Supreme Court of India

V. BHAGATversusMRS. D. BHAGAT

Citation: 1993 INSC 374
Decided: 19 November 1993
Bench: KULDIP SINGH

Holding

The Supreme Court held that the wife's allegations and counsel's questions amounted to mental cruelty, justifying a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and that in extraordinary circumstances a decree may be passed on pleadings without a full trial.

Summary

The husband, a Supreme Court advocate, filed a divorce petition on the ground of adultery, which the wife denied and countered by alleging his mental instability. He later amended the petition to include mental cruelty, relying on the wife's written statements that labeled him a lunatic and on aggressive cross‑examination questions by her counsel. After more than eight years of litigation in the District Court and Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court, noting the extraordinary delay and the intense mutual accusations, held that the wife's allegations and counsel's conduct amounted to mental cruelty sufficient to dissolve the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court also clarified that, in exceptional cases, a decree can be passed on pleadings without a full trial. The petition for divorce was withdrawn to the Supreme Court, the marriage was dissolved, the husband's adultery claim was dismissed, and the wife's character was vindicated.

Issues considered

The allegations in the wife's written statement and counsel's cross‑examination constitute mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act?
Whether a decree of divorce can be granted on the basis of pleadings and admitted material without a full trial in extraordinary circumstances.
Whether an irretrievable breakdown of marriage alone is a ground for divorce under the Act.
Effect of prolonged procedural delay and prior Supreme Court directions on the grant of divorce.

Legislation cited

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 10, s. 13(1)(ia), s. 13(iii)
Hindu Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976

Subjects

mental crueltyHindu Marriage Actdivorceirretrievable breakdownprocedural delaypleadingsjudicial separationSupreme Court of India

Judgment

A V. BHAGAT
v.
MRS. D. BHAGAT

NOVEMBER 19, 1993

B [KULDIP SINGH AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.)

Hindu Marriage Act 1955-Section 13 (i)(ia}-Cruelty-What is-Can
be broadly defined-That conduct which inflicts upon the other p2irty such
mental pain and suffering as would make it impossible for that party to live
C with the other-Must be of such nature that the parties cannot be reasonably
expected to live with each other-While arriving at such conclusion, regard
· must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties etc. petition
for divorce filed by husband-Avennents in wife's written statement-Alleging
mental instability on the part of the husband-Questions to husband in cross-
D examination suggesting mental instability of husband and his entire f ami-
ly--Held, amount to mental cruelty.

Hindu Marriage Act 1955-Section 13-Divorce-Practice and proce-
dure-Divorce can be granted on the basis of pleadings and oth ~r admitted
material without fell trial only where there are really extraordinlll) features to
E clear up an insoluble mess-Irretrievable breakdown of marriage not a ground
by itself but a relevant circumstance.

The Appellant husband, a practising Advocate of the Supreme Court
and the Delhi High Court filed a Petition against the Respondent-wife, a
senior executive in a public sector corporation for divorce on the ground
F of adultery. In the written statement the wife, ~·'tile denying the allegation
of adultery, attributed the same to mental instability of the husband. In
view of this allegation, the husband amended bis petition to add a new
ground of divorce viz. mental cruelty.

The Petition remained pending for over 8 years, first in the District
·G Court at Delhi and thereafter in the Delhi High Court to which it had
been transferred. Against an order of the High Court striking out a large
number of paragraphs from the petition of divorce, the husband filed an
appeal to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 424 of 1987) which was
allowed on 19th February 1987 with directions for expeditious disposal of
H the divorce petition. However, the matter remained pending and the
796
V. BHAGATv. MRS. D. BHAGAT 797

Supreme Court gave further directions for expeditious hearing on May 1, A
1991. In the course of protracted cross-examination of the husband, Senior
Counsel for the wife put several questions to him suggesting that he and
several members of his family including his grandfather were lunatics and
that a streak of insanity was running in the family. When the husband
protested against these questions, Senior Counsel clearly stated that the
question were being put because it was the wife's case that the husband's
B
entire family were lunatics.

At the time when the husband's evidence was over and the wife's
evidence was being recorded the husband moved the present application
I.A. No. 1 of 1993 in civil Appeal No. 424of1987 (Which was disposed of C
on 19th February, 1987), praying for further directions for expeditious
disposal. The Supreme Court explored the possibilities of a settlement, but
none materialised. In this background, Counsel for the Petitioner made a
plea to grant divorce on the ground of cruelty evidenced by the averments
in the wife's written statement and the questions put in cross-examination, D
notwithstanding the earlier dismissal of an application making a similar
prayer by the Delhi High Court and the dismissal of a Special Leave
Petition against the said order by the Supreme Court. It was contended on
behalf of the husband that the marriage had broken irretrievably.

