Kanchan Setiya v. Nitin Setiya

After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2024, the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that it is a case of cruelty. He has raised following points in his submission:- (i) The respondent has always neglected the appellant in terms of not maintaining her. (ii) The respondent had committed maarpeet and harassment towards the appellant. (iii) The respondent had taken a loan on the property owned by the appellant. The respondent did not repay the loan. Therefore, the appellant had to sell the property to repay the loan. It is argued that it also amounts to cruelty. (iv) The respondent had levelled false allegation of infidelity alleging that the child delivered by the appellant is not the child of the respondent. It per se amounts to cruelty. Learned counsel has also argued that, in fact, the appellant has stated about it in her examination in chief affidavit, but she has not been cross examined on this fact, which amounts to admission of the allegations levelled on the appellant. 4

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that nothing has been proved by the appellant to entitle her to a decree of divorce. He submits that, in fact, it is not a case of cruelty. Had there been any cruelty, any FIR would have been lodged, which has not been lodged. The child of the parties is staying with the appellant. The respondent had got a plot purchased in the name of the appellant and he also had taken a loan to construct a house on it. It is argued that it shows that the respondent never had any intention to commit any cruelty, which, in fact, has never been committed on the appellant. The loan which was taken by the respondent had been settled by him with the bank and the appellant did not settle it.

10. Grossly the petition has been filed on the ground of cruelty, which is one of the grounds for divorce under the Act. According to which, the marriage may be dissolved by the decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty.

11. The word cruelty as such is not so defined in the Act. Much detailed discussion on this aspect is not expected of. But suffice to say, in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as in para 101 enumerated instances of human behaviour, which may be relevant in dealing with the case of mental cruelty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “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 in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive: instances indicated (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. 5 (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. (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 lengthy period, where the 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 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. 6

12. It is also a settled law that trivial fights or quarrel between husband and wife may not amount to cruelty. They are considered as a part of the relationship.

13. The question is as to whether the appellant has been able to establish that she was treated with cruelty at the hands of the respondent. In the petition, as such, there are general allegations. In her affidavit given in examination in chief, the appellant as well as the respondent has reiterated their pleadings. In her cross examination, PW1 the appellant has admitted that she never lodged any report about any maarpeet committed by the respondent. In her cross examination, page 1 bottom lines, the appellant has admitted that she does not want to stay with the respondent, because he does not maintain her. But, in the beginning paragraph of this page itself, the appellant has stated that since 2012 she is in job. Whereas, the respondent is into business with his father. In last page of her cross examination, the appellant has admitted that she is capable to maintain herself and her son.

14. PW2 Bheem Sen in para 1 of his examination in chief has stated that he is father of the appellant, which he is not, as admitted by him in the last line of his cross examination. He has though stated about the allegations that were levelled by the appellant. According to him, it is he, who had got a plot purchased in the name of the appellant. He also, in his cross examination admits that with regard to any act committed by the respondent, no FIR was lodged. He has stated that there was a panchayat. But, he further states that nothing was recorded about the proceedings of the panchayat. In first page, bottom lines of his cross examination, PW2 Bheem Sen states that he had got the medical of the appellant done when she was assaulted by 7 the respondent. But, it is admitted during the course of arguments to the learned counsel for the parties that there was no medical of the appellant. In second page of his cross examination, PW2 Bheem Sen admits that the respondent had taken a loan of Rs.6 Lakh for constructing a house on the plot that was purchased in the name of the appellant. As stated, in the last sentence of his cross examination, he admits that he is neither the biological father nor the adopted father of the appellant.

15. The question is as to why did he introduced himself, in para 1 of his affidavit given in examination-in-chief that he is father of the appellant?

16. PW3 is Kalyan Das Chabbra. He is the person who has executed the sale deed in the name of the appellant. He has less to speak of the cruelty.

17. It is admitted that a plot was purchased in the name of the appellant. PW2 Bheem Sen states that it is he who got the plot purchased. Whereas, according to the respondent, it is he who got the plot purchased in the name of his wife. Fact remains that the plot was purchased in the name of the appellant. It is also admitted that the respondent had taken a loan of Rs.6 Lakh to construct a house over that plot.

18. In his cross examination, the respondent has denied the allegation of any cruelty. He has also denied the allegation, that he had ever levelled any false allegation or imputation on the appellant. This is what he has stated in first page bottom lines of his cross 8 examination. He fairly concedes that the loan which he had taken for construction of the house on that plot was repaid by the appellant.

19. Insofar as, the case of cruelty is concerned, there are some general allegations which are not substantiated by any other material. In fact, the kind of allegations that are levelled, may not be termed as cruelty to the extent of granting divorce.

20. Insofar as, the allegations of infidelity is concerned, the appellant as PW1 was cross examined and asked about their child. In answer to a question, she had responded that due to the relationship between her and the respondent, a child was born. As stated hereinbefore, in his cross examination, the respondent has stated that he has never levelled false imputation on the appellant. In fact, the appellant could not substantiate, in any manner, that the respondent has ever levelled false allegation of infidelity on her.

21. The court below has widely considered the evidence and recorded a finding that the appellant has not been able to establish that either physical or mental cruelty was ever committed by the respondent on her. The court below has rightly dismissed the petition.

22. Having considered, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

23. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. (Alok Mahra J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 16.09.2025

16.09.2025 Jitendra

After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2024, the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that it is a case of cruelty. He has raised following points in his submission:- (i) The respondent has always neglected the appellant in terms of not maintaining her. (ii) The respondent had committed maarpeet and harassment towards the appellant. (iii) The respondent had taken a loan on the property owned by the appellant. The respondent did not repay the loan. Therefore, the appellant had to sell the property to repay the loan. It is argued that it also amounts to cruelty. (iv) The respondent had levelled false allegation of infidelity alleging that the child delivered by the appellant is not the child of the respondent. It per se amounts to cruelty. Learned counsel has also argued that, in fact, the appellant has stated about it in her examination in chief affidavit, but she has not been cross examined on this fact, which amounts to admission of the allegations levelled on the appellant. 4

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that nothing has been proved by the appellant to entitle her to a decree of divorce. He submits that, in fact, it is not a case of cruelty. Had there been any cruelty, any FIR would have been lodged, which has not been lodged. The child of the parties is staying with the appellant. The respondent had got a plot purchased in the name of the appellant and he also had taken a loan to construct a house on it. It is argued that it shows that the respondent never had any intention to commit any cruelty, which, in fact, has never been committed on the appellant. The loan which was taken by the respondent had been settled by him with the bank and the appellant did not settle it.

10. Grossly the petition has been filed on the ground of cruelty, which is one of the grounds for divorce under the Act. According to which, the marriage may be dissolved by the decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty.

11. The word cruelty as such is not so defined in the Act. Much detailed discussion on this aspect is not expected of. But suffice to say, in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as in para 101 enumerated instances of human behaviour, which may be relevant in dealing with the case of mental cruelty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “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 in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive: instances indicated (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. 5 (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. (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 lengthy period, where the 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 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. 6

12. It is also a settled law that trivial fights or quarrel between husband and wife may not amount to cruelty. They are considered as a part of the relationship.

13. The question is as to whether the appellant has been able to establish that she was treated with cruelty at the hands of the respondent. In the petition, as such, there are general allegations. In her affidavit given in examination in chief, the appellant as well as the respondent has reiterated their pleadings. In her cross examination, PW1 the appellant has admitted that she never lodged any report about any maarpeet committed by the respondent. In her cross examination, page 1 bottom lines, the appellant has admitted that she does not want to stay with the respondent, because he does not maintain her. But, in the beginning paragraph of this page itself, the appellant has stated that since 2012 she is in job. Whereas, the respondent is into business with his father. In last page of her cross examination, the appellant has admitted that she is capable to maintain herself and her son.

14. PW2 Bheem Sen in para 1 of his examination in chief has stated that he is father of the appellant, which he is not, as admitted by him in the last line of his cross examination. He has though stated about the allegations that were levelled by the appellant. According to him, it is he, who had got a plot purchased in the name of the appellant. He also, in his cross examination admits that with regard to any act committed by the respondent, no FIR was lodged. He has stated that there was a panchayat. But, he further states that nothing was recorded about the proceedings of the panchayat. In first page, bottom lines of his cross examination, PW2 Bheem Sen states that he had got the medical of the appellant done when she was assaulted by 7 the respondent. But, it is admitted during the course of arguments to the learned counsel for the parties that there was no medical of the appellant. In second page of his cross examination, PW2 Bheem Sen admits that the respondent had taken a loan of Rs.6 Lakh for constructing a house on the plot that was purchased in the name of the appellant. As stated, in the last sentence of his cross examination, he admits that he is neither the biological father nor the adopted father of the appellant.

15. The question is as to why did he introduced himself, in para 1 of his affidavit given in examination-in-chief that he is father of the appellant?

16. PW3 is Kalyan Das Chabbra. He is the person who has executed the sale deed in the name of the appellant. He has less to speak of the cruelty.

17. It is admitted that a plot was purchased in the name of the appellant. PW2 Bheem Sen states that it is he who got the plot purchased. Whereas, according to the respondent, it is he who got the plot purchased in the name of his wife. Fact remains that the plot was purchased in the name of the appellant. It is also admitted that the respondent had taken a loan of Rs.6 Lakh to construct a house over that plot.

18. In his cross examination, the respondent has denied the allegation of any cruelty. He has also denied the allegation, that he had ever levelled any false allegation or imputation on the appellant. This is what he has stated in first page bottom lines of his cross 8 examination. He fairly concedes that the loan which he had taken for construction of the house on that plot was repaid by the appellant.

19. Insofar as, the case of cruelty is concerned, there are some general allegations which are not substantiated by any other material. In fact, the kind of allegations that are levelled, may not be termed as cruelty to the extent of granting divorce.

20. Insofar as, the allegations of infidelity is concerned, the appellant as PW1 was cross examined and asked about their child. In answer to a question, she had responded that due to the relationship between her and the respondent, a child was born. As stated hereinbefore, in his cross examination, the respondent has stated that he has never levelled false imputation on the appellant. In fact, the appellant could not substantiate, in any manner, that the respondent has ever levelled false allegation of infidelity on her.

21. The court below has widely considered the evidence and recorded a finding that the appellant has not been able to establish that either physical or mental cruelty was ever committed by the respondent on her. The court below has rightly dismissed the petition.

22. Having considered, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

23. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. (Alok Mahra J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 16.09.2025

16.09.2025 Jitendra