ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
D.P. Singh, J.
Smt. Sandhya Singh —Appellant
versus
Major Sandeep Singh —Respondent
First Appeal No. 437 of 2006
Decided on 17.2.2009

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Where the matrimonial bond has broken beyond repair with no chances of reconciliation, forcing its continuance would lead to further anguish, frustration, the decree of divorce granted on ground of mental cruelty by wife, requires no interference.
(2) The term ‘mental cruelty’, not defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, depends on various parameters in a given fact situation. It would not only be appropriate but necessary to review the married life of the parties in all aspects.

Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 13(1)(ia) —Divorce on ground of mental cruelty—Petition filed by husband—Both husband and wife belonged to Army families—Husband also posted in army giving specific instances stating behaviour and conduct of wife causing immense emotional stress, mental agony to husband petitioner—Wife found to be alcoholic and also a case of depression—She took no interest in her married life and deprived husband of pleasure of matrimony—She blackmailed husband by threatening and attempting suicide—Trial Court made efforts for conciliation but it failed—Trial Court granted divorce holding the wife was guilty of mental cruelty and that the marriage had irretrievably broken down—There was acute lack of trust between the parties—Both have been living separately since 23.10.1998—Whether decree of divorce has rightly been granted?—(Yes).

       Held: The term ‘mental cruelty’ has not been defined under the Act, rather it cannot be defined and depends on various parameters in a given fact situation. It would not only be appropriate but necessary to review the married life of the parties in all its aspects. The several acts should be considered cumulatively and only then the question should be asked whether it is reasonably impossible to condone the acts. The conduct should be unprovoked and constitute a course of humiliatary treatment that actually effects the mental health of the spouse which may make life miserable. But, mere distasteful or irritating conduct, displeasure, anger, etc. may not be cruelty itself, unless it results in excessive suffering which may cause severe pain to a reasonable person. The bond of marriage has necessarily to undergo normal wear and tear and some stray instance of discord would normally have to be ignored except where it forms a regular behaviour. Courts have spent considerable time and have made tremendous efforts in various cases to pick through the human mind to adjudge whether the conduct of the spouse falls within the term “mental cruelty”. Human mind, intricate as it is, is incapable of precise comprehension. But it is always useful to fall back on decided cases for guidance. (Para 14)

        In this short period of more than three years all this has happened, coupled with the fact that this Court while making effort for reconciliation between the two, found that there is acute lack of trust between them. If all these instances are considered together, there can be no other conclusion except to hold that it is a case of mental cruelty. Both have been living separately since 23.10.1998, more than a decade as of now. Though counsel for the appellant is vehement that these are trivial instances which have been blown out of proportion because Sandeep Singh cared more for his future prospects and career than his wife. No doubt, the spouse is supposed to strike a pragmatic balance between duty towards the spouse and building his/her career, but, at the same time, as an individual he/she is entitled to his aspirations and to better his career options. It is on record that Sandeep Singh is an exceptional Army Officer, who has been rated very high in different courses and appears to have a bright future. During reconciliation, this Court confronted him with the possibility of this divorce being used against him in his career prospects, he was candid and firm that he would rather leave the Army than stay with Sandhya. (Para 28)

       It has come on record and proved that Sandeep is a tetotaler but Shekhawat, Chetna, Mamgain all have proved that Sandhya was deep in drinking. The statement of Mamgain is very specific. There is a diagnosis of the Doctor attached with his letter as paper No. 220G2/14 wherein Sandhya has been found to be an alcoholic and also a case of depression. It also shows that she was also treated for sometime but she did not continue the treatment. This report has been proved by Mamgain. There is no convincing evidence to show that it is concocted or fabricated, it .is a document prepared in the normal course of business and is worth believing. In fact it lays tremendous credence to the statement of Sandeep.

       Both come from good and educated families. Their financial and social status appears to be of a high degree. The atmosphere of Army society, especially in an armoured unit is more formal than casual. Lady wives in the Army command immense respect and in parties they generally have precedence over the officers. They generally are soft spoken and very civilised in their behaviour. A lady wife, and that too from an Army background, making wild accusations against her husband of womenizing, is shocking and abnormal behaviour, to say the least. Publicly humiliating him in parties, is also obnoxious behaviour. (Paras 35 & 36)

       It is an unfortunate saga of a failed relationship and forcing its continuance would lead to further anguish, frustration and would deprive both of whatever is left of their lives. It has been more than a decade since they are living separately. Filing of criminal cases has further poisoned the relationship. Taking a holistic view of the situation, the Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the bond has broken beyond repair with no chances of reconciliation. It would not only be unreasonable, but dangerous too, to force them together. It is always best to pick out whatever remains from the wreckage and start fresh. It is better to have one in the hand than to venture for the two in the thorny bush. Under these compelling circumstances, the decree of divorce has rightly been granted and does not call for any interference. (Para 38)

       Result: Appeal dismissed.