SMT. MAYADEVI versus JAGDISH PRASAD

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 1040 · Decided: 21-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

I I 
A 
SMT. MA YADEVI 
:: .. 
~. 
JAGDISH PRASAD 
FEBRUARY 21, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Hindu Marriage Act, J955-Divorce petition-On the ground of 
cruelty-By husband-Decree of divorce granted by courts below-On appeal, 
C held: Facts of the case prove that the husband was subjected to mental and 
physical cruelty Hence, entitled to decree of divorce. 
Evidence-Matrimonial dispute-Allegation of cruelty-Proof-Degree 
of-Held: In such cases the concept of proof beyond the shadow of doubt 
cannot be applied-Jn physical cruelty there can be tangible and direct 
D evidence, but in case of mental cruelty there may not be-Jn absence of direct 
evidence courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental ' 
effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. 
E 
Words and Phrases-'Cruelty'-Meaning and nature of in the context 
of Hindu Marriage Act, J955. 
Respondent-husband filed application for divorce on the ground of 
· cruelty alleging that the appellant-wife used to demand money from him and 
where the demand was not fulfilled she used to quarrel. She did not provide 
food to husband or children and used to threaten him to implicate him in case 
of dowry demand and kill the children. One day she left the house with three 
F of their children. The dead bodies of the three children were recovered from 
... 
G 
H 
a well and appellant was also taken out from the well. She was convicted for 
an offence under section 302 IPC for that act. The appeal against conviction 
was still pending. She also filed a case against the husband alleging dowry 
demand wherein the police by its final report observed that the case was false. 
Trial Court found that the allegation of cruelty was established and hence 
granted decree of divorce. The decree was confirmed by High Court. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
1040 
\ 
MAY ADEY! v. JAGDISH PRASAD 
1041 
. 
HELD: 1. The instances of cruelty highlighted by the trial Court and A 
also by the High Court clearly prove that the husband was subjected to mental 
and physical cruelty. It is not a fact that the conviction in the criminal case 
was the foundation for the decree. On the contrary, the trial Court clearly 
mentioned that the aspect was not taken note of as the appeal was pending. 
[Para 16] (1048-B] B 
2.1. The expression "cruelty" has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty 
can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of 
marriage may be defined as wilful and 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 C 
has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular 
society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment 
in which they live. [Para ll] (1045-F] 
2.2. Cruelty, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of 
a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of his D 
spouse, same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn 
that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the 
mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct 
amounts to cruelty. [Para 11] (1045-GJ 
2.3. In delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the E 
probabilities of the case. The concept, a proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is 
to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to 
matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. 
Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty 
has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the F 
mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. 
Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, 
there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty 
there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where 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. It is in this view G 
that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes. [Para 11] 
[1045-H; 1046-A-C] 
2.4. The expression 'cruelty' has been used in relation to human conduct 
or human behaviour

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