Mental cruelty is determined by the cumulative effect of matrimonial conduct. The filing of a criminal complaint and subsequent acquittal does not automatically constitute cruelty, as matrimonial and criminal proceedings differ in their standards of proof and legal objectives.

JUDGMENT :

H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, J.

This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru (‘the Trial Court’ for short) in M.C. No.3429/2021, whereby the petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short) came to be allowed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The appellant was also directed to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 25,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of the petition.

2. Briefly stated the facts are, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 11.11.2001 at Chitrapur Math, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru. The parties have two children. The factum of marriage and the paternity of the children are not in dispute. The respondent-wife approached the Trial Court contending that, after the marriage, the relationship between the parties gradually deteriorated. According to her, the appellant subjected her to physical, verbal and emotional cruelty, neglected her and the children, frequently abused her, and displayed an over-possessive and suspicious attitude. She further alleged that, over a period of time, the appellant had distanced her from her family members and relatives.

3. The respondent also alleged that the appellant was addicted to vises and that, despite her efforts to persuade him to give up these habits, there was no improvement in his conduct. According to the respondent, though the parties continued to reside in the same building for some time, they occupied separate rooms and, in substance, were living separate lives. She stated that she was ultimately constrained to leave the matrimonial home along with the children and thereafter lived separately.

4. It was further pleaded that, on an earlier occasion, criminal proceedings had been initiated under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and his family members. According to the respondent, the proceedings were subsequently withdrawn or not pursued following the intervention of family members and well-wishers and an assurance given by the appellant that he would mend his ways and take care of her and the children. She alleged that, thereafter, the appellant resumed his earlier conduct.

5. The respondent also relied upon an earlier matrimonial proceeding instituted by the appellant under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. According to her, the said proceeding was not pursued to its logical conclusion and thereafter, the parties made an attempt to resume their matrimonial life. The attempt, however did not succeed and the parties once again started living separately.

6. The appellant resisted the petition and denied the allegations of cruelty. According to him, the allegations were false, exaggerated and unsupported by cogent evidence. He contended that material facts had been suppressed and that the respondent herself was responsible for the deterioration of the matrimonial relationship. The appellant alleged that the respondent was influenced and instigated by her parents, sister and other relatives and that she frequently quarrelled with him and his family members. It was further alleged that she had threatened to initiate criminal proceedings against the appellant and his family and had, in fact, lodged a complaint under Section 498-A of the IPC.

7. The appellant contended that the respondent had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and thereafter taken shelter in her brother's house. As regards the allegation concerning his habits, the appellant admitted that he occasionally consumed alcohol, chewed gutka/tobacco and smoked, but denied that he was addicted to such habits or that they had resulted in matrimonial discord. He also denied having undergone counselling or treatment on account of such habits.

8. The appellant maintained