This article is written by Arya Senapati. It attempts to analyse the provisions related to cruelty through the landmark case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, which deals primarily with mental cruelty in matrimonial disputes. It also outlines the legal interpretations of the courts on matters of cruelty and an analysis of the precedent set by the Apex Court for future cases.

Details of the case

Name: Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh

Court: Supreme Court of India

Download Now

Bench: B.N. Agrawal, P.P. Naolekar, and Dalveer Bhandari

Date: 26.03.2007

Citation: AIRONLINE 2007 SC 347

Introduction

As domestic violence, dowry death, inferior treatment of women, and many other negative aspects started getting attached to the institution of marriage, it became necessary for the state to interject and protect the institution from losing its significance and protect the parties from getting their rights infringed upon. With multiple pieces of laws like the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which aims to prevent the curse of domestic violence in marriages and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which laid out provisions for inter-caste marriages, the legal system related to matrimonial laws was highly strengthened. Even the judiciary, through multiple landmark decisions, gave various aspects of marriage a new meaning. In the Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) judgement, the Apex Court held that triple talaq was invalid. Similarly, in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), the right of two consenting adults to marry each other out of their own personal choice without the interference of parents was recognised, which provided adults with the fundamental right to marry out of their own personal will. To modernise things even more, the Apex Court recognised the validity and the right to be in a live-in relationship in the case of Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006), which, even though considered immoral in society, is not an offence per se. 

The legislature and judiciary have taken very progressive takes on the institution of marriage, which has been considered a sacrament in many religions and faiths, but in some cases, the veil of a sacrament, when lifted, reveals a rather cruel picture filled with violence, abuse, harassment and undignified treatment of one partner by the other and that is what leads to divorce or judicial separation through the help of law and order. While there are many prominent grounds of divorce in different personal laws, the most prominent one is cruelty, amongst many others, like adultery, irretrievable breakdown of marriage, mental incapacity of partner, etc. Cruelty is the conduct of one particular partner, which creates an apprehension of fear of harm and injury in the other partner to live with the partner-at-offence. The landmark ruling in the case of N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975) dealt with cruelty and laid down a test to define cruelty in a broader sense, but with the passage of time, just like any other concept, the concept of cruelty has also changed. While earlier cruelty was perceived simply to be physical, it has more connotations now. Cruelty can be mental, social, sexual, physical and economic. These dimensions of cruelty have developed through multiple decisions and landmark rulings by various courts. 

One such landmark judgement is the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), which made the courts recognise the mental aspect of cruelty. It deals with how undignified treatment, disrespect, harsh words, abusive and degrading remarks and many such things can lead to mental strain on the minds of a partner, which may, in turn, make it extremely difficult for them to live together and eventually seek divorce. This judgement is significant because it opened the doors of the courts to many such victims of mental cruelty to seek redressal, as earlier, even the ones who were meted out with such treatment understood cruelty from a physical dimension and did not know that mental cruelty can also be a valid ground for seeking divorce.

Facts of Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007)

  1. This case arises as a consequence of a matrimonial dispute after almost twenty-two years of marriage between two senior officials of the Indian Administrative Services. The appellant and the respondent entered into marriage on December 13, 1984, under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, in Calcutta. The respondent had a divorce from her previous marriage and also had a daughter from her previous marriage. She had the custody of her daughter, which was granted to her by the District Court of Patna, where she contested her divorce from her previous husband, Debasish Gupta, who was also an IAS officer. 
  2. The appellant and the respondents have known each other since 1983, when the respondent used to work in the Finance Department of the West Bengal Government, during which their friendship developed into a relationship. Thereafter, the respondent’s first husband filed a belated appeal against the divorce decree obtained by the respondent. While the appeal was pending, the respondent coaxed the appellant into marriage so that the appeal could become infructuous. 
  3. Once the marriage was solemnised, the respondent asked the appellant not to intervene in her career, and she also informed him of her unilateral decision to not have a child with him for at least two years. She also asked the appellant not to ask questions regarding her daughter and to maintain a distance from her. 
  4. The appellant felt a lack of love, emotions, affection and future planning, as a spouse would expect in a normal marital relationship. The appellant felt the respondent’s lack of empathy towards him and his condition soon after the marriage, and around February 1985, the appellant fell severely ill. 
  5. The respondent’s brother worked in Bareilly. Despite the respondent’s ill health and high fever, the respondent left him alone and went to visit Bareilly along with her parents and daughter. She didn’t take care of him and no one was enthused by it either. After returning, she stayed in Calcutta for four days but did not meet the appellant and showed no concern for his health or illness. 
  6. The appellant stated that he tried to do everything possible to maintain a normal marital life. He would always visit her where she was posted for her duties, but she showed a clear lack of interest in his efforts and was very nonchalant about the marriage. The appellant would return home feeling miserable and rejected. He was made to feel like a stranger in his own family. 
  7. After this, the respondent was transferred to Calcutta, and their home was allotted to the appellant and they used to have a cook called Prabir. The respondent used to come to the house at intervals, but she had a fear of her daughter being in danger from the cook, and then they started living separately in September 1985. 
  8. The appellant was then transferred to Murshidabad in 1986 and the respondent decided to stay back in Calcutta. The appellant stayed in Murshidabad until 1988 and then was deputed elsewhere by the Central Government, wherein he fell ill and requested a transfer to Calcutta, where he returned in September 1988. The appellant and the respondent started living together and tried to start a new relationship by forgetting the past. 
  9. The appellant stated that the respondent ever treated their home as the family home, and the respondent, along with her mother, would always teach the daughter that the appellant was not her father. Eventually, the child started to maintain distance from the appellant. The respondent would ask the appellant to stay away from the daughter and not show any love or affection to her, which offended the appellant deeply. 
  10. The appellant also found out that the respondent was planning to divorce the appellant, which was also disclosed to him by the respondent’s daughter. She then left their home and started living in her parent’s home in 1989. In 1990, the appellant’s servant left the job and then the respondent would only come to their home to drop her daughter off at school, cook food for herself and then leave for her office. The appellant had to keep eating outside, having no other alternative. 
  11. Around August 1990, the servant came to stay in the flat for two days, and when found out by the respondent, she screamed at the appellant, claiming that he had no self-respect, and she asked the servant to get out of the flat. This made the appellant feel humiliated and insulted. He left the flat and found a temporary shelter until a government flat was allotted. 
  12. They started living separately, and the appellant states that the respondent refused to cohabit with him and share the same bed without any justification. As per the appellant, her decision to not have a child caused mental cruelty to him, and he wasn’t even allowed to be a caring father to her daughter from the previous marriage. The appellant, therefore, filed a divorce. 

Issues raised

The Additional District Judge, Alipore, framed the following issues after going through all the evidence, statements, plaint and written statements:

  1. Whether the suit is maintainable or not?
  2. Whether the respondent is guilty of the alleged cruelty as per her conduct?
  3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a grant of divorce as claimed by him?
  4. What other relief is the petitioner entitled to?

The following issues were discussed, and the contentions were made accordingly. 

Contentions of the appellant

The appellant provided the Apex Court with many arguments to seek divorce from the respondent and establish cruelty on her part. Some of the notable arguments include:

