Holding

Cruelty, including mental cruelty, may be established on the balance of probabilities without requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, and a pending criminal conviction is not a condition for granting divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Summary

The Supreme Court upheld the decree of divorce granted to the husband on the ground of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband alleged that his wife repeatedly demanded money, denied food, threatened him and the children, and physically abused the children, culminating in the death of three children. The trial and High Courts found both mental and physical cruelty, despite the pending criminal conviction of the wife under Section 302 IPC. The Court clarified that cruelty includes mental cruelty, which can be proved on the balance of probabilities without direct evidence, and that a criminal conviction is not a prerequisite for a divorce decree. Consequently, the appeal challenging the decree was dismissed.

Issues considered

The adequacy of evidence to establish mental and physical cruelty under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Whether proof beyond reasonable doubt is required in civil divorce proceedings involving cruelty.
Whether a pending criminal conviction under Section 302 IPC is essential for granting a decree of divorce.
The proper interpretation of the term "cruelty" within the context of matrimonial law.

Legislation cited

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 10, s. 28
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

divorcecrueltymental crueltyphysical crueltyHindu Marriage Actproof standardcivil matrimonial lawSection 10Section 28Indian Penal CodeSection 302Supreme Court

Judgment

I I

A SMT. MAYADEVI
::. ~.

JAGDISH PRASAD
\
FEBRUARY 21, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.]

Hindu Marriage Act, J955-Divorce petition-On the ground of
cruelty-By husband-Decree of divorce granted by courts below-On appeal,
C held: Facts of the case prove that the husband was subjected to mental and
physical cruelty Hence, entitled to decree of divorce.

Evidence-Matrimonial dispute-Allegation of cruelty-Proof-Degree
of-Held: In such cases the concept of proof beyond the shadow of doubt
cannot be applied-Jn physical cruelty there can be tangible and direct
D evidence, but in case of mental cruelty there may not be-Jn absence of direct
evidence courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental '
effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence.

Words and Phrases-'Cruelty'-Meaning and nature of in the context
of Hindu Marriage Act, J955.
E
Respondent-husband filed application for divorce on the ground of
· cruelty alleging that the appellant-wife used to demand money from him and
where the demand was not fulfilled she used to quarrel. She did not provide
food to husband or children and used to threaten him to implicate him in case
of dowry demand and kill the children. One day she left the house with three
F of their children. The dead bodies of the three children were recovered from ...
a well and appellant was also taken out from the well. She was convicted for
an offence under section 302 IPC for that act. The appeal against conviction
was still pending. She also filed a case against the husband alleging dowry
demand wherein the police by its final report observed that the case was false.
G Trial Court found that the allegation of cruelty was established and hence
granted decree of divorce. The decree was confirmed by High Court. Hence
the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
H 1040
MAY ADEY! v. JAGDISH PRASAD 1041
. HELD: 1. The instances of cruelty highlighted by the trial Court and A
also by the High Court clearly prove that the husband was subjected to mental
and physical cruelty. It is not a fact that the conviction in the criminal case
was the foundation for the decree. On the contrary, the trial Court clearly
mentioned that the aspect was not taken note of as the appeal was pending.
[Para 16] (1048-B] B
2.1. The expression "cruelty" has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty
can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of
marriage may be defined as wilful 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 C
has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular
society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment
in which they live. [Para ll] (1045-F]

2.2. Cruelty, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of
a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of his D
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. [Para 11] (1045-GJ

2.3. In delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the E
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 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 F
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 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 G
that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes. [Para 11]
[1045-H; 1046-A-C]

2.4. 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, H
-(

1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physica~
intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the Court will have no problem
in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. 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
B 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 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
C considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself
is proved or admitted. (Para 12) (1046-D-F)

Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, AIR (1988) SC 121 and A.
Jayachandra v. Anee/ Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22, referred to.

D , 2.5. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be "grave
and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot
·be reasonably expected to live with the 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
E to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, the
background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education,
physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. 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
F 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. [Para 13)
(1046-G-H; 1047-B-C)

2.6. The Court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of
G cruelty 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 touch a certain pitch of severity. It is
for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was
H such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to be considered
MA YADEVI v. JAGDISH PRASAD [PASA YAT,J.] 1043
whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal A
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
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 B
non-violent. [Para 14] [1047-D-Fl

2.7. A too technical and hyper-sensitive approach would be counter-
productive to the institution of marriage. The Courts do not have to deal with
ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with particular man and woman
before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion C
to go to Matrimonial Court. !Para 15) [1047-H; 1048-A]

Dastane v. Dastane, AIR (1975) SC 1534, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 877 of2007.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.10.2005 of the High Court D
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. C.M.A. No. 637/2005.

D. Bharat Kumar and Indra Makwana for the Appellant.

Anil Kamwal, S.S. Pillania, Dr. K.P.S. Dalal and Dr. Sushi! Balwada for E
the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned F
Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissing the appeal
filed by the appellant under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in
short the 'Act').

