Few Parameters of Cruelty

Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (26.03.2026 - SC) : MANU/SC/1386/2007

Case Note:

(1)Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 (1) (ia)-Divorce-Cruelty-Mental cruelty-Irretrievable breakdown of marriage-Appellant husband and respondent wife both are senior I.A.S. Officers-Respondent had female child from her first marriage-She obtained divorce against her first husband who was also I.A.S. Officer-Female child given in custody of respondent by Court-Appellant and respondent married in 1984-Respondent declared her decision unilaterally not to give birth to child for two years-And appellant should keep himself aloof from her as far as possible-Appellant suffered prolonged illness-Respondent left him and went to other place where there was none to look after her-Appellant and respondent living separately since 27.8.1990-Respondent refused cohabitation and also stopped sharing bed with him-Appellant not permitted to show his normal affection to daughter of respondent-On petition of divorce by appellant on ground of mental cruelty of respondent, trial court found six instances constituting mental cruelty-And granted decree of divorce to appellant husband against respondent wife-Whether High Court justified in reversing decree of trial court?-Held, “no”-High Court erred in setting aside well-reasoned judgment of trial court based on correct analysis of concept of mental cruelty-Parties living separately since 27.8.2026 having no interaction thereafter for more than 16 and half years-Matrimonial bond ruptured beyond repair because of mental cruelty caused by respondent -There is clear irretrievable breakdown of marriage-Impossible to preserve or save marriage-Judgment of High Court set aside-Decree of divorcee granted by trial court restored.

(2)Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 (1) (ia)-Cruelty-Mental cruelty-Being ground for divorce-Some instances of human behaviour relevant in dealing with cases of mental cruelty given-Instances are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

The following are instances of human behaviour to amount to mental cruelty :

(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.

Ratio Decidendi:
“Once accepted to be in institution of marriage, the couple had to respect the marital bond and discharge obligation of marital life.”

“There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters.”

“Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life happening in day to day life was not adequate for grant of divorce.”

“Parties living separately for a sufficient length of time and filing of petition for divorce carries the presumption that marriage has broken down.”