about his health. According to the appellant, he made all efforts to make adjustments and to build a normal family life. He even used to go to Chinsurah every weekend where the respondent was posted but she showed no interest and was overtly indifferent to him. The appellant usually returned from Chinsurah totally dejected. According to the appellant, he felt like a stranger in his own family. The respondent unilaterally declared that she would not have any child and it was her firm decision. The appellant felt that his marriage with the respondent was merely an eye-wash because immediately after the marriage, serious matrimonial problems developed between them which kept growing.
(5). The respondent was transferred to Calcutta in May 1985. Their residential flat at the Minto Park Housing Estate stood allotted to the appellant. The respondent used to come to their flat intermittently. One Prabir Malik, a domestic servant-cum- cook also used to live in the said flat. He used to cook food and carry out household work for the appellant. According to the appellant, the respondent used to say that her daughter was being neglected and that she might even be harmed. The indication was towards Prabir Malik. The appellant and the respondent virtually began to live separately from September, 1985.
(6). The appellant was transferred to Murshidabad in May 1986 but the respondent continued to stay in Calcutta. The appellant stayed in Murs
