NARENDRA versus K. MEENA

Citation: [2016] 5 S.C.R. 840 · Decided: 06-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 840 
NARENDRA 
v. 
K. MEENA 
(Civil Appeal No. 3253 of2008) 
OCTOBER 06, 2016 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.) 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s. 13(1){ia) - Divorce - Ground 
of cruelty - Husbands case that wife levied serious allegations 
against him regarding his character, extra-marital relation with a 
maid, her attempt to commit suicide and her persuasion for getting 
the husband separated from his family members and live separately 
- Grant of decree of divorce by family court, however, set aside by 
the High Court - On appeal, held: Family court rightly dissolved 
the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground in s.13{1){1a) of 
the Act - Threats and attempt to commit suicide constitutes mental 
crueliy and could not have been taken lightly by the High Court -
Persistent effort of the wife to constrain the husband to be separated 
from the family would be torturous f6r the husband and constitutes 
an act of 'cruelty' - There is no reliable evidence to show that the 
husband had an extra-marital affair with someone, except for the 
baseless and reckless allegations which can be a cause for mental 
cruelty - Thus, order passed by the High Court quashed and set 
aside - Decree of divorce passed by the Family court is restored. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 With regard to the allegations of cruelty levelled 
by the appellant, the findings of the trial court are concurred with. 
There was no fault on the part of the appellant nor was there any 
reason for the respondent wife to make an attempt to commit 
suicide. No husband would ever be comfortable with or tolerate 
such an act by his wife and if the wife succeeds in committing 
suicide, then one can imagine how a poor husband would get 
entangled into the clutches of law, which would virtually ruin his 
sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his entire life. The 
mere idea with regard to facing legal consequences would put a 
husband under tremendous stress. The thought itself is 
distressing. Such a mental cruelty could not have been taken 
840 
NARENDRA v. K. MEENA 
lightly by the High Court. Only this one event was sufficient for 
the appellant husband to get a decree of divorce on the ground of 
cruelty. Such threats or acts constitute cruelty. [Para 10) [846-C-
G) 
. 
1.2 In the instant case, upon appreciation of the evidence, 
the trial court came to the conclusion that merely for monetary 
considerations, the respondent wife wanted to get her husband 
separated from his family. The averment of the respondent was 
to the effect that the income of the appellant was also spent for 
maintaining his family. The said grieYance of the respondent is 
absolutely unjustified. A son maintaining his parents is absolutely 
normal in Indian culture and ethos. There is no other reason for 
which the respondent wanted the appellant to be separated from 
the family-the sole reason was to enjoy the income of the appellant. 
Unfortunately, the High Court considered this to be a justifiable 
reason. In the opinion of the High Court, the wife had a legitimate 
expectation to see that the income of her husband is used for her 
and not for the family members of the respondent husband. There 
is no reason to justify the said view of the High Court. In a Hindu 
society, it is a pious obligation of the son to maintain the parents. 
If a wife makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice 
and normal custom of the society, she must have some justifiable 
reason for that and in this case, there is no justifiable reason, 
except monetary consideration of the respondent wife. Normally, 
no husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be 
separated from his old parents and other family members, who 
are also dependent upon his income. The persistent effort of the 
respondent wife to constrain the appellant to be separated from 
the family would be torturous for the husband and the trial court 
was right when it came to the conclusion that this constitutes an 
act of 'cruelty'. [Para 11) [847-D-H; 848-A) 
1.3 With regard to the allegations about an extra-marital 
affair with maid named K, the re-appreciation of the evidence by 
the High Court does not appear to be correct. There is sufficient 
evidence to the effect that there was no maid named K working 
at the residence of the appellant. Some averment with regard to 
some relative has been relied upon by the High Court to come to 
a conclusion that there wa

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