Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Case law- Section 13 (1)(ia) - Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh
Bench: Justice B.N. Agrawal, Justice P.P. Naolekar and Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Facts:
- The marriage between the parties got solemnized in 1984. Jaya Ghosh, herein the Respondent was a divorcee and had a female child from the first marriage.
- Serious matrimonial problems arose between the parties as the Respondent kept herself aloof from Samar Ghosh, herein the Appellant and unilaterally decided to not to have his children after the marriage.
- On one occasion, the Appellant suffered prolonged illness and the Respondent did not even bother to meet or enquire about the husband’s health.
- The Respondent had humiliated the Appellant on various occasions and deprived him of a cordial marital relationship.Admittedly, the parties have been living separately since 27th August, 1990 without a single occasion where they have interacted.
- Henceforth, the Appellant filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage with the Respondent,on ground of mental cruelty suffered by him.
Issues:
- What is the meaning of “mental cruelty” in matrimonial cases?
- Whether it is possible to law down uniform standard to demarcate the mental cruelty from normal wear and tear of married life?
Contentions of the Appellant:
- The apathy of the respondent and her inhuman conduct towards the Appellant became apparent soon after marriage.
- The Respondent denial to cohabit and her unilateral decision to not give birth to a child, caused mental cruelty to the Appellant.
- The Respondent did not permit the Appellant to even show his affection towards the child of the Respondent from the first marriage.
- The Respondent cooked food only for herself, turned the Appellant out of their house are few of the instances where the Respondent humiliated the Appellant. She desired sadistic pleasure at the plight of the appellant which affected his health and mental peace.
Contentions of the Respondent:
- The Respondent alleged that the relatives of the Appellant were interfering in their marital life which caused annoyance to the Respondent.
- The relationship between the parties was not cordial and the Appellant himself left the flat after an argument on 27.8.1990.
Background:
The learned Additional District Judge dissolved the marriage and ruled in favour of the Appellant. It was founded that he had successfully proved mental cruelty by the Respondent. Aggrieved by the decision of the ADJ, the Respondent filed an appeal before the High Court, wherein the judgment of the ADJ was reversed. The Appellant then preferred a second appeal before the Supreme Court which passed its judgment given below.
Judgment:
The Apex Court while deliberating upon the concept of mental cruelty, examined a catena of cases observed that there cannot be any exhaustive definition of mental cruelty. “What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case.” Hence, it will be reasonable to determine mental cruelty on peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
The top court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment of the ADJgranting the decree of divorce. It was held that unilaterally deciding upon vital decisions of a marriage amounts to mental cruelty. The Respondent's total indifference and humiliating behaviour towards the Appellantcertainly led to great annoyance leading to mental cruelty.
Furthermore, the parties have been admittedly living separately for more than sixteen and half years, leading to disappearance of the entire substratum of the marriage. The marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably due to the mental cruelty suffered by the Appellant.
Hence, the court held that efforts made in furtherance to save a broken-down marriage would be counterproductive.
