Husband's Repeated Taunts, Comparisons With Other Women Qualify As Mental Cruelty: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that constant and repeated taunts of the husband that his wife did not meet his expectations and comparisons with other women would amount to mental cruelty as contemplated under Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 for the purpose of dissolution of marriage.A Division Bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice C. S. Sudha observed that for the conduct of a spouse to fall within the ground of cruelty, it should be 'grave and weighty' to the extent that the petitioner's spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse, and should be serious that "ordinary wear and tear of married life"."The constant and repeated taunts of the respondent/husband that the petitioner is not a wife of his expectations; the comparisons with other women etc. would certainly be mental cruelty which a wife cannot be expected to put up with."The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized in January 2019 and the petition for dissolution of marriage was filed within 10 months from the marriage. A decree of dissolution of marriage was granted by the lower court under section 10(vii) of the Indian Divorce Act i.e., non-consummation of marriage.Aggrieved by this decree, an appeal was filed by the husband alleging that the court below had erroneously concluded that the marriage has not been consummated and so granted the petitioner-wife a decree of dissolution under Section 10(vii) of the Act.Counsel appearing for the respondent-husband, Advocates Thushara James and Amal Darshan, contended that the point framed itself is incorrect, because, unless the petitioner pleads and proves willful abstinence/refusal by the respondent to consummate the marriage, she cannot succeed. However, the court below never went into the said aspect. Further, it was submitted that in the petition originally filed, the petitioner never had a case of non-consummation of marriage. It was also pointed out that there are no sufficient pleadings to establish the grounds under section 10(vii) of the Act. However, it was submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, Advocates K.P. Sreeja and M. B. Sandeep, that the omission of the incorporation of the ground under Section 10(vii) in the petition initially filed was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel. Further, the counsel contended that necessary pleadings have been brought in by way of the amendment carried out, which amended pleadings contain the necessary ingredients to make out a case under Section 10(vii) of the Act. The petitioner had also challenged the findings of the lower court rejecting the ground of cruelty raised under Section 10(x) of the Act. The petitioner contended that under Order XLI Rule 24 and Rule 33 give ample power to this Court to "resettle the issues and determine the case for meeting the ends of justice" and the Court sided with the contention raised by the petitioner.In the petition, the petitioner had referred to instances of physical cruelty as well as mental cruelty. It was alleged that the respondent, a man of short temper, was a person who gets easily provoked. He used to pick quarrels with the petitioner even on trivial matters. When he loses his temper, he turns violent and physically assaults his family members. Yet another allegation against the respondent was that he was always in the habit of belittling and humiliating the petitioner by comparing her with other women.The Court while answering the question as to whether the conduct of the respondent amounts to cruelty, referred to a number of Apex Court decisions and observed that it is difficult to give a comprehensive definition of cruelty, as it changes according to the changes and advancement of social concepts and standards of living. "Continuous ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference on the part of the husband, and an assertion on the part of the husband that the wife is unchaste, are all factors which lead to mental or legal cruelty." Reliance was placed on Shoba Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, in which the concept of cruelty was examined in the context of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court observed that cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. It has been further held that the cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life, the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions and their culture and human values to which they attach importance. The Court,...

Husband's Repeated Taunts, Comparisons With Other Women Qualify As Mental Cruelty: Kerala High Court

Athira Prasad

Tags