On the other hand Counsel for the wife contended inter alia she was E
always prepared to live with her husband and that the pleas taken in her
written st~tement were merely her reactions to the unjusti;;ed and unwar-
ranted aspersions cast on her character.

Accepting the husband's plea for grant of divorce on the ground of F
cruelty, the Court withdrew the Petition for Divorce (HM Case No. 1 of
1986 pending in the Delhi High Court) to itself, allowed the same and
declared the marriage to be dissolved, while holding that the allegations
of the Husband regarding adultery were not proved and that the honour
and character of the Respondent-wife stood vindicated. ·
G
HELD : 1. This is an unusual case calling for an unusual solution.
This divorce petition bas been pending for more than 8 years, and is still
at the state of trial. A good part of the life of both the parties is consumed
in this litigation and yet the end is not in sight. The parties have crossed
the point of no return long ago. The nature of the allegations levelled H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A against each other shows the intense hatred and enomosity each bears
towards the other. The desirability of allowing the continuation of divorce
proceedings in the particular facts and circumstances of this case is open
to grave doubt. The matter may take more than a year at the minimum to
conclude in the High Court and there is the right of appeal to the losing
B party. Both parties are well settled and the children are grown up and on
their own. Both parties have levelled serious allegations against each other.
[805-C-H, 806-A]
2. "Cruelty" contemplated by Section 13(ia) of the Hindu Marriage
Act 1955 is both physical and mental. It is not possible to define "mental
C cruelty" exhaustively. After the marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, it
is not necessary for the party claiming divorce to prove that the cruel
treatment is a such a nature as to cause an apprehension • a reasonably
apprehension • in his/her mind that it will be harmful or injurious for
hirD/her to live with the other party. [807-G-H, 808-A]
D
3. In determining the kind of mental cruelty that is required to be
established it must be kept in mind that cruelty mentioned in Section
13(ia) is a ground for divorce and also for judicial separation under
Section 10. Another circumstance that must be kept in mind is that even
where the marriage has irretrievably broken down the Hindu Marriage Act
E even after the 1976 (Amendment) Act does not permit dissolution of
marriage on that ground. [808-F-G]

4. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) can be broadly defined as that
condud which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering
F as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other
words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot
reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that
the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such
conduct continue to live with the other party. While arriving at such
conclusion, regard must be had to the personal status, educational leval
G of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the
partners even living together in case they are already living apart and all
other relevant facts and circumstances which is neither possible nor
desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not
amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each
H case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a
V. BHAGATv. ~RS. D. BHAGAT 799

case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context A
in which they were made. [808-H, 809-A-D]
,.
Go/lins v. Gollins, [1964] A.C. 644; N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane, AIR
(1975) SC 1534; Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy, [1988) 1 SCC 105 and
Chandraka/a Trivedi v. S.P. Trivedi, (1993) 3 SCALE 541, relied on.
B
5. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, making such
allegations in the pleadings and putting such question to the husband
while he is in the witness box, is bound to cause him intense mental paid
and anguish, besides affecting his career and professional prospects. It is
going for beyond the reasonable limits of her defence. These assertions C
cannot but constitute mental cruelty of such a nature that the husband,
situated as be is and in the context of the several relevant circumstances
cannot reasonably be asked to live with 'the respondent hereafter.
(813-B-G]
6. In the facts and circumstances, considering the nature of allega- D
tions of the parties against each other, the wife is deliberately feigning a "
position which is wholly unnatural and beyond the comprehension of a
reasonable person.. Her stand that she wants' to live with her husband
indicates that she has resolved to live in agony only to make life a
miserable hell for the husband as well. This type of callous atbtude in the E
context of the facts of the case leaves no manner of doubt that the wife·is
bent upon treating the husband with mental cruelty. It is abundantly clear
that the marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably and
there is no c:;hance of their coming together or living together again. The
marriage between the parties should be dissolved under Section 13(i)(ia)
of the Hindu Marriage Act. Having regard to the particular facts and ·F
circumstances, it is a fit case for cutting across the procedural objections
to give a quietus to the matter. (814-A-C]

7. It is clarified that a decree for divorce cannot follow merely
because there are allegations and counter allegations or because of mere
delay in disposal of divorce proceedings. Irretrievable breakdown is not a G
ground by itself, though it is a relevant circumstance. There must be some
really extraordinary features to warrant grant of divorce on the basis of
pleadings (and other admitted material) without a full trial. This can be
resorted to only to clear up an insoluble mess, when the Court finds it in
the interests of both parties. (814-D·E] H
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 3 s.c.n

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 1of1993 in Civil
Appeal No. 424 of 1987.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.86 & 18.11.86 of the Delhi
High Court in I.A. Nos. 2149 & 4235 and I.A. Nos. 5782 & 6071/86 in
Matrimonial case No. l of 1986.
B
G.L. Sanghi and Ashok Grover for the Appellant.

