A JAYACHANDRAversusANEEL KAUR

                           AJAYACHANDRA                                          A
                                     v.
                              ANEEL KAUR

                           DECEMBER 2, 2004
                                                                                 B
      [RUMA PAL, ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.]

     Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-Section 13-Petition for dissolution of
marriage-Ground of mental cruelty-Allegation of using abusive language
and making allegations of adultery against the spouse-Family court               C
granting decree of judicial separation instead of decree for dissolution of
marriage in the interest of c;hildren-High Court held that cruelty not proved
as evidence not let in order to prove the allegations-On appeal, held:
Decree for dissolution of marriage liable to be passed as in the facts of
the case cruelty proved-Cruelty with reference to matrimonial cases should
be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship   D
between the parties deteriorated to such an extent due to conduct of the
other spouse that it would be impossible for them of live together without
mental agony torture or distress-In determining mental cruelty nature of
cruel treatment and impact thereof on the mind of other spouse has to be
enquired-However, if the conduct is bad enough and unlawful or illegal,          E
the impact need not be enquired into-In case of mental cruelty when there
is no direct evidence, Courts are required to probe into the mental process
and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence-The concept
of proof beyond shadow of doubt in order to prove cruelty in matrimonial
cases is not applicable because such case is of civil nature-Evidence.
                                                                                 F
      Words and Phrases :

      "Cruelty"-Meaning of in the context of Hindu Marriage Act, 1995.

     Appellant-husband filed petition u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act,              G
1955 against respondent-wife seeking decree of divorce on the ground
of 'mental cruelty'. His case was that r~spondent had HI-treated him,
abused him in vulgar language at home and at hospital (workplace) and
other places and suspected his fidelity and character alleging adultery
with nursing staff which caused immense emotional stress and mental              H
                                     599
    600                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   agony. His case was also that had no physical relationship for two years.
    Respondent had filed caveats, but the same was lodged at wrong address
    of the appellant. Respondent denied the allegations and stated that she
    had full faith in her husband and that her bonafide advice to him to act
    decently was misconstrued. Subsequent to filing of the divorce petition
B   respondent had filed suits for injunction against the appellant in respect
    of right to practice in the hospital and for use of certain portion of
    hospital. In the execution petition she had prayed for attachment of
    hospital equipments and also civil detention of appellant in case of
    disobedience of order of injunction. She showed her unwillingness to
C   withdraw the application until divorce case was finalized. She had also
    filed application for maintenance. Family Court held that respondent
    had made unfounded allegations which caused mental agony and mental
    cruelty to the appellant, but passed decree for judicial separation instead
    of decree for divorce in view of welfare of children. Appell~nt as . well
    as respondent filed appeal against the order of Family Court. High
D   Court dismissed appellant's appeal. It allowed the appeal of respondent .
    holding that cruelty was not established in as much as appellant had not
    examined witnesses from the hospital to prove respondent using abusive·
    language and making allegations against appellant of adultery with
    nursing staff. Hence the present appeals.
E
         Appellant-husband contended that mental cruelty was clearly
    established; that mere non-examination of hospital staff could not be a
    ground to discard cogent and credible evidence led by him; and that
    since the marriage had broke down irretrievably, on that score alone
F   decree of divorce should have been passed.

          Allowing the appeals, the Court

          HELD : 1.1. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a
    ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as willful and
G   unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb
    or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension
    of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in
    the light of the norms of material ties of the particular society to which
    the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they
H   live. Cruelty includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of
                A. JAYACHANDRA v. ANEEL KAUR                           601

a matrlmonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. Iffrom the conduct ' A
of his spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately
drawn that the treatment. of the spouse is such that it causes an
apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental
welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. (607-G-H; 608-A-B]
                                                                               B
       1.2. The expression 'cruelty' has been used in relation to human
conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect
of matrimonial duties and obligations. Cruelty is a course or conduct
of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental
or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the Court will
have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree,
                                                                               c
if it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must
begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the impact of such
treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable
apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the
other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into      D
account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining
spouse. However, there may be a case where the conduct complained
of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illega!. Then the impact
or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or
considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct      E
itself is proved or admitted. [608-E-F-G-H]

     Sobh Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, AIR (1988) SC 121, relied on.

      1.3. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be
"grave and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner
                                                                               F
spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse, it
must be something more serious than "ordinary wear and tear or
married life". The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances
and background has to be examineci to reach the conclusion whether the
conduct complained amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct          G
has to be considered in the background of several factors such a social
status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs
and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give
exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute
cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court      H
    602                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an
    extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible
    for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to
    entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not
    absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of
B   conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well
    constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. 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. [609-A-B-C-D-E]

c        1.4. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a
    certain pitch of severity. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has
    to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person
    would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant
    should be called upon to endure as a part of normal human life. Every
D   matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not
    amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded
    variety which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by
    mere silence, violent or non-violent. [609-F-G-H]

E        s. Hanumantha Rao v. s. Ramani, (1999) 3 sec 620 and Dastane v.
    Dastane, AIR (1975) SC 1534, referred to.

          1.5. In delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see
    the probabilities of the case. The concept, a proof beyond the shadow
    of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and
F   certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those
    of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities
    in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter
    of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because
    of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal
G   or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct
    evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same
    time be direct evidence. Courts are required to probe into the mental
    process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence.
    It is this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial
H   disputes. [608-8-C-D-E)
                 A. JAY ACHANDRA v. ANEEL KAUR                          603

     2.1. In the legal and factual background that appellant is entitled to    A
a decree of divorce. While the tri~I Court analysed the evidence in great
detail and found that the accepted stand of the respondent-wife regarding
her behavour and conduct caused mental agony and amounted to mental
cruelty, the High Court did not discuss the evidence at all. On the specious
ground that witnesses from the hospital were not examined and, therefore,      B
adverse inference was to be drawn. There was not even any discussion as
to how the evidence led was insufficient to establish mental cruelty. The
High Court's view that if at all it was a fact that respondent was using
abusive language and making allegations of adultery with nursing staff,
some witnesses from the hospital were necessary to be examined is clearly      C
indefensible. That alone should not have been made the determinative
factor to discard evidence on record. On that ground alone the judgment
of the High Court is vulnerable. [610-D-E-F]

     2.2. The evidence as led and which is practically undisputed is that
the respondent had asked the husband to do certain things which cannot         P
be termed to be a simple advice for proper behaviour. Though respondent
tried to show that they were simple and harmless advice, yet on a bare
reading thereof it is clear that there were clear manifestations of her
suspecting the husban~'s fidelity, character and reputation. Constant
nagging on those aspects, certainly amounted to causing indelible mental       E
agony and amounts to cruelty. [610-G-H; 611-A-B]

      2.3. If acts subsequent to the filing of the divorce petition can be
looked into the infer condonation of the aberrations, acts subsequent to
the filing of the petition can be taken note of to show a patter~ in the F
behaviour and conduct. In the instant case, after filing of the divorce
petition a suit for injunction was filed, and the respondent went to the
extent of seeking detention of the r~spondent. She filed a petition for
maintenance which was also dismissed. Several caveat petitions were ,
                                                                            /
lodged and with wrong address. The respondent in her evidence clearly
accepted that she intended to proceed with the execution proceedings, G
and prayer for arrest till the divorce case was finalized. When the
respondent gives priority to her profession over her husband's freedom
it points unerringly at disharmony, diffusion and disintegration of marital
unit, from which the Court can deduce about irretrievable breaking of
marriage. (611-C-D-E-F]                                                       H
     604                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A          2.4. It is true that irretrievable breaking of marriage is not one of
     the statutory grounds on which Court can direct dissolution of marriage,
     this Court has with a view to do complete justice and shorten the agony
     of the parties engaged in long drawn legal battle, directed dissolution
     of marriage in exceptional cases. (612-A-B-CJ
B
          Chetan Dass v. Kam/a Devi, AIR (2001) SC 1709; G. V.N. Kammeswara
     Rao v. G. Jabilli, [2002} 2 SCC 296 and Shyam Sunder Kohli v. Sushma
     Kohli @ Satya Devi, JT (2004) 8 SC 166, distinguished.

       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7763-7764
c of 2004.
         From the Judgment and Order dated 27.9.2002 of the Andhra Pradesh
     High Court in C.M.A. Nos. 2124 and 2366 of 2001.

.p       Shekhar Naphade, Mahesh Agrawal, Tarun Dua, Ms. Momota Devi
     Oinam and E.C. Agrawala for the Appellant.

         Mrs. S. Vani Mrs. B. Sunita Rao and Sushi! Kumar Pathak for the
     Respondent.

E
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave granted.

            Parties to a marriage tying nuptial knot are supposed to bring about
F    the uriion of souls. It creates a new relationship of love, affection, care and
     concern betwe~n the husband and wife. According to Hindu Vetiic philosophy
     it is sanskar- a sacrament; one of the sixteen important sacraments essential
     to be taken during one's lifetime. There may be physical union as a result
     of marriage for procreation to perpetuate the lineal progeny for ensuring
G    spiritual salvation and performance ofreligious rites, but what is essentially
     contemplated in union of two souls. Marriage is considered to be a junction
     of three important duties i.e. social, religious spiritual.

          This case presents a very unpleasant tale of two highly educated
H    professionals (doctors by profession) fighting a bitter matrimonial battle.
         A. JAYACHANDRA v. ANEEL KAUR [ PASAYAT, J.]                         605

      Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows :                     A

        The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'husband') and the
 respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'wife') tied nuptial knot on
  l 0.10.1978. They were blessed with two children. Both are majors by now.
 The marriage was what is commonly known as "love marriage". Appellant               B
 and the respondent were co-students in the medical college. They belong
 to different parts of the country; the appellant-husband is a Telugu Brahmin
 while the respondent-wife belongs to Sikh religion. They were both working
 in the hospital which was established by the appellant's father Dr. A. Ram
 Murthy. Allegedly finding the behaviour of the respondent-wife obnoxious,
 humiliating and amounting to mental cruelty, a notice was given by the
                                                                                     c
 appellant-husband on 5.3.1997 seeking divorce by mutual consent to avoid
 unnecessary complications. It was stated therein that they had not shared the
  bed and there was no physical contact between them for over two years, in
  the notice that the respondent had treated appellant with cruelty and her
  conduct amounted to desertion for two years and was, therefore, neither            D
  safe, desirable nor advisable to continue marital relationship. A response
  was given by respondent on 21.3 .1997 deying the allegations. It was suggested
  that there should be a free and heart to heart discussion to sort out the
. problems for a harmonious married !if~. The aforesaid task which admittedly
  took place did not bring any result and ultimately a petition under Section        E
  13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the 'Act') was filed before
  Family Courts, Hyderabad. It was categorically stated therein that the
  behaviour and conduct of the respondent was causing immense emotional
  stress, mental agony, and there being no sharing of the bed and cohabitation
   for more than two years, prayer was made to grant decree of divorce for
                                                                                     F
  dissolving the marriage between the parties. It was specifically stated that
  the respondent has ill-treated her husband, abused him in vulgar language
  in the home and at the hospital and at other places thereby causing mental
  agony, damage and Joss personally and professionally and also in the social
  circle; allegations were made about his character. Caveats were filed at
  different places with a view to forestall legal action, and create an impression   G
  of innocence. Caveats were admittedly lodged at the wrong address of the
  appellant. Counter affidavit was filed by the respondent denying the
  allegations. It was stated that he bona fide act~ in advising her husband to
  act properly and to be decent in his behaviour was misconstrued and was
  being projected as nagging and insulting behaviour. The petition for divorce       H
    606                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   was filed on unfounded allegations.

          At this juncture it would be relevant to not that after the petition was
    filed by the appellant-husband, a suit for injunction bearing OA No. 89/97
    in respect of right to practise in the hospital was filed by the respondent.
B   The said suit was not objected to by the appellant and the suit was decreed
    on 20.11.1997. Subsequently, an execution petition was filed praying for
    attachment of hospital equipments belonging to the appellant, and also for
    civil detention of the appellant for alleged disobedience of the order of
    injunction. It was categorically stated by the respondent during trial that the
C   was not willing to withdraw the application until divorce case was finalized.
    An application for maintenance was also filed before the Family Court,
    Hyderabad, where the matter was pending claiming a sum of Rs. 13,000
    p.m., though admittedly the respondent is a professional doctor. Subsequently,
    another suit was filed for perpetual and mandatory injunction bearing O.S.
    No. 43/1999 against the appellant for allowing respondent and the staff
D   appointed by her use of certain portion of the hospital and use of the medical
    instruments.

          Evidence was led by the parties. The respondent stated in her evidence
    that the had complete faith and trust in her husband and no doubt about his
E   integrity and character. But at the same time, she stated that she had advised
    him on five counts to be discreet and decent in his behaviour. By judgment
    dated 18.6.2001. Family Court, Hyderabad, passed decree for judicial
    separation with effect from the date of the decree. Though the Family Court
    found that unfounded allegations which caused mental agony were made by
    the respondent, and her alleged acts clearly caused mental agony and mental
F
    cruelty, yet keeping in view the welfare of the children instead of decree
    for divorce a decree for judicial separation was felt to be more appropriate.
    Both the appellant and respondent challenged the judgment before the High
    Court. While the appellant-husband took the stand that a decree for divorce
    should have been passed, the respondent-wife questioned legality of the
G   decree for judicial separation. By the impugned judgment a Division Bench
    of the High Court dismissed the husband's appeal while allowing the wife's
    appeal. It was held that the materials on records were not sufficient to prove
    any mental cruelty. The entire evidence led by the appellant did not even
    emit smell of cruelty. It was noted that even if it was a fact that the
H   respondent was using abusive language and making allegations ofadultery
        A. JAYACHANDRA v. ANEEL KAUR [ PASAYAT, J.]                        607

with nursing staff, the husband ought to have examined some witnesses from           A
the hospital and since it was not done, cruelty was not established.

     Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the approach of the
High Court is clearly erroneous. It did not examine the evidence led in detail   1




and upset the findings recorded by the trial Court after analyzing the               B
evidence in great detail. It was not even pointed out as to how the evidence
led by the appellant was in any way deficient to prove cruelty. Mere non-
examination of staff of the hospital cannot be a ground to discard the cogent
and credible evidence led by the appellant. It was further submitted that
mental cruelty was clearly established and in any event the marriage has
broken down irretrievably and on that score alone the decree of divorce
                                                                                     c
should have been passed.

      Learned counsel for the respondent-wife submitted that no particulars
of alleged :ruelty were indicated. Making vague allegations about the mis-
behaviour was not sufficient for accepting the prayer for divorce. The               D
evidence was scanty and in no way established mental cruelty. What amounts
to cruelty has been dealt with by the this Court in S. Hanumantha Rao v.
S. Ramani, [1999] 3 SCC 620. The accepted factual position shows that till
1993 the relationship was smooth except some stray incidents of discord
which are normal in nay marriage and such normal wear and tear in                    E
relationship cannot be a ground for seeking divorce. It was submitted that
even if is accepted, for the sake of argument, that marriage has broken down
that cannot be a ground to grant a decree for divorce. Reference was made
to the decisions of this Court in Chetan Dass v. Kam/a Devi, AIR (2001)
SC 17019, G. VN. Kameswara Rao v. G. Jabilli, [2002] 2 SCC 296 and
Shyam Sunder Kohli v. Sushma Kohli@ Satya Devi, JT (2004) 8 SC 166.
                                                                                     F

     Further submission was that in the case at hand it cannot be said that
the requisite ingredients for constituting cruelty have been satisfied.

     The expression "cruelty" has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can           G
be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage
may be defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to
cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to
a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty
has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular     H
      608                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

 A    society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment
      in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which
      falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be
      physical. If from the conduct of his spouse same is established and/or an
      inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment ofthe spouse is such
 B    that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or
      her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. fn delicate human
      relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The
      concept, a proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal
      trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate

 c    personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to
      see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out,
      not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant
      spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical
      or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and
      direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same
 D    time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, Courts
      are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents
      that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider
      the evidence in matrimonial disputes.

-·E         The expression 'cruelty' has been used in relation to human conduct
      or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial
      duties and obligations. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is
      adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical,
      intentional or unintentional. Ifit is physical, the Court will have no problem
      in determining it. It is a question or fact and degree. If it is mental, the
 F    problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature
      of cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in the mind of the
      spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful
      or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to
      be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on
 G    the complaining spouse. However, there may be a case where the conduct
      complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the
      impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or
      considered. In such cases, t.he cruelty will be established ifthe conduct itself
      is proved or admitted (See Sobh Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, AIR (1988) SC
 H    121 ).
         A. JAYACHANDRA v. ANEEL KAUR [ PASAYAT, J.]                       609

      To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be "grave and        A
weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot
be reasonably expected to live with tlie other spouse. It must be something
more serious than "ordinary wear and tear of married life". The conduct,
taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be
examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts         B
to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted
above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties,
their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It
is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description
of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type
as to satisfy the conscience on the Court that the relationship between the        C
parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other
spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental
agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce.
Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a
consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and
torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the
                                                                                   D
Act. 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.


       The Court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty    E
has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings
and the psychological changes in a spouse's conduct have to be borne in
mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However, insignificant or
trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the
conduct can be called cruelty, it must torch a certain pitch of severity. It
is for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct
                                                                                   F
was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to considered
whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal
human life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the
other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between
spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to           G
cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can
be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent
or non-violent.


     The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and
                                                                                   H
    610                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable
    extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences
    should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been
    made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in
    determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and as noted
B   above, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the
    parties, their character and social status. A too technical and hyper-sensitive
    approach would be counter-productive to the institution of marriage. The
    Courts do not have to deal with idea\ husbands and ideal wives. It has to
    deal with particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere

c   ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court. (See
    Dastane v. Dastane, AIR (1975) SC 1534.

          On reading of judgments of the trial Court and the High Court one thing
    is clear. While the trial Court analysed the evidence in great detail and found
    that the accepted stand of the respondent-wife regarding her behaviour and
D   conduct caused mental agony and camounted to mental cruelty, the High
    Court did not discuss the evidence at all. On the specious ground that
    witnesses from the hospital were not examined and, therefore, adverse
    inference was to be drawn. There was not even any discussion as to how
    the evidence led was insufficient to establish mental cruelty. The High
E   Court's view that if at all it was a fact that respondent was using abusive
    language and making allegations of adultery with nursing staff, some
    witnesses from the hospital were necessary to be examined is clearly
    indefensible. That alone should not have been made the determinative factor
    to discard evidence on record. On that ground alone the judgment of the
F   High Court is vulnerable. The evidence as led and which is practically
    undisputed is that the respondent had asked the husband to do certain things
    which cannot be termed to be a simple advice for proper behaviour. For
    example in her evidence respondent clearly accepted that she had said five
    things to be followed by him. Surprisingly, most of them related to lad~es
    working in the hospital. Though respondent tried to show that they were
G   simple and harmless advice, yet on a bare reading thereof it is clear that there
    were clear manifestations of her suspecting the husband's fidelity, character
    and reputation. By way of illustration, it may be indicated that the first so
    called advice was not to ask certain female staff members to come and work
    on off-duty hours when nobody else was available in the hospital. Second
H   was not to work behind the closed doors with certain members of staff.
         A. JAY ACHANDRA v. ANEEL KAUR [PASAYA T, J.]                        611

Contrary to what she had stated about having fl.~11 faith in her husband, the        A
so called advices were nothing but casting doubt on the reputation, character
and fidelity of her husband. Constant nagging on those aspects, certainly
amounted to causing indelible mental agony and amounts to cruelty. The
respondent was not an ordinary woman. She as a doctor in the hospital and
knew the importance of the nature of duty and the necessity of members               B
of the staff working even during off hours and the working conditions. There
was another instance which was specifically dealt with by the trial Court.
Some related to the alleged extra martial relationships of the appellant with
another married lady who was wife of his friend. Though the respondent
tried to explain that she was not responsible for making any such aspersions,
the inevitable conclusion is to the contrary.
                                                                                     c
      The matter can be looked at from another angle. If acts subsequent to
the filing of the divorce petition can be looked into infer condonation of the
aberrations, acts subsequent to the filing of the petition can be taken note
of to show a patterns in the behaviour and conduct. In the instant case, after       D
filing of the divorce petition a suit for injunction was filed, and the respondent
went to the extent of seeking detention of the respondent. She filed a petition
for maintenance which was also dismissed. Several caveat petitions were
lodged and as noted above, with wrong address. The respondent in her
evidence clearly accepted that she intended to proceed with the execution            E
proceedings, and prayer for arrest till the divorce case was finalized. When
the respondent gives priority to her profession over her husband's freedom
in points unerringly at disharmony, diffusion and disintegration of marital
unity, from which the Court can deduce about irretrievable breaking of
marriage.
                                                                                     F
     Several decisions, as noted above, cited by learned counsel for the
respondent to contend even if marriage has broken down irretrievably
decree of divorce cannot be passed. In all these cases it has been categorically
held that in extreme cases the Court can direct dissolution of marriage on
the ground that the marriage broken down irretrievably as is clear from              G
paragraph 9 of Shyam Sunder's case (supra). The factual position in each·
of ihe other cases is also distinguishable. It was helci that long absence of
physical company cannot be a ground for divorce if the same was on account
of husband's conduct. In Shyam Sunder 's case (supra) it was noted that the
husband was leading adulterous life and he cannot take advantage of his wife         H
                                                                    '·

    612                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   shunning his company. Though the High Court held by the impugned
    judgment that the said case was similar, it unfortunately failed to notice the
    relevant factual difference in the two cases. It is true that irretrievable
    breaking of marriage is not one of the statutory grounds on which court can
    direct dissolution of marriage, this Court has with a view to do complete
B   justice and shorten the agony of the parties engaged in long drawn legal
    battle, directed in those cases dissolution of marriage. But as noted in the
    said cases themselves those were exceptional cases.

          In the aforesaid legal and factual background the inevitable conclusion

c   is that the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce and we direct accordingly.

          The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.

    K.K.T.                                                          Appeals allowed.