  1. There was a complete lack of emotion, feeling and concern for the appellant by the respondent after their marriage. Despite multiple attempts by the respondent to restart their matrimonial ties in a normal manner by forgetting the past, this lack of apathy made him feel dejected and miserable. His efforts were neither appreciated nor reciprocated. The respondent was indifferent to the appellant’s emotions and feelings. 
  2. The respondent failed to take care of the appellant when he was severely ill and had no one else to take care of him. The respondent chose to go on a trip with her family while the appellant was sick and did not enquire about his well-being after returning. This made the appellant feel truly alone in his own home and he felt very uncared for. 
  3. The respondent’s unilateral decision not to have a child with him also affected the appellant, as he wanted to have a child and complete his family. She did not consult with or ask him for his opinion before making that decision unilaterally, which shows her lack of interest in cooperating in matrimonial relations. 
  4. The respondent denied the appellant being close to her daughter from her previous marriage and not developing any affection towards her. The respondent also denied him being inquisitive about her daughter’s well-being and whereabouts. Furthermore, the respondent and mother would teach the daughter that the appellant is not her father, which made her avoid him, and that deeply affected the appellant. 
  5. The appellant states that the respondent had a problem with his servant, Prabir Mallick, without any valid reason or suspicion. When Prabir had come on a holiday to stay with the appellant after quitting his job, the respondent and her father abused Prabir and the appellant, which made him feel insulted and humiliated, and it made him leave their house and find temporary residence at a friend’s place. 
  6. She started living separately from the appellant at her parent’s house and would only come to their home to cook for herself. She did not cook any meals for the appellant when he did not have a cook, forcing him to eat outside and feel bad for himself and his cognition.
  7. The refusal to share the same bed with him also made him feel humiliated, as she did not have any reason for doing the same. 
  8. The appellant also provided three witnesses in support of his claim. 
  9. The first witness was himself, and the second was Mr. Debabrata Ghosh, the appellant’s younger brother. He informed the court that he didn’t attend his brother’s marriage ceremony, and he barely visited his brother and sister-in-law at their residence. He also stated that he never took any financial assistance from his brother to manage his family expenditures. He stated that he had witnessed the existence of a certain conflict and rift between the appellant and the respondent. 
  10. The third witness was Mr. N.K. Raghupati, who was a friend of the appellant and knew both the appellant and the respondent as his colleagues. He was staying at the Calcutta Circuit House and stated that two weeks before the Puja Vacation of 1990, the appellant asked if he could stay with him as he had certain altercations with the respondent. 
  11. The appellant’s servant, Prabir, was examined as the next witness, and he stated that he had known the appellant for almost 9 years. After quitting his job to work at the Burdwan Collectorate, he used to visit the appellant’s flat on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays. He noticed that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent was not good. He also stated that the appellant had informed him of how the respondent only cooks for herself and that he has to eat out. He stated that the appellant’s brother and sister would never visit their residence and that the respondent’s daughter used to say that the appellant is not her father as they have no blood relationship with each other. 
  12. The servant also stated how the respondent got furious at him when she found out that he was staying in the flat. She stated that it was her flat and she was allowing the appellant to stay there as he had no other place. 
  13. The next witness was Sikhabilas Barma, who was also an IAS officer, and he stated that he knew the appellant and the respondent didn’t have a good relationship with each other. The appellant had told him about how his wife just cooks for herself and he has to take meals outside. He also witnessed how the respondent drove the appellant out of her flat.
  14. Due to all of these facts, the appellant felt extremely miserable and had to undergo immense mental cruelty, for which he sought a decree of divorce from the court. 

Contentions of the respondent

After the appellant made his arguments, the respondent submitted a written statement presenting her contentions and called a few witnesses in support of her claim. Some of the notable contentions are:

