Advocates:
SATISH VIG

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 10

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 3930 of 2002

PETITIONER:

PARVEEN MEHTA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

INDERJIT MEHTA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/07/2002

BENCH:

D.P. MOHAPATRA, BRIJESH KUMAR.

JUDGMENT:

D.P.MOHAPATRA,J.

Leave granted.

What is the meaning and import of the

expression ’cruelty’ as a matrimonial offence is the core

question on the determination of which depends the result

and the fate of this case.

The appellant is the wife of the respondent. They

were married according to Hindu rites and customs on 6th

December, 1985. The marriage was preceded by

negotiation between the two families, ring exchange

ceremony, etc. A meeting between the boy and the girl was

also arranged at Yamuna Nagar in the State of Haryana.

After marriage the spouses stayed together at Panipat

where the respondent was posted as a Judicial Officer.

They lived together till 28th April, 1986 when they parted

company never to stay together again. It is the case of the

respondent that right from the first day of the marriage he

sensed something abnormal with his wife; he was unable

to consummate the marriage as there was no cooperation

from the side of the wife for sexual intercourse. Despite

several attempts cohabitation was not possible for lack of

cooperation on the part of the wife. It is the further case of

the respondent that when he first met his wife when some

members of the two families met he had noticed that she

was looking very frail and weak. When he wanted to know

the reason for such state of her health her father and other

relations told him that she had been undergoing a strict

diet control and had been making efforts to reduce her

w.eight

On questioning his wife immediately after the

marriage the respondent could ascertain that she was

suffering from some ailment and she was under the

treatment of Vaid Amar Nath Sastry of Chandigarh. On

10th December, 1985 the respondent took his wife to see

Mr.Sastry at Chandigarh who informed him that father of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 10

the girl was his close friend and he was already seized of

the problems of her health. He gave some medicines to be

taken by her. Thereafter they returned to Yamuna Nagar

where parents of the respondent were living. Subsequently,

the respondent took the appellant to Panipat where he was

posted and they started living there and continued with

the medicines. In February, 1986 the appellant agreed to

be examined by Dr.B.M.Nagpal of Civil Hospital, Panipat.

The doctor advised a thorough check up and diagnosis.

However, this was not possible since the appellant did not

cooperate and ultimately gave out because she was not

interested in taking any medical treatment.

The respondent further alleged that the state of

health of the appellant continued to deteriorate; she

continued to lose weight; she suffered from asthmatic

attacks; on account of her ailment her behavior became

quarrelsome; and on trifle matters she threatened to leave

the matrimonial home. It was further contended that

during her stay at Panipat when Surinder Singh Rao and

Virender Jain, friends of the respondent visited his place,

the appellant refused to prepare tea and started

misbehaving with him in presence of the outsiders thereby

causing embarrassment to him. Ultimately on 28th April,

1986 her brother and brother’s wife came to Panipat and

took the appellant with them. It was the further case of

the respondent that when the appellant was with her

parents several attempts were made by him offering to give

her the best possible medical treatment so that the

condition of her health may improve and both of them

could lead a happy married life. All such attempts failed.

The offer of medical treatment was rejected and even

nature of the ailment suffered by her was not disclosed to

the respondent.

On one occasion when Shri S.K. Jain, a senior officer

of the Judi