Bawa Shiv Charan Singh, Mrs. Kawaljit Kochhar and J .D. Jain for
the Respondent.

C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. This is an unusual case calling for an
unusual solution. The husband sued for divorce on the ground that the wife
is guilty of adulterous course of life. The wife not only denied the allegation
-she attributed the allegation to lack of mental equilibrium of the husband.
D The husband then amended his petition; he alleged a new ground for
divorce viz., mental cruelty. According to him, the allegations made' in the
written statement per se constitute cruelty which entitle him straightaway
to a divorce without going into the original allegation of adultery. He is
also relying upon certain question put to him in cross-examination by the
E counsel for the respondent and the said counsel's ·explanatory statement ·
made in that connection. We may elaborate.

The petitioner-applicant, Shri V. Bhagat is an Advocate practising in
this Court and Delhi High Court. He is now aged about 55 years. The
respondent-wife is working at present as the Vice-President of I.T.D.C., a
F Public Sector Corporation. She is aged about 50 years. They were married
in the Year 1966. They have two grown-up children now-a son and a
daughter. The son is a doctor while the daughter holds a degree in M.B.A.
and is working with an Anierican Company in California.

The respondent was working in a Television Company at the time of
G her marriage. After the birth of a child she left the job in August, 1967.
The respondent started working again from the year, 1972 onwards. To
start with she was employed in a Travel Agency. Somewhere around
1978-79, the petitioner began suspecting her of infidelity. According to. him,
when he questioned the respondent of her adulterous behaviour, she
H admitted the same and asked to be pardoned. The wife denies th.is. She
V. BHAGATv. MRS. D. BHAGAT [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 801

says, she never made any such admission and that the allegation is a totally A
false one. From 1980 onwards the petitioner was making attempts to obtain
a divorce by consent. The respondent was not willing. On May 28, 1985,
he instituted the present petition for divorce in the District Court, Delhi.
The divorce petition runs into more than 160 paragraphs. The main ground
is adultery. According to husband, the wife is an incorrigible adulteress.
The respondent filed the written statement denying the allegations. The
B
written statement, if anything, is even lengthier and more voluminous than
the divorce petition. She had denied the allegation in toto. According to
her, the husband is like Othello - a pathologically suspicious character.

On February 5, 1986, the petition for divorce was withdrawn and C
transferred to the High Court of Delhi. It was assigned to Justice H.C.
Goel. The learned Judge struck out a large number of paragraphs from the •
petition for divorce. Against the order of the learned judge, the petitioner
approached this Court by way of an appeal which was allowed on February
19, 1987. On that occasion, this Court directed the learned Chief Justice D
of the Delhi High Court to nominate a learned Judge to take up the divorce
petition and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible. It was directed that
the matter may be heard on day-to-day basis as far as possible .

.In May 1987, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application before
the High Court for passing a decree of divorce on the basis of the E
averments made by the respondent in her written statement/counter. Ac-
cording to him, those · ...negations amounted to cruelty against him and
furnished adequate grounds for passing a decree of divorce. He then filed
an application in this Court ~0 withdraw the said interlocutory application
to the file of this Court and grant the rdief prayed for by him. This Court F
refused do to so. The interlocutory apr 1 cation filed by him was dismissed
by the High Court. Thereafter, he amended his petition for divorce and
again filed another interlocutory application for granting divorce on the
basis of the averments made by the respondent in her written statement.
This application too was dismissed by the High Court. It is stated that the G
Special Leave Petition filed against the same was also dismissed by this
Court. The trial is in progress now. Petitioner's evidence is over and the
wife's statement is being recorded. At this stage, the present application -
I.A. No. 1 of 1993 - I filed in Civil Appeal No. 424 of 1987 (which was
disposed of on February 19, 1987). The prayer in the application is to give
appropriate direction for speedy disposal of the divorce petition. In this H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A application the petitioner has made the following averments : The petition
for divorce is pending over the last 8 years. The respondent has indulged
in dilatory tactics to protract the litigation. The respondent spent more
than 11 months in cross- examining the petitioner alone (February 19, 1992
to January 1993). While the examination-in-chief is mere 30 pages, the
B cross-examination runs into more than 150 pages - most of it irrelevant and
unnecessary. The Trial Judges are unable to stop the vexatious cross-ex-
amination by the counsel for the respondent. The repeated directions from
this Court to dispose of the divorce petition as expeditiously as possible
and on day-to- day basis did not have the desired effect. As many as five
learned Judges of the High Court have tried this matter, but still it is at
C the stage of recording of evidence. The evidence of the respondent-wife is
.,.
yet to be completed. As a matter of fact; on May 1, 1991, this Court was
constrained to observe; "we are inclined to agree with the counsel for. the
petitioner that the directions have not· been followed and the matter has
unnecessarily been protracting. We request the learned Chief Justice of the
D High Court to personally look into the matter and allot case to a learned
Judge on the appellate side who can deal with the matter day-to-day and
have it disposed of within a reasonable time, say, within three to four
months from today." The petitioner complains that even though a period
of more than 28 months has elapsed since the said order, the matter is still
at the stage of trial.
E
In her counter filed to this application, the respondent stated that
she is ill no way responsible for the delay in disposal of the divorce petition
and that in fact the petitioner himself is responsible for the delay. Since
submitted that almost every order passed by the Delhi High Court was
F challenged by him by way of Special Leave Petition in this Court and that
he has also been making allegations against the learned Judges trying the
petition as and when they passed orders unfavourable to him.