  1. The respondent stated that whatever conflict or discord happened in their marital life was because the appellant let himself be controlled by the directions of his family members and his relatives, who were disapproving of the marriage. She stated that the family largely interfered with their marriage and that the appellant filed for divorce only because his brother and sister made him do it. 
  2. The respondent stated that she and the appellant had a normal marital life and denied all allegations of lack of affection and love. She also denied the allegations of poorly treating Mr. Prabir, the servant. She also stated that the appellant’s brother and sister usually stayed with them at their Minto Park residence whenever they came to Calcutta. She accused the appellant’s brother and sister of interfering with their private lives, which resulted in annoying the respondent. 
  3. She stated that the appellant was a good man and also admitted that the relationship between them was not ideal and that once, on 27.8.1990, the appellant had to stay outside their residence. Still, she denied the allegations of the appellant, who stated that she did not want to have a child with him for two years. She also denied the allegation that she refused to cohabit with him. 
  4. The respondent called Mr. R.M. Jamir, her witness number 2, and he stated that he knew both of them from 1989-90, and whenever he visited their home, he found them to be cordial and normal. He also stated that in 1993, the respondent inquired about the heart health and well-being of the appellant. 
  5. The respondent called her father, A.K. Dasgupta, as witness number 3. He stated that the respondent had never humiliated the appellant or the servant in his presence and that she did not ask the servant to leave the house. He stated that the respondent and the appellant started living separately in 1990, and after that, the appellant has never made an effort to inquire about her condition. He also accepted the fact that the appellant had an affectionate outlook towards the respondent’s daughter and that he was not aware of the appellant’s heart condition or his bypass surgery. 

District Court’s decision

  1. On the matter of the maintainability of the suit, the trial court did not spend much time pondering it and decided in favour of the appellant that the suit was indeed maintainable. 
  2. Moving to the question of establishing cruelty on the part of the respondent, the court appreciated all the evidence submitted before it and came to the following decision. As per the court, these acts constituted mental cruelty:
  1. Refusal of the respondent to cohabit with the appellant.
  2. She made the respondent’s decision to not have a child with the appellant for two years unilaterally. 
  3. The act of the respondent insulted the appellant. It made him leave their Minto Park house and temporarily seek shelter at a friend’s place until an official residence was allocated. This is in reference to the day when the respondent screamed and hurled abuses at the appellant to find out that the servant was staying with him. 
  4. The fact that the respondent used to go to the flat and only cook food for herself forced the appellant to eat outside many times. 
  5. The fact that the respondent did not care for the appellant’s consistent illness and had no concern for his heart condition led to a bypass surgery. 
  6. The insult and humiliation that the respondent subjected the servant, Prabir, to. 

Based upon all these facts, the Additional District Judge found it necessary to grant the decree of divorce and stated that the appellant was successful at proving mental cruelty on the part of the respondent, which ultimately led to the dissolution of their marriage. 

High Court’s decision

Aggrieved by the decision of the District Court, the respondent filed an appeal before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court reversed the judgement given by the Alipore District Court and held that the appellant was not successful at proving that the respondent was cruel to him. The High Court based its decision on the following findings:

  1. Considering that both spouses had such high status in society, it was well within the respondent’s right to decide when she wanted to have a child after getting married, as it was her personal choice for a career or any other reason as she may please. 
  2. The High Court also condemned that the appellant failed to produce an exact date or time period when the respondent decided not to have a child with him while making his pleadings, which makes matters inconsistent. 
  3. The failure of the appellant to procure an exact date as to when the respondent conveyed her unilateral decision to not have a child with him for two years also makes it hard for the court to establish cruelty of any kind. 
  4. As per the High Court, the fact that the appellant continued to live and cohabit with the respondent despite her decision not to have a child amounts to condonation (forgiveness of cruelty by an implied act that shows an interest in continuing to live like a normal married couple) of cruelty. 
  5. The High Court did not believe the fact that the respondent refused to cohabit with him, as the appellant was not successful at tendering an exact date, time, or month when the respondent conveyed to him the decision to stay separately from him. 
  6. As per the High Court, the fact that the respondent and the appellant slept in different beds didn’t amount to the fact that they did not cohabit together. 
  7. As per the High Court, the respondent’s refusal to cook did not amount to cruelty as she was a working woman of high status and had to go to her office on time for her work. 
  8. As per the High Court, the fact that the wife did not visit the husband during a period of prolonged illness also did not amount to mental cruelty.

Based on all these facts, the High Court reversed the judgement given by the District Court and held that the respondent was not guilty of mental cruelty and that the appellant could not be entitled to divorce or dissolution of marriage. 

Supreme Court’s decision

The High Court’s decision was ultimately appealed by the appellant, and the Supreme Court gave the following decision: 

  1. The excessive reliance of the High Court on the fact that the respondent was an IAS officer was erroneous, as per the Apex Court. Even if both parties to a marriage are IAS officers and hold a high status in society, it cannot be said that they cannot show normal human emotions, as is expected of any spouse in a marriage. It is highly rash and unfair to say that their emotional quotient would be different due to the positions they are engaged in.
  2. The fact that the High Court believed that the respondent was free to make the decision of whether she wanted to have a child or not due to the fact that she had a high status in society and was an IAS officer is highly unjust. Such decisions cannot be made unilaterally in a marriage, and if at all they are made unilaterally, it would amount to mental cruelty to the appellant. 
  3. The observation of the High Court that the continuance of cohabitation by the appellant with the respondent amounts to condonation or forgiveness of cruelty is unsustainable in law. 
  4. The High Court’s opinion that the respondent’s refusal to cook for her husband doesn’t amount to cruelty because she had to work and go to her office is also unsustainable in law. The High Court did not address the facts correctly, as the District Court did. The question was not about cooking food but was about cooking only for herself and not the husband, which would clearly annoy the husband and lead to a clear instance of mental cruelty. 
  5. The High Court has also erroneously decided on the matter of refusal to cohabit. As per the High Court, denial to share a bed does not amount to refusal to cohabit. However, as per the Supreme Court, no matter what status the respondent has, the fact that she decided to sleep in a separate room amounts to refusal of cohabitation, as when she entered into a matrimonial tie, she impliedly agreed to stand by all the expectations and fulfil all the obligations expected out of a normal marital life. 
  6. The observation of the High Court that the health condition of the appellant was not too serious to demand the attention of the respondent cannot be sustained in law, as in a normal Indian family, the husband cares for the wife when she is sick and expects the same from his wife when he is sick. The complete ignorance of the appellant’s health condition by the respondent would surely cause annoyance to him and amount to mental cruelty.
  7. The Supreme Court believes that the High Court has placed too much reliance on the evidence submitted by the respondent and had no consideration for the evidence submitted by the appellant. When the High Court relied on the statement of the respondent’s father, stating that he did not enquire about both of them living separately and that he had no idea about the appellant’s bypass surgery, it erroneously relied on his statement. As per the Supreme Court, the testimony of the respondent’s father is completely unreliable and unbelievable and, therefore, should not be held to be sustainable in law. 
  8. The High Court has erred in not taking into consideration the statements made by Mr. Prabir Malik. The High Court found it unacceptable that the appellant, despite his education and high reputation, would take the help of his cook-cum-servant in matters of matrimonial disputes. As per the Supreme Court, a witness’s financial position and standing are irrelevant. The credibility of a witness is not dependent on his financial position. He is a natural witness to the matter, and the fact that he so graphically painted all the incidents that took place between the appellant and the respondent makes him a primary witness. All the incidents that Prabir quoted are serious matters, and the trial court was right to put heavy reliance on his statements, but the High Court has erroneously reversed the trial court’s judgement. 
  9. The High Court has also failed to consider the fact that the respondent and the appellant stayed separately for over sixteen and a half years, which is enough to show that the entire foundation of their marriage has disappeared by now. They haven’t even spent a single minute together since then, and even when the appellant underwent bypass surgery, the respondent did not even enquire about his health, which shows that they no longer have an interest in saving their matrimonial ties. 
  10. The court gave a chance for reconciliation to the parties, but the appellant was not even interested in doing so, and therefore, they shouldn’t be forced to stay together. 
  11. The High Court has seriously erred in reversing the judgement given by the district court. The marriage has been irretrievably broken down, and there is no scope for reconciliation. Mental cruelty can be established through the conduct of the respondent; therefore, the divorce decree was granted, and parties are directed to bear their own costs. 

