Introduction

           Marriage is a holy sacrament in our culture and not a mere contract between two parties. Therefore, it must be upheld with utmost care and dedication. Marital relationships require mutual trust, dependency, respect, love and reasonable adjustments along with the spouse. In a marital relationship there should be efforts from both the parties and there be space for individual growth and flourishment. However, when this bond breaks or becomes irreparable and there is no scope for reconciliation between the spouses, there is no option but to grant divorce.

           Divorce can be granted by the court on request of one party or may be granted on mutual consent. In any case the court tries to reconcile the parties in order to save the holy marital bond and grants divorce only as the last resort. Among the various grounds for divorce that has been recognised by the courts, one is the ground of mental cruelty. The ground of mental cruelty is something that is not mentioned under our law as a ground for divorce but was accepted by the courts by means of various landmark judgements seeing the grave impact that it may have on the piousness of the marital bond and the individual. Mental cruelty is something that cannot be proved by tangible proofs as it a psychological fact and therefore courts have to look at various facts and circumstances on case to case basic for deciding whether there has been mental cruelty upon one of the spouses. Moreover, not every disagreement on appoint between the spouses can be ground for claiming mental cruelty.

           Women are equal partners in a marital relationship and also equal contributors. Our society, traditionally, has always undermined the women’s role in a household and taken the women as entity who should work in accordance with the decisions of the spouse and contribute accordingly without having an individual say. Girl child used to be unwanted and were rarely provided education. The life of a women was supposed to be restricted to the four corners of the house. However, with time this has changed and women had proved their mettle in every field. Women are now doing extremely well in their careers and are at par with men and therefore should have individual choices and say in marital relationships too.

           Recently, a case came up before the court where the question was whether a wife prioritising her career can be ground for claiming mental cruelty upon her husband. This paper seeks to analyse the elements of mental cruelty and analyse this case.

Mental Cruelty & its elements

Mental cruelty may be done through various forms with the sole aim of making the life of the other party miserable. It may consist of verbal abuses or constant insults by the other party in abusive language or question upon fidelity, or any other thing that inflicts constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party. In the case of Praveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, the court held that there is no exact way to establish mental cruelty by direct evidence, but only a matter of interpretation to be observed from the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, in Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja, the court held that it is practically impossible to establish with exactitude what all can amount to mental cruelty.

It is not that every conduct of a party in a matrimonial relationship that is not in accordance with the other party will lead to cruelty upon the other party. Random quarrels or trivial arguments are part of a marital relationships and such day-to-day trivial happenings does not amount to cruelty. The conduct must be of brutal or grave nature so as to make the life of the other party miserable and one party causes mental pain, agony of suffering of such a high magnitude that it severs the marital bond and it becomes impossible for the suffering party to continue living with the other party.

In the case of Dastane v. Dastane, Justice YV Chandrachud had then observed, “The inquiry therefore has to be whether the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent. It is not necessary, as under the English law, that the cruelty must be of such a character as to cause “danger” to life, limb or health or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger.”

In the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, the court gave an illustrative list as what all can amount to mental cruelty and those were:

"(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.

(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.

(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.

(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.

(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.

(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.

(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.

(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.”

Mental Cruelty as a ground for divorce

           Mental Cruelty has not been mentioned as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The ground of cruelty was also added in the year 1976. However, the Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 provides cruelty as a ground for divorce and states that:

“Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty”

           Interpreting this section, the courts have stated that the word “cruelty” here also includes mental cruelty. In order to constitute cruelty, the conduct should be of such grave nature that it becomes reasonably impossible for the other spouse to continue in the marital tie. This annoyance can also be caused by mental agony and therefore, it can be said that mental cruelty is included as a ground for divorce under our law. In the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, the court observed that physical violence is not the absolute element to constitute cruelty and it may be done by inflicting immeasurable mental agony.

Landmark Cases

In the case of Dastane v. Dastane, the wife had on several occasions made threats abpout ending her life and used to verbally abuse her husband and his family members, spread ill words about him in the society, etc. The court observed that is a way of torturing the husband and that such acts amounted to mental cruelty. In the case of Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddi, the Supreme Court had held that even repeated demands for dowry by the husband or his family was a form of cruelty.

In the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, the wife had caused great mental agony to the husband through various ways like insulting and misbehaving with the petitioner and his family, having an illicit relationship with someone else, filling false F.I.R. against him, withdrawing large sums of his money, etc. The husband filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty in this case. The supreme court observed that the respondent had acted in way to make the life of the appellant a miserable hell with her adamant and callous attitude and she had tried every way to harass and torture the husband. The court held that there has been cruelty in this case and directed for dissolution of marriage according to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

In the case of Yudhisthir Singh v. Smt. Sarita, there were allegations about the wife that she didn’t attend the husband’s family’s ceremonies and functions or didn’t want to reside with the parents of the husband and wanted separate accommodation for herself. The facts of this case showed various proofs against these allegations. However, the court observed that even if these allegations were true, that in itself would not lead to mental cruelty. Such disagreements between the parties cannot be said to be leading to immeasurable mental agony to the other spouse. Thus, the appeal of the husband was dismissed in this case.

The case of Mr. Prakashchandra Joshi v. Mrs. Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi 

           In this June 2021 case, the divorce petition was filed by the husband against his wife on the grounds of mental cruelty and dissertation by his spouse filed under Section 13(1)(ia) and section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

           The facts of this case were that the petitioner and his wife were Indians who used to reside in Canada and it was the husband who first took them to Canada to settle there. Both wife and the husband were working professionals then. Later, after an accident the health of the husband detoriated and he lost his job and his wife used to nurse him the whole time and later on he finally came back to India. Meanwhile his wife and child stayed at Canada and the wife now had a flourishing career there. The husband wanted the wife to join him here in India but the wife wanted to continue in Canada. There were several contradicting versions by both sides but the above were established facts.

           The question that came before the court was “whether the appellant has been, in fact, subjected to cruelty by the respondent-wife to such an extent as to entitle him to a decree of divorce, more particularly in view of the admitted fact that the couple had themselves decided to shift to Canada after their marriage for better prospects and admittedly acquired verseas citizenship of Canada with their free consent and will?”

           The court observed how it was initially the wish of the husband himself that the wife should accompany him to Canada and the wife had a flourishing career there now. Therefore, the court observed that it would not be justified, in any way, expecting her to return to this country when she is already well settled over there. The court here observed that the career of the wife is in such flourishing state that the husband may join her abroad instead of forcing her to leave the job.

           The Bombay High court observed that the desire of the wife to continue in Canada cannot be said to be an act of selfishness or unjustified. Thus, it could not be said that cruelty has been meted out on the husband by the refusal of the wife to join him in India and nor has the wife deserted him here. The division bench of Justice Ujjwal Bhuyan and Justice Prithviraj Chvan dismissed the divorce petition.

Conclusion

Cruelty cannot be restricted to physical harm and goes far beyond it. Therefore, the acceptance of mental cruelty as a ground for divorce by the court was a radical step. But since the mental cruelty on one hand is hard to proof and on the other hand may be misused by a spouse as an excuse to break the holy tie of the marriage, the court as a guardian of the country has this duty to analyse the facts and circumstances of each case and give an appropriate decision.

Therefore, in the Joshi case, the courts have rightly observed that a woman cannot be expected to leave her flourishing career and join the husband as per her will. The career and the choices of the wife should have equal importance and thus mere refusal to act as per the whims of the husband cannot be said to be inflicting mental agony on the husband and thus is not leading to mental cruelty by the wife.

*This article has been authored by Swati Singh, a 3rd year student of National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi.