representation made by the parents of the respondent to the Cell for reconciliation of the estranged spouses does not amount to mental cruelty caused to the appellant.
The last act of the respondent, which according to the learned counsel for theappellant, amounts to mental cruelty is that she lodged a complaint with the Women Protection Cell, through her uncle and as a result of which the appellantand the members of his family had to seek anticipatory bail. The respondent in her evidence stated that she had never lodged any complaint against theappellant or any members of his family with the Women Protection Cell. However, she stated that her parents sought help from Women Protection Cell for reconciliation through one of her relative who, at one time, happened to be the Superintendent of Police. It is on the record that one of the functions of the Women Protection Cell is to bring about reconciliation between the estranged spouses. There is no evidence on record to show that either the appellant or any member of his family were harassed by the Cell. The Cell only made efforts to bring about reconciliation between the parties but failed. Out of panic if theappellant and members of his family sought anticipatory bail, the respondent cannot be blamed for that. Thus, we are of the opinion, that representation made by the parents of the respondent to the Cell for reconciliation of the estranged spouses does not amount to mental cruelty caused to the appellant.
Supreme Court of India
S.Hanumantha Rao vs S.Ramani on 31 March, 1999
