Ms. Mansi Sharma, Adv v. SHRI SANJAY SHARMA

Judgment

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551, assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 07.06.20222 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi3, in HMA No. 93/2014 (renumbered as HMA No. 49220/2016), titled as ‗Shri Sanjay Sharma vs. Ms. Anupama Sharma‘. 2. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Family Court allowed the petition filed by the Respondent-Husband and, having found cruelty proved under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, granted a decree 1 HMA 2 Impugned Judgement 3 Family Court Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:10.10.2025 16:49:46 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2022 Page 1 of 39 of divorce in his favour, thereby dissolving the marriage as against the Appellant-Wife. At the same time, the Court rejected the Respondent- Husband‘s plea of desertion as devoid of merit. BRIEF FACTS: 3. The marriage between the Appellant-Wife and the Respondent- Husband was solemnized on 21.11.1997 at Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. From this union, a male child, Tushar, was born on 28.08.1998. 4. Following the marriage, the parties initially resided in Shamli. According to the Respondent, the Appellant was quarrelsome, suspicious, and frequently involved in disputes both within the family and at her workplace, which led to estrangement from his parents and ultimately necessitated a relocation to Delhi. 5. The Appellant, on the other hand, contends that she was subjected to continuous dowry demands, ill-treatment, and neglect. She alleges that she was forcibly turned out of the matrimonial home during her pregnancy in 1998, following which her mother paid Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Respondent to establish a clinic in Delhi. 6. The Appellant further alleges that the demands for money continued after the family moved to Delhi, including a demand of Rs. 20,00,000/- by her father-in-law and a requirement to contribute Rs. 3,00,000/- for her sister-in-law‘s marriage in 2003. 7. On 08.07.2012, the Respondent lodged a complaint at Police Station4 - Seemapuri, Delhi, alleging that the Appellant was abusive, suspicious, and violent. He claimed that the Appellant insulted him, expelled him from the home, and seized his bike keys, registration 4 PS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:10.10.2025 16:49:46 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2022 Page 2 of 39 certificate and mobile phone. He further alleged that her conduct caused the closure of his clinic in April-2012, estrangement from his parents, and mental distress, and he sought police protection. 8. On 18.07.2012, the Appellant filed a complaint at PS - Seemapuri, Delhi, alleging that she had seen the Respondent in a rickshaw with another woman, namely, Sarita, who claimed to be pregnant with his child, constituting harassment and infidelity. 9. On 21.04.2013, the Appellant lodged FIR5 No. 217/2013 at PS - Seemapuri, under Sections 498A and 323 of the IPC6, alleging that the Respondent had left her after taking her jewellery, was in an illicit relationship with a woman named Ms. Snehlata, and had assaulted her when confronted. A medical examination of the Appellant was also conducted. The Respondent, in contrast, alleged that the Appellant and her relatives assaulted him at his clinic in Atairna, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, on that day, causing injuries and damage to property worth Rs. 30,000/-. 10. Over the years, tensions escalated, giving rise to multiple

