Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Mahendra Prasad v. Smt. Bindu Devi has held that a 'free-willed' wife's acts of travelling alone or interacting with members of civil society without engaging in any illegal or immoral relationships cannot be considered an act of cruelty against her husband. 

What was the Background of Mahendra Prasad v. Smt. Bindu Devi Case?  

• The case involves a marriage dispute between Mahendra Prasad (appellant) and Smt. Bindu Devi (respondent). 
• The parties were married on 26^th February 1990, with the Gauna ceremony taking place on 4^th December1992. 
• A male child was born to the couple. 
• There are conflicting claims about the duration of cohabitation: 
  • The husband (appellant) claims that they lived together for only 8 months total, from marriage until December 1996.  
  • The wife (respondent) claims they lived together intermittently until August 2001. 
• The appellant is a qualified Engineer by profession, while the respondent is a government teacher. 
• The appellant filed Divorce Petition before the First Additional District Judge, Ghazipur. 
• The appellant sought divorce on two main grounds: 
  • Mental cruelty by the respondent. 
  •  Desertion by the respondent. 
• The specific allegations of cruelty included: 
  • That the respondent was "free-willed" and would go to markets and other places without observing 'Parda.' 
  • That she verbally insulted the appellant regarding his poor economic status. 
  • That she allegedly had immoral relations with a person described as 'Punjabi Baba.' 
• The original divorce petition was dismissed by the First Additional District Judge. 
• The appellant then filed this First Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the dismissal of his divorce petition. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Allahabad High Court made the following observations: 
  • On Mental Cruelty: 
    • Rejected the claim that being "free-willed" and not observing 'Parda' constituted cruelty, noting both parties were well-educated. 
    • Found that differences in perception and behavior cannot automatically be labeled as cruelty. 
    • Noted that since it was an arranged marriage, the families knew each other's status, so claims about economic status-based insults weren't credible. 
    • However, ultimately found that the wife's sustained refusal to cohabit and maintain the relationship itself constituted mental cruelty. 
  • On Desertion: 
    • Found clear evidence of long-term separation (23 years). 
    • Noted that out of 35 years of marriage, the parties barely cohabited for a few years. 
    • Considered significant that the wife never filed for restitution of conjugal rights. 
    • Found the wife's admission (through counsel) that parties cannot live together, yet refusing divorce, as problematic. 
  • On Evidence: 
    • Found insufficient evidence to prove immoral relations with 'Punjabi Baba.' 
    • Noted lack of credible evidence about cohabitation between 1996-2001. 
    • Acknowledged failed mediation attempts.  
  • On Overall Marriage Status: 
    • Observed that maintaining such a marriage would only keep alive a legal fiction. 
    • Found the long separation and refusal to cohabit as sufficient grounds for dissolution. 
    • Noted that both parties are gainfully employed, and their child is now 29 years old. 
• The High Court ultimately disagreed with the Trial Court's findings and allowed the appeal, granting divorce based on both mental cruelty and desertion. 

What is Cruelty?  

Meaning: 

• Cruelty means as per Section 86 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023:  
  • Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or  
  • Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 

Essential Elements: 

• For commission of an offence, following necessary elements are required to be satisfied:  
  • The woman must be married;  
  • She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment;  
  • Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband. 

 Position under BNS: 

• Section 85: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty  
  • Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.  

 Position Under Hindu Law: 

• By the 1976 Amendment to Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) cruelty was made a ground for divorce under Section 13(1) (ia).  
  • Section 13 – Divorce —   
    • Clause (1) states that any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party—  
      • has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or  
• Prior to 1976 cruelty was merely a ground for claiming judicial separation under Section 10 of the HMA.