A JAYACHANDRA versus ANEEL KAUR

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 599 · Decided: 02-12-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

AJAYACHANDRA 
v. 
ANEEL KAUR 
DECEMBER 2, 2004 
[RUMA PAL, ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-Section 13-Petition for dissolution of 
marriage-Ground of mental cruelty-Allegation of using abusive language 
A 
B 
and making allegations of adultery against the spouse-Family court C 
granting decree of judicial separation instead of decree for dissolution of 
marriage in the interest of c;hildren-High Court held that cruelty not proved 
as evidence not let in order to prove the allegations-On appeal, held: 
Decree for dissolution of marriage liable to be passed as in the facts of 
the case cruelty proved-Cruelty with reference to matrimonial cases should 
be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship D 
between the parties deteriorated to such an extent due to conduct of the 
other spouse that it would be impossible for them of live together without 
mental agony torture or distress-In determining mental cruelty nature of 
cruel treatment and impact thereof on the mind of other spouse has to be 
enquired-However, if the conduct is bad enough and unlawful or illegal, 
E 
the impact need not be enquired into-In case of mental cruelty when there 
is no direct evidence, Courts are required to probe into the mental process 
and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence-The concept 
of proof beyond shadow of doubt in order to prove cruelty in matrimonial 
cases is not applicable because such case is of civil nature-Evidence. 
Words and Phrases : 
"Cruelty"-Meaning of in the context of Hindu Marriage Act, 1995. 
F 
Appellant-husband filed petition u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, G 
1955 against respondent-wife seeking decree of divorce on the ground 
of 'mental cruelty'. His case was that r~spondent had HI-treated him, 
abused him in vulgar language at home and at hospital (workplace) and 
other places and suspected his fidelity and character alleging adultery 
with nursing staff which caused immense emotional stress and mental H 
599 
600 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A agony. His case was also that had no physical relationship for two years. 
Respondent had filed caveats, but the same was lodged at wrong address 
of the appellant. Respondent denied the allegations and stated that she 
had full faith in her husband and that her bonafide advice to him to act 
decently was misconstrued. Subsequent to filing of the divorce petition 
B respondent had filed suits for injunction against the appellant in respect 
of right to practice in the hospital and for use of certain portion of 
hospital. In the execution petition she had prayed for attachment of 
hospital equipments and also civil detention of appellant in case of 
disobedience of order of injunction. She showed her unwillingness to 
C withdraw the application until divorce case was finalized. She had also 
filed application for maintenance. Family Court held that respondent 
D 
E 
had made unfounded allegations which caused mental agony and mental 
cruelty to the appellant, but passed decree for judicial separation instead 
of decree for divorce in view of welfare of children. Appell~nt as .. well 
as respondent filed appeal against the order of Family Court. High 
Court dismissed appellant's appeal. It allowed the appeal of respondent . 
holding that cruelty was not established in as much as appellant had not 
examined witnesses from the hospital to prove respondent using abusive· 
language and making allegations against appellant of adultery with 
nursing staff. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant-husband contended that mental cruelty was clearly 
established; that mere non-examination of hospital staff could not be a 
ground to discard cogent and credible evidence led by him; and that 
since the marriage had broke down irretrievably, on that score alone 
F decree of divorce should have been passed. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a 
ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as willful and 
G unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb 
or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension 
of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in 
the light of the norms of material ties of the particular society to which 
the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they 
H live. Cruelty includes mental cruelty, whi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.