2004 Supreme(SC) 1509

2005(1) Supreme 626
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Mrs. Ruma Pal, Arijit Pasayat and C.K. Thakker, JJ.
A. Jayachandra —Appellant
versus
Aneel Kaur —Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 7763-7764 of 2004
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8655-8656 of 2003)
Decided on 2-12-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Advocate, Mahesh Agrawal, Tarun Dua, Ms. Momota Devi Oinam and E.C. Agrawala, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mrs. S. Vani, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao and Sushil Kumar Pathak, Advocates.­

Important pointTo constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be ‘grave and weighty’ so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than ‘ordinary wear and tear of married life’.

Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1956—Section 13(1)—Husband’s divorce petition on ground of cruelty—Appellant and respondent, both doctors got married in 1978—Love marriage, appellant husband being a Telugu Brahmin while respondent wife belongs to Sikh religion—They were both working in the hospital established by appellant’s father—Husband’s allegations that behaviour and conduct of respondent was causing immense emotional stress, mental agony—It was specifically stated that respondent has ill-treated her husband, abused him in vulgar language causing mental agony, damage and loss personally and professionally—Allegations were made about husband’s character—Suit for injunction was filed by respondent wife in respect of right to practise in the hospital—Suit was decreed as the suit was not objected to by appellant—Execution petition was filed praying for attachment of hospital equipments belonging to appellant and also for his civil detention—Application for maintenance was also filed though she is a professional doctor—Whether appellant husband is entitled to a decree of divorce—(Yes).

       Held : The expression “cruelty” has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. (Para 10)

       The expression ‘cruelty’ 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. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the Court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second and impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or 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. (Para 11)

       To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be “grave and weighty” so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than “ordinary wear and tear of married life”. The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. (Para 12)

       The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other’s fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and as noted above, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A too technical and hyper-sensitive approach would be counter-productive to the institution of marriage. The Courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court. (Para 14)

       On reading of judgments of the trial Court and the High Court one thing is clear. While the trial Court analysed the evidence in great detail and found that the accepted stand of the respondent-wife regarding her behaviour and conduct caused mental agony and amounted to mental cruelty, the High Court did not discuss the evidence at all. On the specious ground that witnesses from the hospital were not examined and, therefore, adverse inference was to be drawn. There was not even any discussion as to how the evidence led was insufficient to establish mental cruelty. The High Court’s view that if at all it was a fact that respondent was using abusive language and making allegations of adultery with nursing staff, some witnesses from the hospital were necessary to be examined is clearly indefensible. That alone should not have been made the determinative factor to discard evidence on record. On that ground alone the judgment of the High Court is vulnerable. The evidence as led and which is practically undisputed is that the respondent had asked the husband to do certain things which cannot be termed to be a simple advice for proper behaviour. (Para 15)

       Contrary to what she had stated about having full faith in her husband, the so called advices were nothing but casting doubt on the reputation, character and fidelity of her husband. Constant nagging on those aspects, certainly amounted to causing indelible mental agony and amounts to cruelty. The respondent was not an ordinary woman. She was a doctor in the hospital and knew the importance of the nature of duty and the necessity of members of the staff working even during off hours and the working conditions. There was another instance which was specifically dealt with by the trial Court. Same related to the alleged extra marital relationships of the appellant with another married lady who was wife of his friend. Though the respondent tried to explain that she was not responsible for making any such aspersions, the inevitable conclusion is to the contrary. (Para 15)

       The respondent in her evidence clearly accepted that she intended to proceed with the execution proceedings, and prayer for arrest till the divorce case was finalized. When the respondent gives priority to her profession over her husband’s freedom it points unerringly at disharmony, diffusion and disintegration of marital unity, from which the Court can deduce about irretrievable breaking of marriage. (Para 16)

       It is true that irretrievable breaking of marriage is not one of the statutory grounds on which Court can direct dissolution of marriage, this Court has with a view to do complete justice and shorten the agony of the parties engaged in long drawn legal battle, directed in those cases dissolution of marriage. But as noted in the said cases themselves those were exceptional cases. In the aforesaid legal and factual background the inevitable conclusion is that the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce and we direct accordingly. (Paras 17 and 18)