In this application (I.A. No. 1 of 1993), this Court directed on May
3, 1993, both the parties to be present in person in the Court with a view
G to explore the possibility of a settlement. On the next date, i.e., May 7, 1993,
the respondent was not present. The matter was adjourned to July 19, 1993.
On July 19, 1993, the patties were heard for some time and the Court
suggested to the parties to find a via-media to settle the matter. The parties
sought for a adjournment. The matter was adjourned to August 6, 1993.
H On 6th August, the matter was again adjourned to 16th August on which
• V. BHAGATv. MRS. D. BHAGAT [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 803

date we were told that the parties could not arrive at any settlement, A
whereupon the arguments of the counsel for the parties were heard. In the
background of the orders of this Court made in this I.A., referred to above,
learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his plea to grant a divorce on
the ground of crnelty evidenced by the averments in her counter and the
questions put to him in the cross-examination. Counsel submitted that the B
marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably. Having regard
to the nature of allegations and coun~er allegations made by the parties
against each o,ther, there is hardly any room for their coming together. The
petitioner has been trying to obtain divorce right from the year 1980. For
five years he. tried to get at by consent, failing which he approached the
Court. Eight years have passed by and inspite of the repeated order of this C
Court, even. the trial is not yet over. The petitioner is now 55 years old. A
good part of the life of both the parties has been spent in _rancour and
litigation. De hors the allegations of adultery originally made in the petition
for divorce, the petitioner is entitled to divorce on the basis of the addi-
tional ground put in by way of amendment viz., cruelty - mental cruelfy by D
wife. The averments made in her counter and the question put by her
counsel in the cross-examination of the petitioner do constitute clear acts
of cruelti:y. In view of the said averments/questions, no further material is
necessary to establish the said additional ground. In her written statement,
the respondent has alleged that the petitioner is "suffering from mental E
hallucination" that his is a "morbid mind............for which he needs expert
psychiatric treatment" and further that "the petitioner is suffering from
paranoid disorder. He needs expert psychological treatment ...... He is in-

.. coherent in his thinking..................The Petitioner is a mental patient. The
petitioner needs treatment by a psychiatrist to whom he was directed by
his own sister ............... He is a patient and needs treatment and restoration
F
of normal mental health........... The petitioner needs psychological treat-
ment to make him act a normal person" and so on and so forth. In the
cross-examination of the petitioner, the Senior Advocate appearing for the
respondent-wife put several questions suggesting that the petitioner and
the several members of his family including his grandfather are lunatics and G
that a streak of insanity is running in the entire family. When he protested
against the said questions, the leaned Senior Advocate made the following
statement in the Court - "all of your (petitioner's) family including your
grandfather and other are lunatics with streets of insanity running in the
entire family; this is the respondent's case; and that is why these questions H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) ~UPP. 3 S.C.R.

A have been asked. " The said questions were put and the said statement was
made by her Advocate at the instructions of the respondent. Notwithstand-
ing the dismissal of a simil~r application by the Delhi High Court and the
dismissal of a special leave petition there-against by this Court, this is a fit
and proper case - and this is the most appropriate stage at which - the
petitioiier should be granted divorce on the ground of cruelty. The situation
B has become intolerable, says the counsel.

The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
reiterated his submission that the respondent was not rr{iponsible for the
delay; that in fact the petitioner has hims~lf been delaying the proceedings
C and that the questions put to him in cross examination and the· defense
taken in the written statement are merely the reactions of the wife to
unjustified and unwarranted aspersions cast. upon her character. The
respondent has only been trying to explain that the several serious allega-
tions levelled agamst her are the product of a sick mind and are mere
D figments of his imagination. She submitted that her childr~n and even
sisters and mother of the petitioner are siding her in this dispute and that
the petitioner alone, alienated from his entire family, is persecuting her. It
is submitted that she is only trying to defend her honour, self·respect and.
standing in society. It is pointed out that she is holding a fairly high office
in a Public Sector Corporation and it is her duty to herself, her children
E and to the families of her husband and herself to disprove the unfounded
allegations levelled against her. She has submitted that she is not agreeable
to divorce on any ground whatsoever and that she is always prepared to
live with the petitioner. It is only the petitioner who is keeping himself away
from her company and has confined himself to one room, whereas she
children and her mother-in-law live in the house us usual.
F
It is said that marriages are made in Heaven, that may be so, but this
one has turned into a Hell for sure. The allegations and the counter-allega-
tions are indicative of the intense hatred and rancour between the parties.
G Any reconciliation is out of question. The question before us is whether in
all the facts and circumstances of the case, what should be do? Three
courses are open. One is to look to the prayer in the application and reject
it in view of two earlier directions to the same effect. Two, make another
request (third one) to the High Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously
and three, to explore whether any solution can be found to the predicament
H in which the parties are how placed. So far as the first two alternatives are
V. BHAGATv. MRS. D. BHAGAT(JEEVAN REDDY,J.f 805

concerned, it may be noted, there have been two such directions by this A
Court earlier, one in the year 1987 and the other in the year 1991. The
advisability of a third such direction - request - is open to question. If two
such requests/directions had no effect, it is doubtful that a third direction
would yield any better result. It may be an exercise in futility besides bt>in~
inadvisable. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to
explore the third alternative.
B

That this is a rather unusual case can hardly be disputed. The divorce
petition has been pending for more than 8 years. With a view to expedite
it disposal it was transferred from the District Counter to the High Court.
This Court repeatedly requested (in 1987 and 1991) the High Court to try c
the matter on a day-to-day basis and dispose it of expeditiously. The
petition is still at the stage of trial. It is not possible for us to apportion the
blame. Each side attributes it to the other. Five learned Judges of the High
Court have tried their hand at the case, but it still remains at the stage of
trial. The cross-examination of the petitioner alone took one full year. The D
cross-examination of the respondent is yet to begin. Having regard to the
number of allegations made by the petitioner in his divorce petition and
the material relied upon by him, it may safely be presumed that the
cross-examination of the Respondent would take as much time as the cross-
examination of the petitioner, if not more. Each party, it appears, is out to
punish the other for what the other is supposed to have said or done. This E
appears to be the single thought ruling their lives today. A good part of
the life of both the parties is consumed in this litigation and yet the end is
not in sight. The assertion of the wife that she wants to live with the
husband even now, appears to be but a mere assertion. After all the
allegations made against her in the petition and the allegations levelled by F
her against the ~etitioner, living together is out of question. Ra. ··iroche-
ment is not in the realm of possibility. For the parties to come together,
they must be supe~humans, which they are not. The parties have crossed
the point of not return long ago. The nature of the allegations levelled
against each other shows the intense hatred and animosity each bears
towards the other. The marriage is over except in name. The desirability G
of allowing the continuation of the divorce proceedings in the particular
facts and circumstances _of this case, is open to grave doubt. The matter
may take more than a year - at the minimum - to conclude in the High
Court and then there is the right of appeal to the losing party. Both the
parties are well-settled. The children are grown-up and are on their own. H
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A It is significant to note that this is not a case where allegations are made
only by one party against the other; both have levelled serious allegations
against the other. The husband calls the wife an adulteress and the wife
calls the husband a. lunatic.

The question, however, is whether the allegations made by the
B respondent-wife do constitute mental cruelty. The allegations in her written
statement and her counsel's explanatory statement in Court have already
been set out hereinabove. The respondent has asserted in her written
statement that she "has every right to make correct statement of facts to
defend herself against the wanton, imaginary and irresponsible allegations".
~

c Clause (ia) of Section 13 specifies cruelty as one of the grounds of
divorce. In so far as relevant Section 13 reads.

"Section 13 : DIVORCE

(1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the com-
D
mencement of this Act may on a petition presented by either the
husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the
ground that the other party -

(ia) has after the solemnization of the marriage treated the
E petitioner with cruelty."

Cruelty contemplated by the sub-clause is both physical .and mental.
We are concerned herein with the latter. It is not possible to define 'mental
cruelty' exhaustively. As observed by Lord Reid in Gollins v ..Gollins,
(1964) A.C. 644:
F
"No one has ever attempted to give a comprehensive definition of
cruelty and I do not intend try to do so. Much must depend on
the knowledge and intention of the iespondent, on the nature of
his (or her) conduct, and on the character and physical or mental
weaknesses of the spouses, and probably no general statement is
G
equally applicable in all cases except the requirements that the
party seeking relief must show actual or probable injury to life,
limb or health.

It is easy to see that the origin of this requirement is the decisions
,H in the wellknown case of Russel v. Russel."
V. BHAGATv. MRS. D. BHAGAT (JEEVAN REDDY, J.) 807

To the same are the observations of Lord ~earce (at 695) : A
"It is impossible to give a comprehensive definition of cruelty, but
when reprehensible conduct or departure from normal standards
of conjugal kindness causes injury to health or an apprehension
of it, is, I think, cruelty if a reasonable person, after taking due
account of the temperament and all the other particular cir- B
cumstances would considered that the conduct complained of is
such that this spouse should not be called on to endure it ............... .

