S. HANUMANTHA RAO versus S. RAMANI

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 296 · Decided: 31-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
S. HANUMANTHA RAO 
v. 
S. RAMAN! 
MARCH 31, 1999 
B 
[V.N. KHARE AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Hindu Law-Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-Section 13(1) (ia)-Petition 
by husband for divorce on ground of mental cruelty-Mental cruelty-Meaning 
of-Removal of Mangalsutra by wife in privacy-Wife preserving copies of 
C letters S'2Y1t to her husband and parents of wife approaching Women Protection 
Cell for reconciliation between husband and wife-Held, in the facts and 
circumstances, do not constitute mental cruelty. 
The appellant and the respondent were married according to Hindu 
rites and customs on 26-8-1988 at Hyderabad. Soon differences arose between 
D them and they started living separately, All efforts for reconciliation between 
them failed. The appellant-husband filed a petition before the Judge, City 
Civil Court, Hyderabad for dissolution of marriage by granting decree of 
divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and desertion. Cruelty was attributed 
to respondent-wife on the basis of following three acts: firstly, while in 
E privacy, the respondent took out her Mangalsutra and threw it at the appellant; 
secondly, the respondent kept, maintained and preserved the copies of the 
letters sent by her to the appellant which shattered the mutual confidence 
between the couple; thirdly, that the respondent lodged a complaint through 
her uncle against the appellant and the other members of his family under 
Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 with the Women Protection Cell, 
F Hyderabad, for which they had to obtain anticipatory bail from the court The 
petition for divorce was allowed on the ground of cruelty and the plea of 
desertion was rejected. The appeal filed by the respondent-wife was allowed 
by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal by the husband. 
G 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the removal of 
Mangalsutra by the respondent constituted mental cruelty; that the act of the 
respondent-wife in preserving copies of her letters sent to appellant had 
shaken the confidence of the husband which amounted to mental cruelty as 
copies of such letters were preserved knowingly to use them as evidence in 
future; that the lodging of complaint to the Women Protection Cell by the 
H parents of the wife led the appellant and the members of his family to seek 
296 
, 
' r
S. HANUMANTHA RAO v. S. RAMANI 
297 
anticipatory bail which amounted to mental cruelty. It was also contended that A 
the High Court erred in recording a finding that act of wife stood condoned 
as cohabitation took place between the parties and that the said finding 
suffered from legal infirmity. 
On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that she had removed the 
Mangalsutra only to please her husband. It was further contended that her B 
parents had merely sought help from Women Protection Cell for reconciliation 
and that no complaint, as alleged by the appellant, was ever lodged. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Mental cruelty as envisaged by Sectiofl 13(l)(ia) of the C 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 broadly means, when either party causes mental 
pain, agony or suffering of such a magnitude that it severs the bond between 
the wife and husband and as a result of which it becomes impossible for the 
party who has suffered to live with the other party. In other words, the party 
who has committed wrong is not expected to live with the other party. 
D 
(302-A-BJ 
2. On the facts of the present case, removal of Mangalsutra would not 
constitute mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. 
It is no doubt true that Mangalsutra around the neck of a wife is a sacred 
thing for a Hindu wife as it symbolises continuance of married life. A Hindu E 
wife removes her Mangalsutra only after the death of her husband. The 
present is not a case where a wife after tearing her Mangalsutra threw at 
her husband and walked out of her husband's house. It is case where a wife 
while in privacy, occasionally has been removing her Mangalsutra and bangles 
on asking of her husband with a view to please him. This incident took place 
in privacy. There was no other witness to the incident. The respondent very F 
well could have denied the alleged incident But she admitted to have removed 
the Mangalsutra only to please her husband. Moreover, when the wife was 
being cross-examined before the trial court no question was put to her about 
throwing of Mangalsutra at the appellant. }<'or all these reasons testi~ony 
of 

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