Introduction

• This is an important case as it brought into existence a very important concept of cruelty.

Facts

• Sucheta, the respondent, originally from Nagpur, spent her formative years in Delhi. She held a B.Sc. from Delhi University and pursued a Master's Degree in Social Work, specializing in Marriage Conciliation and Juvenile Delinquency. She worked in the Commerce and Industry Ministry, Delhi.
• Before marriage, her father disclosed her history of mental illness due to sunstroke and cerebral malaria to the appellant's family. They married in May 1956.
• They lived in various places and had three daughters. Marital discord intensified, leading to accusations of cruelty from both sides.
• In 1961, the appellant attempted to have the respondent examined by a psychiatrist, which she resisted.
• The situation worsened with mutual distrust, malicious letters from relatives, and allegations of cruelty and desertion.
• The appellant sought judicial separation alleging cruelty, but the trial court dismissed claims of the respondent's mental illness.
• The appellant made repeated claims about the respondent's mental state to authorities, claiming at divorce or annulment.
• However, the High Court dismissed his plea, then he appealed before the Supreme Court.

Issues Involved

• Whether the facts established beyond reasonable doubt in the matrimonial disputes?
• Whether the act of sexual intercourse amounts to treat as cruelty?
• Whether the burden of proof of cruelty lies upon appellant or on respondent?

Observation

• The Supreme Court said that the lower courts, albeit dismissing the appellant's appeal, and allowing the respondent's, failed to adequately assess the evidence, particularly concerning allegations of cruelty.
• It found the High Court's approach flawed, deviating from legal principles. Despite the prolonged proceedings, this court undertook the meticulous examination necessary.
• The evidence revealed a pattern of conduct by the respondent, indicative of cruelty, as defined under Section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, however the appellant condoned it.
• The SC held that, “It is difficult in these circumstances to accept the appellant's argument either that the respondent deserted him or that she treated him with cruelty after her earlier conduct was condoned by him”.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs.