Mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act is established through sustained conduct causing mental anguish, justifying divorce when the marital relationship becomes unsafe and impractical.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.)

This appeal by the respondent-wife calls in question the order dated 29.03.2019 in H.M.O.P. No.477 of 2018 by which the learned Family Judge, Madurai, allowed the petition filed by the petitioner- husband and dissolved the marriage on the ground of cruelty.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to by their rank before the learned Trial Court.

3. Gist of the Petitioner-Husband’s Case Before the learned Trial Court:

3.1. The marriage between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife was held on 23.05.2012, at Melmangalam Saurashtra Marriage Hall in accordance with Hindu customary rites and practices, in the presence of the elders and relatives of both the families. At the time of marriage, the respondent’s parents contributed 28 sovereigns of gold jewellery and necessary home appliances as stridhan to their daughter, the respondent-wife. Even at the time of marriage, the petitioner-husband was serving as a Jawan in the Indian Army. After marriage, the petitioner and the respondent commenced their matrimonial life in their shared matrimonial home belonging to the petitioner-husband. On completion of his leave, the petitioner joined duty in the Army. The respondent was a graduate at the time of marriage. The petitioner’s parents, with the consent of the respondent, facilitated the respondent in joining the Teachers Training Course at Thiraviyam Women Teachers Training College by spending Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Thousand only) towards fees and other establishment charges and encouraged the respondent to continue her studies at their own expense, and the respondent travelled to her college in the college bus. On one particular day, it was seen that she had travelled to her college in a two-wheeler of an unknown young man.

3.2. During that time, whenever the petitioner contacted the respondent from Jammu, she had negated his conversation and discouraged him from contacting her, causing untold mental agony in his place of work. Though for the first two months the respondent had gone to college happily, one fine day, without sufficient reasons and without informing either the petitioner or his parents, she unreasonably left for her maternal home at Madurai at the instance of her parents. On coming to know that the respondent had gone to her maternal home, the petitioner took diligent efforts to directly visit the respondent’s maternal home at Madurai, on which day the respondent categorically informed the petitioner that she would continue living with him only if a separate house was arranged by the petitioner for separate living at Periyakulam. On coming to know these facts, the petitioner’s parents visited the respondent and her parents and assured them that they themselves would take proper steps to arrange a separate house for the separate living of their son and the respondent.

3.3. While so, on 17.02.2013, the respondent gave birth to a male child and named the child Sriram. In the meanwhile, during vacation in April 2013, when the petitioner fondly visited the respondent-wife and his child at her maternal home, he was not well received by the respondent, her family members, and one Vellasamy, who together humiliated the petitioner by taunting him that he was a person unable to arrange a separate residence for living with his wife and child, and demeaned him as one unfit for a matrimonial life with his wife and little son. Thus, the petitioner was subjected to untold mental agony and abuse by the respondent and her family members by not allowing him to fully visit his newborn son, as a result of which the petitioner com