Source – Madras High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Madras High Court has held that a husband who is not interested in living with the wife and children by not giving them any financial assistance and not including their names in the service register in the railways would amount to cruelty.

What was the Background of this Case?

• In this case, the appellant is the wife, and the respondent is the husband who has been living separately for about 12 years.
• The husband filed for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
• The Family Court has come to the conclusion that the parties have been living separately for more than 12 years, and the respondent has made false allegation that the husband is having an illicit relationship with one of his co-employee.
• The family Court observed that levelling allegations of illicit relationship against the husband or spouse, as the case may be, amounts to mental cruelty and granted the relief on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
• The respondent stated that her husband is not coming home to live with them, and he never helped her and even the children for their education which resulted in filing of the maintenance case.
• The maintenance was awarded, which was not paid by the husband.
• Thereafter an appeal was preferred by a wife before the Madras High Court challenging a Family Court order.
• The High Court set aside the order of the Family Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench comprising of Justices RMT Teekaa Raman and PB Balaji observed that none of the allegation that was averred by the husband as cruelty were not proved in the manner known to law.
• The Court stated that the respondent has demonstrated the cruelty at the hands of the husband to the effect that he is not interested to live with the wife and children by not giving any financial assistance and has not included the wife and children in the service register in the railways so as to enjoy the facilities as a family member. These admitted facts would go to show that it is the husband who has committed cruelty and therefore, the wife was forced to live in the house of her father.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

• Section 13(1) (i-a) of HMA:
  • This section deals with cruelty as a ground for divorce.
  • Prior to the 1976 amendment in the HMA, cruelty was not a ground for claiming divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
  • It was only a ground for claiming judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act.
  • By the 1976 Amendment, the Cruelty was made ground for divorce.
  • The word cruelty has not been defined in this Act.
  • Generally, cruelty is any behavior which causes a physical or mental, intentional or unintentional.
  • According to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in several judgments, there are two types of cruelty:
    • Physical Cruelty - Violent conduct causing pain to the spouse.
    • Mental Cruelty – Spouse is inflicted with any kind of mental stress or has to constantly go through mental agony.
  • In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988), the Supreme Court held that the word cruelty can have no fixed definition.
  • In Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad (2007), the SC held that any kind of mental cruelty faced by either of the spouses not just the woman, but men as well can apply for a divorce on grounds of cruelty.
• Principle of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage:
  • This concept was originated in New Zealand in 1921 through the historical decision in Lodder v. Lodde.
  • The irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a situation in which the husband and wife have been living separately for a considerable period and there is absolutely no chance of them living together again.
  • This Principle has attained informal validity as it has been evoked in several judicial decisions granting divorce.
  • In India, incorporation of such ground for divorce in HMA has not yet been made but it has been strongly suggested by various Law Commission Reports and a Bill was presented in this regard in the Parliament titled The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010.