Case of ‘Mental Cruelty’

 

 

 

IN THE judgement of a case of two first appeals between the husband –X and the Wife –Y, at Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, delivered on March 6, 2025, Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Gajendra Singh have held that “compelling the wife to discontinue her studies or creating such an atmosphere that she is put in a position not to continue her studies is equivalent to destroy her dreams in the beginning of their marital life and forcing her to live with a person, who is neither educated nor eager to improve himself certainly amounts to mental cruelty and the HC has held that it constitutes a ground of divorce under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955”. The marriage in this case was solemnised on May 1, 2015, as per Hindu rituals including saptpadi in a village of Shajapur District, at the time of marriage, the appellant-petitioner had cleared 12 th Standard and she expressed her desire to continue studies.

 

The parents and family members of in-laws agreed and ‘gauna’ took place on July 16, 2016 and elder brother of husband and relative took the petitioner to her matrimonial home only for a period of two days with an assurance that the petitioner will return to her maternal home. After the function, petitioner requested to come back to maternal home. The members of her in-laws’ family intimated to the petitioner that she cannot continue with the studies and she would have to reside in the matrimonial home. It was also stated that very meager amount of dowry was given at the time of marriage and pressure was created to fulfill the demand of Rs one lakh in cash and one motorcycle and to get the demand fulfilled, the petitioner was harassed.

 

During her stay in matrimonial home for 2-3 days, her life was put to danger. She was not taken to hospital. She is not willing to continue her marriage with the respondent-husband and filed a case under Protection of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty was filed on November 21, 2016. While re-appreciating the evidence available on record of Family Court at para 12 of the evidence by the petitioner’s witness/1, it came to the notice of the Court that the respondent-husband is uneducated. (Merely he puts his name as signature) and at the time of marriage, petitioner/wife had cleared her 12th Standard examination and she was desirous to pursue her studies further and she continued her graduation but the respondent (DW/1)had admitted in para12 of his statement, that he did not bear the expenses of her studies. It was admitted that a matter of domestic violence was filed before the Court at Shajapur.

 

This witness has admitted the fact that when for the first time petitioner-wife went to her matrimonial home, then on the next day the, the respondent-husband, on the pretext of picnic and also took his relative with him for 2-3 days without maintaining the privacy of the wife and where wife alleged unwelcoming behaviour of the husband. The husband’s statement that he did not bear expenses of her studies, supports the statement of the petitioner-wife that she was compelled to discontinue her studies in matrimonial home. John Dewey, an American philosopher, psychologist and educational reformer has said that education is not just preparing for life, it is life itself. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka and others –AIR 1992 SC 1858 ,has recognized that “education is a facet of life” and is considered an integral part of “right to life”under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, meaning that access to education is essential for living a life with dignity. In para 4 of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case –Sobha Rani v.Mahukar Reddi-AIR 1988 SC 121, the Court has observed: “The word “cruelty” has not been defined. Indeed it could not have been defined. It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. “

 

The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical the court will have no problem to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulty. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment. Second,the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its impact on the complaining spouse. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of it-self is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted.”

 

In the context of matrimonial cruelty, the Supreme Court has stated that the Judges and lawyers should not import their own notions of life. Each case may be different. New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful realm of cruelty. It is also a fact that during the period of 10 years from the solemnisation of marriage on May 1, 2015, petitioner and respondent were together only for 3 days in July, 2016 and that experience of the wife was a nightmare and thereafter they never came in the company of each other. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Shajapur, ignored the fact this is not a case, where the wife was taking advantage of her own fault, but this is a case, where wife was putting to sacrifice her dreams, career in the name of marital obligations.

 

Accordingly, the HC has set aside the findings of facts by the trial court and held the husband guilty of treating the wife with mental cruelty, and so it was a reasonable excuse for the wife to live separately from the husband. Further, it is a case of irretrievable break down of marriage, as the couple is living separately since July, 2016 and there is no possibility of reunion of the parties, hence against this backdrop the HC has set aside the findings of the trial court and ordered dissolution of the marriage.