G.V.N. KAMESWARA RAO versus G. JABILLI

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 153 · Decided: 10-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1 
? 
G.V.N. KAMESWARA RAO 
A 
.I. 
v. 
G. JABILLI 
> 
JANUARY 10, 2002 
[D.P. MOHAPA TRA AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ .] 
B 
r 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-Section 13(/)(ia)-Petition by husband 
for divorce on ground of mental cruelty by wife-Entitlement to-Held, on 
facts, because of non-cooperation and hostile attitude of wife, husband was c 
subjected to serious traumatic experience having regard to his status 
educational background and the environment in which he lived-Hence, it 
amounts to cruelty and the husband entitled for divorce. 
Appellant-husband, who is a double-doctorate degree holder and working 
abroad, was married to respondent-wife in India. After marriage, they went D 
r 
abroad and a daughter was born to them. The appellant and the respondent 
had strained marital relationship ever• since their marriage. The respondent 
~ 
came back to India with her daughter. The misunderstandings between them 
deepened and ultimately the appellant filed a petition for divorce under section 
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Family Court alleging cruelty by E 
the respondent. The Family Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground 
of mental cruelty meted out by the respondent to the appellant. In appeal by 
7 
the respondent, the High Court revers'.!d the decision of the Family Court 
holding that the appellant was at fault and had been trying to take advantage 
of his own wrongs. 
F 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that there was complete 
break down of marriage due to the attitude of the respondent; and that the 
f 
appellant was under severe mental agony on account of various acts committed 
by the respondent. 
> 
. ..., 
G 
The respondent contended that though there were difference of opinion 
between the appellant and the respondent on many matters, she had not done 
anything to cause mental pain or agony to the appellant. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
153 
154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1.1. Cruelty can be said to be an act committed with the intention 
~
to cause sufferings to the opposite party. Austerity of temper, rudeness of 
Jt. 
language, occasional outburst of anger may not amount to cruelty though it 
may amount to misconduct. Having regard to the sanctity and importance of 
marriages in a community life, Court, in order to find whether there is cruelty 
by the counter-petitioner, should consider whether the conduct of the counter-
B petitioner is such that it has become intolerable for the petitioner to suffer 
any longer and impossibility of living together. This is to be judged not from 
a solitary incident but on an overall consideration of all relevant 
circumstances. (159-G; 160-D-E) 
C 
1.2. The case of the appellant that he had been subjected to cruelty by 
the wife is not on the basis of one or two incidents. Their marriage life was 
with so many ups and downs. Both of them did not live together for a long 
period as happily married couple. The appellant has succeeded in proving that 
the attitude of the respondent was not cordial and cooperative. The respondent 
also alleged that their marriage life was not happy and cheerful. The various 
D incidents brought out in evidence show that the appellant was subjected to 
severe humiliation and that the respondent was not prepared to extend any 
kind of cooperation to the appellant. The incidents throw an insight into her 
past conduct when she was staying with the appellant. The mental cruelty faced 
by the appellant is to be assessed having regard to his status in his life, 
E educational background, the environment in which he lived. The appellant has 
suffered traumatic experience in one such incident and the consequent loss 
of reputation and prestige in the society. Married life of the appellant with 
the respondent had never been happy. The appellant had not been having 
conjugal relationship with the respondent since she was not properly 
discharging her marital obligations. The relationship between the parties was 
F irretrievably broken and because of the non-cooperation and the hostile 
attitude of the respondent the appellant was subjected to serious traumatic 
experience which can safely be termed as 'cruelty' coming within the purview 
, of Section 13(l)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Hence the appellant is 
entitled to the decree for dissolution of marriage under the Act. 
G 
(161-E-H; 162-A-B; G) 
Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, AIR (1975) SC 1534; S. 
Hanumantha 

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