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
G
4. Respondent filed an application for divorce on the ground of cruelty
alleging that because of the acts of cruelty on several occasions perpetuated
*by the appellant, the respondent-husband was under apprehension that it
would not be desirable and safe to stay with the appellant and to continue
their marital relationships. H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A 5. It was, inter-alia, stated in the divorce petition as follows:

6. Parties got married according to the Hindu rites on 17.4.1993. The
appellant's father was an employee in the Railway department and the appellant
used to make demands for money frequently and used to quarrel when money
was not paid. She did not even provide food to her husband or the children
B and used to threaten the husband to falsely implicate him in a case of dowry
demand and to kill the children and to put the blame on the respondent-
husband and his family members. On 23.10.1999 she took Rs.1,05,000/- from
the respondent and acknowledged the receipt of the money in the diary of
the respondent-husband. She used to borrow money from time to time at the
C behest of her parents. From the wedlock four children were borne namely,
Neha, Anu, Khemraj and Vishnu Sagar. The appellant used to keep the
children tied by ropes and she attempted to throw them down from the
rooftop and used to physically torture them. She was temperamentally very
cruel and used to behave cruelly with the children also. She always used to
threaten that she will destroy the whole family of the responder.t and that
D there would be no successor left in the family. On 5.4.2002 at about 12.00 noon
she left her parental home alongwith three children namely, Neha, Anu and
Khemraj on the pretext that she was going to her parental house which was
located in the same village. Since she did not return till evening as was told
to the respondent-husband, he started searching for her. During course of
E search the garments and slippers of the children and the appellant were found
lying near the well of Ramialj i. Police was informed and on search dead bodies
of the three children were recovered from the well and appellant was also
taken out of the well. A criminal case was instituted and she was convicted
for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the
'!PC'). She was pregnant at that time and subsequently delivered a child. She
F filed an application for bail. While on bail, she filed a false case alleging dowry
demand against the respondent-husband and his family members. Final report
was given by police and it was observed that a false case had been lodged.

7. The appellant filed her response to the petition for divorce and
contended that no amount was borrowed by her father or any of her family
G members. The respondent-husband used to threaten her for dowry and she
had never perpetuated any cruelty so far as the children and the husband are
concerned. She did not know as to how the children fell into the well. She
was herself unconscious and recovered after about four days. The husband,
in fact, turned bet out of matrimonial home on 5.4.2002 alongwith their three
H children. Unfortunately, she and the three children fell into the well. The
"}

MAY ADEY! v. JAGDISH PRASAD [PASAYA T, J.] 1045
appeal is pending against her conviction. A
" -t
8. The trial Court found that the allegation of cruelty was established.
Several instances were noted. One of them related to her behaviour on the
date of judgment in the criminal case. After the judgment of conviction was
pronounced, she threatened to kill the husband and. prosecute him. It was
also noted by the trial Court that the allegation made by her alleging for B
dowry demand was dis-believed and the police gave final report stating that
the case was falsely lodged. The trial Court granted the decree of divorce
which was, as noted above, confirmed by the High Court in appeal by
dismissing appellant appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the foundation of c
decree for divorce is the alleged conviction for which the appeal is pending
and, therefore, the High Court shou Id not have disposed of the matter. In any
event, it is submitted that it was the husband and his family members who
were torturing her and being threatened by the husband she had not made
any grievance with the police. Unfortunately, when she made the allegation, D
the police did not properly investigate the matter and gave a final report
exonerating the husband.

I0. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted
that the instances highlighted by the trial Court and analysed in great detail
by the High Court clearly made out a case for dowry and no interference is E
called for in this appeal.

11. The expression "cruelt~" has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty
can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of
marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character
as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise F
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 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 G
not be physical. If from the conduct of his spouse same is established and/
or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is
-1
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. In delicate ·.
human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the
H
-'(

1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 2 S.C.R.

A 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 1
-
~-

delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, ?ne
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
B 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 tile same 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
c has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes.

12. 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
D or unintentional. If it is physical, the Court will have no problem in determining
it. It is a question of fact and degree. 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
E
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 illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on
the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the
cruelty wiH be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted (See
F Shobha Raniv. Madhukar Reddi, AIR (1988) SC 121 and A. Jayachandra v. ,,,.
Aneel Kaur [2005] 2 SCC 22 ).

13. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be "grave
and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse
cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be
G 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 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
H parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions.
MA YADEVI v. JAGDISHPRASAD [PASAYAT, J.] 1047
It is difficult to Jay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description A
... k· of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type
as to satisfy the conscience of the Court 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 qecure divorce.
Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a B
consistent course of 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. c
14. The Court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of
cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human
beings and the psychological cha'lges 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 D
the conduct can be called cruelty, it must ~ouch 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 nonnal
human life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the
other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between E
spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also 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.
-(
F
15. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and
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 G
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 ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal
with particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one
H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {20073 !2 S.C.R.

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

16. The instances of cruelty highlighted by the trial Court and also by
the High Court clearly prove that the husband was subjected to mental and
physical cruelty. It is not a fact as submitted by learned counsel for the
B appellant that the conviction in the criminal case was the foundation for the
decree. On the contrary, the trial Court clearly mentioned that the aspect was
not taken note of as the appeal was pending.

17. In view of what has been stated above, the inevitable result is
C dismissal of the appeal which we direct. There will be no order as to costs.
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.

-