Source: Madhya Pradesh 

Why in News? 

A bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari held that forcing wife to leave job amounts to cruelty.       

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court held this in the case of X v. Y. 

What was the Background of X v. Y Case?  

• The marriage of the parties took place on 19^th April 2014 . 
• The Appellant was appointed as Assistant Manager in LIC Housing Finance Limited in 2017. 
• The Respondent compelled the wife to leave the job and stay with him till he gets the job. 
• The Respondent husband filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) after filing of the divorce petition by the appellant. 
• Later the Section 9 petition was withdrawn. 
• The Learned Trial Court refused to grant divorce to the parties. 
• Hence, the present appeal is filed before the High Court.   

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that neither husband nor wife can force the other side to do or not to do any job as per choice of the spouse. 
• The Court further observed that in the present facts the husband forced the wife to leave the job and live as per his wish and style and this amounts to cruelty. 
• Hence, based on the above the Court allowed the marriage to be dissolved.

What is Cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

• Cruelty as a ground for divorce is provided for under Section 13 (ia) of HMA. 
• By the 1976 Amendment to HMA, cruelty was made a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia). 
• Prior to 1976 cruelty was merely a ground for claiming judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act. 
• Cruelty has an inseparable nexus with human conduct and is always dependent on social strata or milieu, way of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions which are conditions by social status. 
• False allegations against husband, false prosecution cause deep mental pain and suffering and amounts to mental cruelty. 

What are the Acts that would fall under Mental Cruelty?

• Repeated threats to commit suicide 
  • In the case of Pankaj Mahajan v. Dimple @ Kajal (2011) the Court held that this would amount to mental cruelty. 
• Accusations of unchastity 
  • In the case of Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate (2003) the Court held that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and  indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship amounts to cruelty. 
  • The Court held that such aspersions viewed in context of an educated wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of cruelty and insult.    
• Cruelty must be more than ordinary wear and tear of married life 
  • In the case of A Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur (2005) the Court held that to constitute cruelty the conduct complained of must be grave and weighty whereupon it can be concluded that the spouse cannot be expected to live with the other spouse.  
• Unfounded allegations of adultery against the wife 
  • In the case of R. Balasubramaniam v. Vijayalakshmi Balasubramanian (1999) the Court held that unfounded allegation of adultery against wife is a serious allegation amounting to cruel conduct by the husband and entitles wife to seek relief against him.  
• Denial of sexual intercourse 
  • In the case of Vidhya Viswanathan v. Kartik Balakrishnan (2014) the Court held that denial of sexual intercourse by wife for long time without sufficient reason amounts to mental cruelty. 
• Lodging of FIR against the husband 
  • In the case of Narasimha Sastry v. Suneela Rani (2020) the Court held that mere filing of FIR does not ipso facto result in cruelty. 
  • However, when a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of allegation of offence under S. 498A IPC levelled by wife against husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has been meted out on husband, particularly when serious allegations were made.

What are the Landmark Cases on Mental Cruelty? 

• Dastane v. Dastane (1975) 
  • The matter was decided prior to the legislative addition of clause of cruelty under HMA. 
    • The Apex Court made following observations: 
      • Any conduct of the respondent which would render harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent or is of such a nature so as to create a reasonable apprehension to that effect would amount to cruelty. 
      • It is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. 
      • The impact or the injurious physical 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 matrimonial duties and responsibilities in particular, we find a sea of change. They are of varying degrees from house to house or person to person. 
      • When a spouse makes a complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the court should not search for standard in life.
• Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2004) 
  • Supreme Court in this case held that: 
    • The word "cruelty" is used in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act in the context of human conduct or behavior in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. 
    • Physical violence is not essential to constitute cruelty, a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may constitute cruelty as well. 
    • Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party.