Rationale behind the judgement

The Apex Court made reference to multiple cases, definitions and principles to justify its position in this case. The notable points are:

Definition of mental cruelty

The Supreme Court refers to the definition of mental cruelty in the Black’s Law Dictionary, which goes like: “Mental Cruelty – As a ground for divorce, one spouse’s course of conduct (not involving actual violence) that creates such anguish that it endangers the life, physical health, or mental health of the other spouse.” Similarly, in Halsbury’s Laws of England, the concept of cruelty states that, as per general rule, whenever a court attempts to establish cruelty, it should take the entire matrimonial relationship into account and not just violent acts. Harmful taunts, complaints, accusations and injurious reproaches can also be termed cruelty. Paramount importance must be given to the effect of the conduct and not the nature of the conduct. As per American Jurisprudence too, mental cruelty is the conduct of one spouse that causes embarrassment, humiliation and anguish in the other and makes their life miserable. There must be a consistent course of conduct on the part of the respondent that poses a threat to the physical and mental health of the appellant and makes it impossible to continue cohabiting with each other. 

The Supreme Court took a broader understanding of the term “mental cruelty” so as to analyse whether the acts alleged in this instant case amount to cruelty as an aggregate. If so, then the decree of divorce can be granted. The court, in its approach, first refers to its own judgement in the case of N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975), wherein mental cruelty was defined as the conduct of the respondent that causes a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the appellant that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent. 

Previously decided cases related to mental cruelty

The Apex Court made reference to these previously decided cases on mental cruelty to justify its judgement. 

Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan & Anr. (1981)

The Apex Court then refers to this case, wherein it was held that the understanding of whether a conduct amounts to cruelty or not changes as per the advancement of society and societal norms, which equate to the standard of living. Moreover, to establish legal cruelty, it is not necessary to prove actual physical violence. Consistent bad treatment, stopping the act of intercourse, neglect towards the partner and indifference can also amount to mental or legal cruelty. 

Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1987)

Then, the Apex Court refers to the case wherein the court stated that the word cruelty has nowhere been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and it has been used in Section 13(1)(i)(a) only in relation to human conduct or behaviour in relation to matrimonial duties and obligations. It is the conduct of one spouse adversely affecting the other. Therefore, cruelty can be mental and physical, with or without intention. In matters of physical cruelty, the court is concerned with the nature and degree of harm based on facts, but in matters of mental cruelty, the court is concerned with the nature of the conduct and the impact that such conduct has on the mind of the appellant. The court must examine whether the act is causing a reasonable apprehension of harm and injury in the mind of the appellant, making it impossible for him/her to cohabit with the respondent. Once that is established, mental cruelty can be conferred. The absence of intention is immaterial in such a situation. 

Rajani v. Subramonian (1988)

The Apex Court makes a reference to the case wherein the court held that the existence of cruelty must be established keeping in mind the kind of life the parties lead and are used to based on their economic and social standing in society, their culture and their values contrasted with the standards of modern society and the culture prevalent at the time. 

V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1991)

The Apex Court then made reference to the case wherein the judgement states that the term mental cruelty as per Section 13 can be defined as any conduct that causes mental pain and suffering to one party by the conduct of the other, making it impossible for them to live together. While establishing cruelty, the court must make reference to the social position, educational qualifications, surrounding society and many other relevant factors to constitute cruelty. 

Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi (2001)

The next case that the Apex Court referred to is this one, which states that whenever the facts and submissions make it clear that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and there is no ground for reconciliation, parties should not be forced to stay together, as it would be dangerous for them to do so. 

Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa (2002)

The next case referred to was the one in which the judgement stated that the idea of cruelty would vary from one individual to the other. What may seem cruel to one party may be a laughing matter to another. Therefore, it is important to examine cases of cruelty on a case-to-case basis. 

Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta (2002)

The court then referred to the case, wherein the parties had started to live separately for a very long period of time. Based on this prolonged separation, it was clear that they had no interest in reconciling. It was clear that their marriage had irretrievably broken down and therefore, there was no point in forcing them to stay together as it would only cause them more harm and danger, as observed by the Apex Court. 

Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit (2006)

In this case, it was held that the establishment of cruelty will not depend on the number of times it has happened but on the gravity or intensity of the matter, which leads to a detrimental effect on the mental position of the spouse. 

Establishing mental cruelty – tests

The Supreme Court states that to establish mental cruelty, the conduct must be grave and substantial. The normal conflicts in a matrimonial setup cannot be ascertained as cruelty, as that would lead to a lot of frivolous cases. Physical violence is not necessary to constitute cruelty. Mental apprehension of harm is also enough to establish cruelty. The court must be satisfied by all the acts that there is no scope for reconciliation between the parties, and it would be highly improbable for them to live together. The educational, economic and social backgrounds of the parties must also be considered while making the decision. Every act that causes annoyance to one partner is not enough to establish cruelty. It must be consistently grave and make it impossible for the appellant to cohabit with the respondent. 

Certain instances constituting mental cruelty

The Supreme Court provided this indicative list of instances that lead to mental cruelty. This list is not exhaustive but simply suggestive:

  • Acute mental pain, agony and suffering make it impossible for parties to reside together
  • Simple indifference doesn’t amount to mental cruelty, but consistent use of foul language, petulance and neglect can lead to mental cruelty.
  • Consistent abusive and humiliating treatment makes the life of one of the partners truly miserable. 
  • Unjust conduct and behaviour of one spouse towards the other, which affects the physical and mental health of the other, amounts to mental cruelty. 
  • A husband undergoing vasectomy and a wife undergoing tubectomy without the consent of each other can amount to mental cruelty. 
  • Prolonged periods of continued separation can indicate an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. 
  • The unilateral decision of a spouse to not have a child after marriage may amount to mental cruelty. 
  • While establishing cruelty, the entire married life must be examined, not just a few isolated instances. There must be continuous bad conduct and misbehaviour to establish mental cruelty. 
  • Normal fights, which are trivial and common to all marriages, cannot be said to be grounds for divorce. There has to be a severity in terms of the differences and conduct. 

As per the Apex Court, these are the few instances that can guide courts to reach a decision and establish mental cruelty in a marriage. 

Conclusion

Considering the fact that the idea of a particular provision in law must be interpreted differently as time changes and society transforms, it was necessary in the Indian legal system that the interpretation of cruelty be broadened to include the mental dimensions of cruelty as well. The case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh is an important precedent that recognises that the idea of cruelty varies from individual to individual and cannot be judged in a standardised manner. The social background, economical condition, educational qualification and more factors are to be considered while establishing cruelty. To date, this landmark decision serves as an important precedent for courts to establish cruelty in matrimonial disputes and, therefore, has a unique significance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the definition of mental cruelty?

While the courts found it difficult to establish a standardised definition of mental cruelty as it varies from a case-to-case basis depending upon the background of individuals, the primary definition suggested by the courts is: Mental cruelty is the conduct of a respondent that leads to an apprehension of harm/ injury in the minds of the appellant, making it difficult for them to reside together. 

Is mental cruelty a ground for divorce?

While the earlier understanding only attributed physical cruelty as a ground for divorce, through various developments in the form of judgements, mental cruelty has also been recognised as a valid ground for divorce. 

What is the condonation of mental cruelty?

Condonation of cruelty means any act by the appellant that shows implied forgiveness and a willingness to continue cohabitation with the respondent. Example: continuation of sexual intercourse with the respondent. 

Is intention a necessary factor to establish cruelty?

No, the intention is immaterial while establishing cruelty. Cruel conduct can be done with or without any intention. 

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here