complaints and counter-complaints between the parties. 11. On 08.05.2013, the Appellant submitted a detailed complaint against the Respondent and his family, reiterating that her marriage in 1997 was accompanied by a dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/-, that jewellery was taken on the second day of marriage, and that she had been continuously harassed for additional dowry, including Rs. 20,00,000/-, and thrown out during her pregnancy. She further alleged theft of jewellery and money, illicit relations maintained by the Respondent, and threats of acid attacks. She sought recovery of her stridhan, 5 Frist Information Report 6 Indian Penal Code Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:10.10.2025 16:49:46 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2022 Page 3 of 39 punishment of the Respondent and his family, and protection for herself. 12. In light of these events, in May-2013, the Respondent filed a petition for divorce before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kairana, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the HMA, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 13. Vide order dated 16.12.2013, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, on the filing of a transfer petition by the Appellant herein, transferred the divorce proceedings to the Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 14. Subsequently, on 25.01.2014, the Appellant lodged another complaint at PS - Farsh Bazar, Delhi, alleging that on 18.01.2014 at Karkardooma Mediation Centre, Delhi, and again on 25.01.2014 in the court parking, the Respondent and his brother verbally abused her, called her derogatory names, attempted to assault her, and threatened her life. She claimed that the Respondent had links with criminal elements, causing her to fear for her safety. 15. On 13.12.2014, the Respondent submitted his reply to the said complaint, asserting that the Appellant frequently quarrelled at home and workplace, was suspicious and egoistic, and repeatedly forced him out of the house. He alleged that she filed false criminal cases under Sections 498A and 323 of the IPC, had him arrested, vandalized his clinic with assistance, and instituted multiple proceedings, inter alia, for maintenance and lodged a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 20057. He claimed that she misused her position as a Government servant and asserted women‘s 7 Domestic Violence Act Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:10.10.2025 16:49:46 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2022 Page 4 of 39 rights to harass him and his family, and sought protection for himself and his ailing parents. 16. On 23.03.2019, the Appellant filed another Complaint in PS - Seemapuri, Delhi, alleging that the offence of bigamy and forceful sexual cohabitation against her will has been committed by the Respondent-Husband. 17. During the pendency of the divorce proceedings, in 2020, the Appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the HMA seeking restitution of conjugal rights. 18. In the Divorce Proceeding, both parties presented evidence in support of their respective claims. The Respondent reiterated allegations of harassment, assault, and false complaints, while the Appellant testified to sustained dowry demands, misappropriation of jewellery and money, and the Respondent‘s alleged illicit relationships. 19. Upon consideration of the evidence, the learned Family Court, vide the Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 07.06.2022, dissolved the marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, while holding that desertion was not established. 20. Aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment, the Appellant has filed the present appeal. CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT: 21. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Wife would submit that the Impugned Judgment suffers from serious infirmities, as Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof cast upon him under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, and though the law mandates that the party who asserts must prove, the Respondent has not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:10.10.2025 16:49:46 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2022 Page 5 of 39 produced cogent, reliable, or corroborated evidence to substantiate the alleged acts of cruelty. 22. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the learned Family Court erred in proceeding on the premise that since the Appellant failed to establish her defence in its entirety, the case of the Respondent stood automatically proved, whereas the failure of a spouse to prove her defence does not by itself entitle the other spouse to a decree of divorce, and matrimonial relief must flow only from positive and independent proof of the statutory grounds pleaded. 23. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would also submit that the learned Family Court wrongly placed reliance on the concept of ―irretrievable breakdown of marriage‖, and while such a ground is not recognized under the HMA, only the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India8, can grant relief on this basis, and therefore, the learned Family Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction by considering this factor while dissolving the marriage. 24. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would further urge that the Respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrongs as prohibited under Section 23(1)(a) of the HMA. Learned Counsel would then submit that she was subjected to repeated dowry demands and was turned out of the matrimonial home even during her pregnancy in 1998, and was compelled to meet demands for money on several occasions, including Rs. 2,00,000/- for setting up the Respondent‘s clinic in Delhi and Rs. 3,00,000/- for his sister‘s 8 Constitution Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:10.10.2025 16:49:46 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2022 Page 6 of 39 marriage, and since the Respondent himself is guilty of neglect and misconduct, he cannot claim relief by attributing cruelty to the Appellant. 25. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would also contend that the Appellant‘s resort to legal remedies, such as filing complaints on

18.07.2012 after allegedly seeing the Respondent with another woman, and lodging FIR No. 217/2013 dated 21.04.2013 under Sections 498A and 323 IPC alleging his illicit relationship, was bona fide and intended to protect her matrimonial rights, and mere filing of such complaints cannot constitute cruelty unless the allegations are proved to be false and malicious, which the Respondent has conspicuously failed to establish. 26. Learned Counsel would lastly argue that the learned Family Court has placed undue reliance on isolated and stray incidents, such as the Respondent‘s allegation of being assaulted at his clinic on

