Case Laws on Cruelty

Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane (1975 AIR 1534):

The Supreme Court said that question before the Court regarding the cases of cruelty is
whether the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the
petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with
the respondent.

Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988 AIR 121):

Cruelty is a course of conduct which adversely affects the other spouse. The cruelty may be
mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, it is a question of fact and
degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then
as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable
apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a
matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect
on the complaining spouse. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of
it is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the 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.

V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994 AIR 710):

Mental cruelty in Section 13(1) (i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts
upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that
party to live with the other It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to
cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be
had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the
possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart
and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set
out exhaustively.

Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta [(2002) 5 SCC 706]:

Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence.
It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the

1 Albab Alam
case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the
conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and
circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference
has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of
mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in
isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause
mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts.

Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh (Supreme Court, 2017):

The Supreme Court said that a petition seeking divorce on some isolated incidents alleged to
have occurred 8-10 years prior to filing of the date of petition cannot furnish a subsisting
cause of action to seek divorce after 10 years or so of occurrence of such incidents. Further,
the Court held that few isolated incidents of long past and that too found to have been
condoned due to compromising behaviour of the parties cannot constitute an act of cruelty
within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Christine Lazarus Menezes v. Lazarus Peter Menezes (Bombay HC, 2017):

The wife filed an FIR against her husband, under sections 406 and 498A of the IPC, in which
she accused her husband of stealing her gold ornaments and demanding Rs.2 lakhs from her
to buy a car. In pursuance of the FIR, the husband was arrested from his parent’s house at
Goa and brought to Mumbai where he had to spend seven days in jail. The wife admitted in
the Court during cross examination that the FIR was filed just to bring back her husband who
had left her and that there was no substance to the charges alleged by her. Hence, the Court
held that acts of the wife constituted cruelty and said that if a wife lodges a false case against
her husband under Section 498A of the IPC, the acts of the wife constitute cruelty and hence,
the same can be aground for divorce.

Sheenu Mahendru v. Sangeeta (Uttarakhand HC, 2017):

The following facts were proved in the Court, hence it was concluded that they constitute
cruelty:
1. Disrespectful and disparaging remarks by the respondent wife against the appellant-
husband.
2. The respondent-wife created a pressure on appellant-husband by alleging that she will
commit suicide and kill her son and entangle the appellant in a false case.

2 Albab Alam
3. The attitude of respondent-wife abusing the mother in law and making sarcastic remark
against the husband before the relatives of husband.
4. The respondent has compelled the appellant to abandon his 75 years old and infirm mother
and live in a separate house.
5. The respondent had compelled the appellant to live with her at Delhi after selling off his
ancestral house.

V.V. Prabhakaran v. T. Chandramathi (Kerala HC, 2018):

The wife of the petitioner used to habitually abuse her husband and ridicule him publicly. She
also wrote many letters to the authorities where her husband was working and humiliated
him. The Court observed that use of insulting language, disgraceful behaviour in public and
challenging the dignity of the husband before his friends, family and colleagues will come
under the definition of cruelty. Therefore, the petitioner was granted divorce by the Court on
this ground.

J v. JC (2019 SCC OnLine Del 7703):

The husband had alleged that the wife taunted him as impotent, misbehaved with his parents
and relatives threw utensils, etc. The Delhi High Court refused to grant the divorce as the
specific particulars of the alleged incidents with regard to the date, time, place, etc. were not
set out. The Court said that Merely stating that the appellant was neglecting her duties or that
she was abusive and insulting, would not be sufficient to constitute an act of cruelty unless
and until specific instances showing such conduct are pleaded and proved.

Pranay Kumar Kundu v. Rupanjana Kundu (Calcutta HC, 2019):

The marriage took place on 3rd February, 2013 by registration under the Special Marriage
Act, 1954. The marriage according to religious and social rites was arranged on 4th March,
2013. Shortly after the marriage, the couple went on two honeymoons. One from 19th to 25th
March and another one began on 19th April in Shimla. It was proved in the Court that the
conduct of the husband during the second honeymoon was abnormal and contrary to the
ordinary course of nature, whereby he tortured her in a closed room. Upon her return, she was
also tortured by her in-laws for dowry demands worth Rs. 2 lakhs. Within a week after
returning from the second honeymoon, the wife lodged a complaint under sec. 498A of the
IPC against her husband. In such circumstances, the court held that the marital bond has
ruptured beyond repair on account of mental cruelty and hence, granted the divorce.
3 Albab Alam