I agree with the Lord MerrinJ.an whose practice in cases of
mental cruelty was always to make up his mind first whether there
was injury or apprehended injury to health. In the light of that vital
c
fact the Court has then to decide whether the sum total of the
reprehensible conduct was cruel. That depends on whether
the cumulative conduct was sufficiently weighty to say that from a
reasonable person's point of view, after a consideration of any
excuse which this respondent might have in the circumstances, the D
conduct such that this petitioner ought not to be called on to
endure it·................... .

The particular circumstances of the home, the temperament and
emotions of both the parties and their status and their way of life, E
their past relationship and almost every circumstance that attends
the act or conduct ·complained of may all be relevant."

The reference to "injury to life, limb or health" in the above passages
must be understood in the context of the requirements of the divorce law
then obtaining in the United Kingdom. F
The change of law brought about by the Hindu Marriage Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1976 deserves notice. Prior to the said Amendment Act
cruelty was not a ground for claiming divorce under the Hindu Marriage
Act. It was a ground only for claiming judicial separai.ion under Section 10. G
By the said Amendment Act, cruelty was made a ground for divorce as
well - evidently in recognition of the changing mores of the Society. While
doing so, it is significant, the words as· to cause a reasonable apprehension
in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the
petitioner to live with the other party, " qualifying the expression "cruelty''
in Section lO{l)(b), were omitted by Parliament. It is therefore, not neces- H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R ..

A sary for the party claiming Jivorce to prove that the cruel treatment is of
such a nature as co cause an apprehension - a reasonable apprehension -
in his/her mind that it will be harmful or injurious for him/her to live with
the other party. Now what does this change mean? Surely, the deletion of
the sai\i words could not have been without a purpose. The cruelty of the
nature described in Section lO(l)(b) has been explained in this Court's
B decision in Dastane v. Dastane, A.LR. (1975) S.C. 1534. Chandrachud, J.,
speaking for the Bench, held that where an allegation of cruelty is made,
the inquiry has to be "whether the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a
character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehen-
sion that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent."
C The learned Judge held further ; "it is not necessary, as under the English
law, that the cruelty must be of such a character as to cause "danger" to
life, limb of health or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such
a danger. Clearly, danger to life, limb or health or a reasonable apprehen-
sion of it is a higher requirement than a reasonable apprehension that it is
D harmful or injurious for one spouse to live with the other ...... :.. But under
Section lO(l)(b), harm or injury to health, reputation, the working-career
or the like, would be an important consideration in determining whether
the conduct of the respondent amounts to cruelty. Plainly, what we must
determine is not whether the petitioner has proved the charge of cruelty
having regard to the principles of English law, but whether the petitioner
E proves that the respondent has treated him. with such cruelty as to cause a
reasonable apprehension in his mind that it will be harmful or injurious for
him to live with the respondent." This requirement is no longer present in
Section 13(1)(ia).

F .If so, the question arises what kind of cruel treatment does clause
(ia) contemplate? In particular, what is the kind of mental cruelty that is
required to be established? Where answering these questions, it must be
kept in mind that the cruelty mentioned in clause (ia) is a ground now for
divorce as well as for judicial separation under Section 10. Another cir-
cumstance to be kept in mind is that even where the marriage has ir-
G retrievably brokendown, the Act, even after the 1976 (AmendtJient) Act,
does not permit d~ssolution of marriage on that ground. This circumstance
may have to be kept in mind while ascertaining the type of cruelty con-
templated by Section 13(ia).

H Mental cruelty in .section 13(1)(ia) can broadly be defined as that
V. BHAGAT v. MRS. D. BHAGAT [JEEVAN REDDY, J.) 809

conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering A
as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other
words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot
reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that
the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct
and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that
the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner.
B
While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status,
educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or
otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living
apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither
possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case C
may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined
in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If
it is a case of accusations and allegations regard must also be had to the
context in which they were made.

At this stage, we may refer to a few decisions of this Court rendered
D
under Section 13(1) (ia). In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy, (1988) 1
S.C.C. 105, Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty, speaking for the Division Bench,
held:

"Section 13(1)(ia) uses the words "treated the petitioner with E
cruelty". The word "cruelty" has not been defined. Indeed it could
not have been defined. It 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. It is a course of
conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty F
may be ·mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is
physical the court will have no problem to determine it. It is a
question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents
difficulty. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel
treatment. Second, the impact of such treatment on the mind of
the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it G
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 the complaining spouse.
There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of
itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact H
810 SUPREME COUR,T REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A or the injur~ous .effect on .t~e other spo~e ne~d 11ot be enquired
into or considered. In· such cases, the cruelty will be established if
the conduct itself is proved or admitted.

It will be ne~essary t~ bear i~ mind that there has been marked
. change in the life around us. In matrimonial duties and respon-
sibilities in particular, we find sea change. They are of varying
degrees.from house to house or person to person. Therefore, when
a· spouse makes complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the
partner in life or relations, the Court should not search for stand-
ard in life. A set of facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case may
c not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend
upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their
economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon their
culture and human values to which they attach importance. We,
the judge and lawyers, therefore, should not import our own
D notions of life. We may not go in parallel with them. The~e may
be a generation gap between us and the parties. It would be better
if we keep aside our customs and manners. It would be also better
if we less depend upon precedents. Because as Lord Denning said
in Sheldon v. Sheldon, (1966) 2 All ER 257, 259" the categories of
E cruelty are not closed". Each case may be different. We deal with
the conduct of human beings who are not generally similar. Among
the human beings there is no .limit to the kind of conduct which
may c6nstitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in any
case depending upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability
to tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful (sic)
F
realm of cruelty."

_It was a case where the wife was a postgraduate in Biological
Sciences while the husband was a doctor. The wife moved the Court for
diyirce on the ground of cruelty. According to her, she had no amount of
G ,upees tWo lakhs in Fixed Deposit in a bank apart from a house property,
that her mother-in-law used to make constant demands of money, and that
the respondent-husband supported his mother therein. She did not report
The same to her. parents because she was afraid that if she informed her
parents, something may be done to her. The respondent-husband himself
H admitted in a letter written to the wife that the demand for dowry by his
V. BHAGAT v. MRS. D. BHAGAT [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 811

parents was nothing wrong. On the above f<j.cts, it was held that the ground A
of cruelty was established and divorce was granted. The following further
observations of Shetty, J. appear to us relevant :

"Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that the
party has after solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner B
with cruelty. What do these words mean? What should be the
nature of cruelty? Should it be only intentional, wilful or
deliberate? Is it necessary to prove the intention in matrimonial
offence? We think not. We have earlier said that cruelty may be
of any kind and any variety. It may be different in different cases.
It is in relation to the conduct of parties to a marriage. That C
conduct which is complained of as cruelty by one spouse may not
be so for the other spouse. Thf'.re may be instances of cruelty by
the unintentional but inexcusable conduct of any party. The cruel
treatment may also result by the cultural conflict of the spouse. in
such cases, even if the act of cruelty is established, the intention D
to commit suicide cruelty cannot be established. The aggrieved
party may not get relief. We do'not think that that was the intention
with which the Parliamept enahed Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu
Marriage Act. The context and the set up in which the word
'cruelty' has been used in the section, seems to us, that intention
is not a necessary element in cruelty. That word has to be under- E
stood in the ordinary sense of the term in matrimonial affairs. If
the intention to harm, harass or hurt could be inferred by the
nature of the conduct or brutal act complained of, cruelty could
be easily established. B"ut the absence of intention should not make
any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs,
the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. The
F
relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has
been no deliberate or wilful ill-treatment."

Iii Smt. Chanderkala Trivedi v. Dr. S.P. Trivedi, (1993) 2 SCALE 541,
the husband sued for divorce on the ground of cruelty by wife. The wife G
filed a written statement wherein she attributed adultery to the husband.
In reply thereto the husband put forward another allegation against the
wife that she was having undesirable ac;sociation with young boys. Con-
sidering the mutual allegations, R.M. Sahai, J., speaking for Division
Bench, observed: H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A "Whether the allegation of the husband that she was in the habi~
of associating with young boys and the findings recorded by the
three courts are correct or not but what is certain is that once such
allegations are made by the husband and wife as have been made
in this case then it is obvious that the marriage of the two cannot
in any circumstance be continued any further. The marriage ap-
B pears to be practically dead as from cruelty alleged by the husband
it has turned out to be at least intimacy of the husband with a lady
doctor and unbecoming conduct of a Hindu wife."

It was argued on behalf of the husband that the wife has failed to
C establish the charge of adulteryJevelled against him and that the charge of
adultery must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Dealing with the argu-
ment, the learned Judge observed :

. "But we do not propose to examine it as we are satisfied that the
D marriage is dead and the findings of fact cannot be set ·aside by
this Court except that the appeal can be sent back to Division
Bench to decide it again, which would mean another exercise in
futility leading to tortuous litigation and continued agony of the
parties."

E In the light of the principles enunciated hereinabove, we may now
examine whether the allegations made by the wife in her written statement
and the question put by her counsel to the petitioner in cross examination
amount to mental cruelty within the meaning of the said Sub-clause? The
relevant portions of the written statement have already been set out by us
F hereinbefore. We have also set out in the said paragraph the explanatory
statement made by the respondent's counsel in Court in justification of
the questions put by him to the petitioner in his cross-examination. It is
true the said averments must be read in the context in which they were
made. At the same time, it must be remembered that the wife was merely
defending herself against what are, according to her, totally unfounded
G allegations and aspersions on her character. It was not necessary for her
to go beyond tha't-apd allege that the petitioner is a mental patient, that he
is not a normal person, that he requires psychological treatment to restore
his mental health, that he is suffering from paranoid disorder and mental
hallucinations - and to crown it all, to allege that he and all the members
H of his family are a bunch of lunatics. It is not as if these words were uttered
V. BHAGAT.v. MRS. D. BHAGAT [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 813

in a fit of anger or under an emotional stress. They were made in a formal A
pleading filed in the Court and the question to that effect were put by her
counsel, at her instructions; in the cross-examination. Even in her addition-
al written statement she has asserted her right "to make correct statement
of facts to defend herself against the wanton, imaginary and irresponsible
..1llegations". These are not the mere protestations of an injured wife; they B
are positive assertions of mental imbalance and streak of insanity in the
mental build up of the husband. The husband is an advocate practising in
this Court as we!,l as in Delhi High Court. The divorce petition is being
tried in Delhi High Court itself. Making such allegations in the pleadings
and putting such questions to the husband while he is in the witness-box, C
is bound to cause him intense mental pain and anguish besides affecting
his career and professional prospects. It is not as if the Respondent is
seeking any relief on the basis of these assertions. The allegations against
her may not be true; it may also be true that the petitioner is a highly
suspicious character and that he assumes things against wife which are not
well- founded. But on that ground, to say that the petitioner has lost his D
normal mental health, that he is a mental patient requiring expert
psychological treatment and above all to brand him and all the members
of his family including his grandfather as lunatics, is going far beyond the
reasonable limits of her defence. It is relevant to notice that the allegations
of the wife in her written statement amount in effect to "psychopathic E
disorder or any other disorder" within the meaning of the Explanation to
clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 13, though, she has not chosen to
say that on that account she cannot reasonably be expected to live with the
petitioner-husband nor has she chosen to claim any relief on that ground.
Even so, allegations of 'paranoid disorder', 'mental patient, 'needs
F
psychological treatment to make him act a normal person' etc. are there
coupled with the statement that the petitioner and all the members of his
family are lunatics and that a streak of insanity funs through his entire
family. These assertions cannot but constitute mental cruelty of such a
nature that the petitioner, situated as he is and in context of the several
relevant circumstances, cannot reasonably be asked to live with the respon- G
dent thereafter. The husband in the position of the petitioner herein would
be justified in saying that it is not possible for him to live with the wife in
view of the said allegations. Even otherwise the peculiar facts of this case
show that the respondent is deliberately feigning a posture which is wholly
unnatural and beyond the comprehension of a reasonable person. She has H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A been dubbed as an incorrigible adulteress. She is fully aware that the
marriage is long dead and over. It is her case that the petitioner is
genetically insane. Despite all that, she says that she wants to live with the
petitioner. The obvious conclusion is that she has resolved to live in agony
only to make life a miserable-hell for the petitioner as well. This type of
B callous attitude in the context of the facts of this case, leaves no manner
of doubt in our mind that the respondent is bend upon treating the
petitioner ·with mental-cruelty. It is abundantly clear that the marriage
between the parties has broken down irretrievably and there is no chance
of their coming together, or living together again. Having regard to the
peculiar features of this case, we are of the opinion that the marriage
C between the parties should be dissolved under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu
Marriage Act and we do so accordingly. Having regard to the peculiar facts
and circumstances of this case and its progress over the last eight years -
detailed hereinbefore - we are of the opinion that it is fit case for cutting
across the procedural objections to give a quietus to the matter.
D Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to append a
clarification. Merely because there are allegations and counter-allegations,
a decree of divorce can not follow. Nor is mere delay in. disposal of the
divorce proceedings by itself a ground. There must be really some extra-
ordinary features to warrant grant of divorce on the basis of pleadings (and
E other admitted material) without a full trial. Irretrievable break-down of
the marriage is not a ground by itself. But while scrutinising the evidence
on record to determine whether the ground(s) alleged is made out and in
determining the relief to be granted, the said circumstance can certainly
be borne in mind. The unusual step as the one taken by us herein can be
resorted to only to clear up an insoluble mess, when the Court finds it in
F the interest of both the parties.

The petition for divorce H.M. Case No. 1 of 1986 pending in the
Delhi High Court is withdrawn to the file of this Court and is allowed. This
marriage between the parties is dissolved. In the circumstances, the allega-
G tions levelled by the petitioner against the wife are held 'not proved'. The
honour and character of the respondent-wife stands vindicated.

There shall be no order as to costs.

R.R. Appeal disposed of.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "mental cruelty"Sign in to search