21.04.2013, without appreciating the wider context in which such events occurred, and cruelty, to justify dissolution of marriage, must be of such gravity and severity as to render cohabitation impossible, and in the absence of consistent, credible, and substantive evidence, the finding of cruelty is unsustainable in law. CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT: 27. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent would support the Impugned Judgment and submit that the decree of divorce has been rightly granted on the basis of the material on record, for the Appellant‘s conduct throughout the matrimonial life was abusive and disrespectful, and such behaviour cumulatively caused grave mental cruelty to the Respondent. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:10.10.2025 16:49:46 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2022 Page 7 of 39

28. Learned Counsel for the Respondent would point to the police complaint dated 08.07.2012, wherein it was alleged that the Appellant was abusive, suspicious, and violent, and that she insulted the Respondent for earning less, repeatedly ousted him from the matrimonial home, and even seized his bike keys and mobile phone, and such conduct, it would be urged, led to estrangement from his parents and compelled him to close his medical clinic at Shamli, in April 2012. 29. It would further be submitted by the learned Counsel that on

21.04.2013, the Appellant, along with her brothers and relatives, forcibly entered the Respondent‘s clinic at Atairna, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, assaulted him, and damaged medical supplies and property worth Rs. 30,000/-, and such acts of physical assault, coupled with repeated harassment, clearly demonstrate cruelty of a grave and serious nature. 30. Learned Counsel for the Respondent would also submit that the Appellant has lodged a series of complaints and initiated multiple criminal proceedings against the Respondent and his family members, including FIR No. 217/2013 under Sections 498A and 323 IPC as well as proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, and the cumulative effect of these litigations has subjected the Respondent to immense harassment, mental agony, and social humiliation, thereby amounting to cruelty. 31. Learned Counsel for the Respondent would deny the allegations of dowry demands and illicit relationships as baseless and scandalous, and contend that the repeated levelling of such unsubstantiated allegations by the Appellant without proof itself constitutes mental Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:10.10.2025 16:49:46 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2022 Page 8 of 39 cruelty, as it tarnishes the Respondent‘s reputation and dignity in society. 32. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, as the parties have been living separately for more than a decade and all attempts at reconciliation have failed, and in such circumstances continuation of the marital tie serves no useful purpose, and therefore, the learned Family Court rightly dissolved the marriage on the ground of cruelty. ANALYSIS: 33. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both parties, examined the evidence adduced before the learned Family Court, and meticulously scrutinized the entire record of the case. 34. In the Impugned Judgment, the learned Family Court framed two principal issues for determination, namely: (a) Whether the Respondent-Husband would succeed in proving the allegations of cruelty and desertion against the Appellant- Wife, and (b) Whether the Respondent-Husband is entitled to a decree of divorce.

35. Upon a detailed consideration of the pleadings and evidence placed on record, the learned Family Court answered the issue of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the HMA in the negative, holding that the essential ingredients necessary to establish desertion had not been satisfactorily proved. 36. However, in so far as the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) is concerned, the learned Family Court, having examined the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:10.10.2025 16:49:46 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2022 Page 9 of 39 overall conduct of the parties in the light of the material before it, came to the conclusion that the Appellant-Wife had subjected the Respondent–Husband to cruelty of such a nature and degree that it was impossible for the Respondent-Husband to reasonably be expected to live with her. Consequently, the learned Family Court proceeded to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 37. With respect to the second issue concerning the Respondent- Husband‘s entitlement to a decree of divorce, the learned Family Court observed that such entitlement was dependent on proof of cruelty and/or desertion. Since the Court found substance in the allegation of cruelty made by the Respondent-Husband, it accordingly held him entitled to a decree of divorce. 38. As the finding on desertion has not been challenged by the Respondent-Husband, the only issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the learned Family Court was correct in holding that the Appellant-Wife had committed cruelty upon the Respondent-Husband, thereby justifying the grant of a decree of divorce on that ground. 39. At this stage, it is considered appropriate to reproduce the analysis and findings of the learned Family Court on the issue of cruelty, as recorded in the Impugned Judgment. The relevant extract is set out below: ―12. After the pleadings of the parties were completed, vide order dated 22.04.2014, following issues were framed by my learned predecessor: 1. Whether respondent is guilty of acts of cruelty and desertion as pleaded in the petition? OPP 2. Whether petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce, as prayed for? OPP Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:10.10.2025 16:49:46 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2022 Page 10 of 39

3. Relief. ***** My issue-wise findings are as follows:-

17. Issue No.1: Whether respondent is guilty of acts of cruelty and desertion as pleaded in the petition? OPP 18. desertion. This issues needs consideration in two parts cruelty and Cruelty *****

21. Coming back to the facts of this case, it is not in dispute that parties to this petition were married on 21.11.1997 and a male child was born to the parties on 28.08.1998. The male child is residing with the respondent and is now about 24 years of age. At the time of their marriage, the parties were residing at Shamli but after some time they shifted to Delhi. 22. The petitioner has maintained that the parties are living separate since the year 2012 after he was taken in custody by police on a complaint of the respondent. The respondent in her cross examination admitted that the petitioner is living separate since 2012 but at the same time claimed that he has been coming to meet her and he makes physical relations with her. She admitted, that she has not stated so in her written statement to the petition or affidavit of evidence. 23. Both parties are well educated. Petitioner is BHMS (Doctor in Homeopathy) who may be running his own clinic or selling Ayurvedic medicines at Uttar Pradesh. The respondent was earlier working as a lecturer at a Government Polytechnic and now she is working as Sub Divisional Engineer with Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited. 24. him constitute cruelty: The petitioner has made following allegations which as per (a) The respondent is a proudy and arrogant woman due to her service at MTNL. Because of this, she used to consider the petitioner as not upto her level and she used to insult him. She was not doing household work and it was the petitioner who was often required to do that work. Ultimately, the petitioner was thrown out of the house. (b) On 21.04.2013 at about 12 noon, the petitioner was in his clinic. At that time, the respondent along with her brothers and certain other persons came to his clinic and started abusing him in a filthy language. The petitioner was beaten by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:10.10.2025 16:49:46 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2022 Page 11 of 39 persons who had accompanied the respondent. The petitioner sustained injuries. The goods and medicines in the clinic were also damaged and the petitioner had to suffer a loss of Rs.30,000/-. However, the petitioner kept his cool and did not make any complaint hoping that the anger of the respondent would settle down.

25. The counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of the court to the allegations of adulterous relationship of the petitioner and the allegations of demand of dowry made by the respondent, during the proceedings and contended that the respondent has not been able to substantiate these allegations. He also drew the attention of the court to various cases filed by the respondent against the petitioner. He further contended that the petitioner deserves divorce for this reason as well. 26. The respondent has denied the allegations of the petitioner. She alleges that she was harassed in her matrimonial home for demand of dowry. She has alleged that the petitioner has married another woman and he is residing with that woman. She contends that the marriage between the parties has not broken down irretrievably. Allegation (a) 27. Allegation (a) is about the respondent being an arrogant woman and not doing the household work and the petitioner being thrown out of the home by the respondent. This allegation is vague and without particulars, it is held that this allegation is not proved. Allegation (b) 28. This allegation is in relation to incident dated 21.04.2013. It is the case of the petitioner that on that day the respondent came to the clinic of the petitioner at Shamli and got him beaten by certain relatives and other persons who had accompanied her. He alleges that same day the respondent also got the petitioner arrested by Delhi Police and he remained in custody for some time. It would appear from the documents in the court file that the above incident was also reported in certain local newspapers though the authors of the news reports have not been examined as the witnesses. It would also appear from the documents on record that during the scuffle at the clinic of the petitioner, the respondent also sustained some bruises and she was subjected to MLC at GTB Hospital, Delhi. 29. There was no cross examination of the petitioner in relation to the above incident. It is the respondent who had gone to the clinic of the petitioner at a far away place from Delhi. Even if the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:10.10.2025 16:49:46 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2022 Page 12 of 39 respondent felt that she had a valid grievance against the petitioner, that would not justify the respondent assaulting the petitioner in such a manner in his clinic. An act of violence by one spouse against the other spouse cannot be condoned. The respondent is an educated woman. She is a government official. 30. There is also substance in the additional contention on behalf of the petitioner that he deserves a divorce as the respondent has been making indiscriminate allegations against him and his family members in this proceeding. The respondent has alleged that she had seen the petitioner with a woman on a rickshaw but the name of that woman is not disclosed. She has also alleged that the petitioner on 21.04.2013 was residing with one Ms. Snehlata as her husband at village Alipur Ataima. The petitioner in his cross examination was not suggested that he had illicit relations with other woman or was residing with Ms. Snehlata. The particulars of Ms. Snehlata have not been disclosed. The respondent has filed a certificate dated 21.04.2013 (Mark-C) stated to have been issued by the Pradhan of village Alipur Atairna in which it has been certified that the petitioner was residing with one woman by the name of Snehlata for about six months in that village and he was claiming that she was his wife. The author of this document has not been examined as a witness. In absence of opportunity to cross examine the author of this document, this document will not be of any help to the respondent. Authors of news reports have not appeared as witnesses. In absence of same, contents therein would of no use to either of the parties. 31. The petitioner has also filed certain photographs Ex.RW1/A (colly). These are photographs of some women but these photographs do not show that the petitioner was in adulterous relationship with these women. 32. The respondent has also filed a hand written document of alleged messages (Mark-A). This document was filed by the respondent with her affidavit of evidence. It would appear that the respondent through this document intends to show that intimate messages were being exchanged between the petitioner and certain women. The respondent has not given any explanation as to how this hand written document came to be prepared or who has prepared this document. Print outs/screen shots of these messages have not been filed on record. This document or the messages were not referred in the written statement or in the cross examination of petitioner by the respondent. It is not disclosed as to how the respondent is in possession of these alleged messages. This Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:10.10.2025 16:49:46 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2022 Page 13 of 39 document is of no help to the respondent. On the other hand it substantiates the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent has been making indiscriminate allegations of extra marital relations against the petitioner. 33. The respondent has also made various allegations of demand of dowry and consequent cruelty on her by the petitioner and his family members. There was no cross examination of the petitioner on this aspect. Other than oral assertions of the respondent, there is no evidence on record to show that either in her matrimonial home at Shamli, UP or at Delhi the respondent was harassed for alleged demand of dowry. The respondent in her cross examination admitted that she had three properties in her name and one of these properties was sold by her without the consent of the petitioner. The cause of dispute between the parties does not appear to relate to any demand of money on the part of the petitioner or his family members. Making of such allegations would also constitute cruelty. 34. The petitioner has stated that parties have been residing separate since the year 2012. The respondent in her cross examination claimed that the petitioner has been coming to meet her and make physical relations with her. The respondent had made no such allegation in her written statement or in the affidavit of evidence. No such suggestion was given in cross examination of petitioner. It was as late as 23.03.2019, the respondent appears to have made a complaint (Ex.RW1/B) to police station Seemapuri. 35. Above discussion would show that the respondent assaulted the petitioner in his clinic. The respondent has made allegations of the petitioner having illicit relationship with various women and demand of dowry by the petitioner and his family members which she has not been able to substantiate. 36. The parties are now living separate for about ten years. It has come on record that the respondent has filed various litigations against the petitioner. The respondent has got registered an FIR under sections 498A/323 IPC in which the petitioner is facing trial. He remained in custody for about ten days in that FIR. There was another complaint filed by the respondent alleging theft of Rs.1,00,000/- and jewellery by the petitioner in which case also the petitioner was taken in custody under Delhi Police Act. As late as 23.03.2019 (Ex.RW1/B), the respondent filed another police complaint against the petitioner alleging making of physical relations without her consent. Other cases filed by the respondent against the petitioner include a civil suit and a case for alleged Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:10.10.2025 16:49:46 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2022 Page 14 of 39 defamation, I am of the opinion that marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down. Keeping of such a marriage alive would only be a source of misery for both the parties. 37. In view of above discussion, it is held that the petitioner has been able to establish that after marriage, the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty within the meaning of section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. Desertion ***** Issue No.2: Whether petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce, as prayed for? OPP Issue No.3: Relief.

41. I have held above that the petitioner has proved that after the marriage, the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty within the meaning of section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. No cause is shown as to why the petitioner be not granted the relief as prayed for. 42. The marriage between petitioner Shri Sanjay Sharma and respondent Ms. Anupama Sharma is dissolved on the ground of cruelty under section 13(1)(ia) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 w.e.f. today i.e. 07.06.2022. Parties to bear their own costs.‖

40. At the outset, it is imperative to note the seminal decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh9, where the Court undertook an exhaustive analysis of mental cruelty in matrimonial relationships. The Apex Court emphasized that human behaviour is complex and what amounts to cruelty varies with individual temperament, upbringing, education, cultural background, social status, financial position, and value systems. Mental cruelty is not static; each case must be adjudicated on its facts, considering the cumulative conduct of the parties, rather than isolated incidents. Illustrative examples include persistent mental pain, abusive or humiliating conduct, neglect of conjugal duties, refusal to engage in 9 (2007) 4 SCC 511 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:10.10.2025 16:49:46 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2022 Page 15 of 39 marital obligations without justification, and sustained conduct rendering cohabitation intolerable. However, trivial irritations, ordinary quarrels, or isolated acts do not constitute cruelty. The pertinent observations of the said judgment merit reproduction hereinbelow: ―99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. 100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any strait-jacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it taking aforementioned factors in consideration. 101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of ―mental cruelty‖. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive: circumstances while its peculiar (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:10.10.2025 16:49:46 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2022 Page 16 of 39 (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v.) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction lengthy period, where Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:10.10.2025 16:49:46 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2022 Page 17 of 39 though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.‖ (emphasis added)

41. In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat 10 , the Hon‘ble Supreme Court clarified that mental cruelty is conduct causing such mental pain and suffering that the aggrieved spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. Determination of cruelty depends on the social and educational background of the parties, their manner of life, and the context in which allegations are made. Mental cruelty need not injure health physically; it suffices if it makes marital cohabitation impossible. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: ―16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. 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. 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 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.‖ (emphasis supplied) 10 (1994) 1 SCC 337 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:10.10.2025 16:49:46 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2022 Page 18 of 39

42. The principle was further reinforced in Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta11, which held that mental cruelty must be assessed cumulatively, considering the facts and circumstances of matrimonial life of the parties. A single instance of misbehaviour cannot alone justify a finding of cruelty; the inference must be drawn from the overall conduct and its effect on the aggrieved spouse. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: ―21……Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouse due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other… …A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other‖.

43. In A. Jayachandra v. Aneet Kaur 12 , the Hon‘ble Supreme Court reiterated that mental cruelty must be evaluated in light of societal norms, social values, and the environment of the parties. The conduct complained of must be ―grave and weighty‖ to the extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other spouse. Ordinary marital disagreements or minor irritations do not constitute cruelty; the conduct must be assessed in context to determine its seriousness. The relevant excerpt of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: