Sri Chandar Singh Pawar v. Smt. Sushila

first week of May, 2012, the respondent took her son along with her and all her belongings, cash and jewellery insisting upon ending the relations as she insists to live independently and separately.

5. That the respondent did file her written statement and denied all the allegations levelled by the appellant. She has categorically denied that she ever had any extra marital relations. According to the respondent, it is the appellant, who treated the respondent with cruelty; the respondent was harassed and tortured for and in connection with demand of dowry; she was beaten up and abused. According to the respondent, in fact, the appellant was working in Mumbai in a hotel as a cook and the respondent was staying in her matrimonial house with her mother-in-law and the brother-in-law, who restricted her movements significantly. It is the further case of the respondent that during her pregnancy, the appellant left for his work and sent the respondent to her parental 4 home, where she gave birth to her child; the appellant and his family members did not ever take care of the child. Denying the allegations levelled by the appellant, the respondent has stated that she was harassed and tortured in her matrimonial house and now she was forced to divorce.

6. In evidence, the appellant filed his affidavit examination in chief and he was cross-examined also. The respondent filed her affidavit in examination in chief and was cross-examined.

7. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, it was held that the appellant did fail to prove that any cruelty was committed by the respondent to him. Hence, the petition was rejected.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in fact, it is the respondent, who acted in a cruel manner with the appellant; he was discharging his matrimonial obligations; it is the respondent, who used to take fights insisting the appellant to take partition from his family members. He submits that the cruelty may be multi-facets; it is a kind of mental cruelty that was committed by the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the marriage is beyond repair; the parties are not living together for long. Although, he admits that the respondent is staying in the house of the appellant, but the appellant is not visiting his house.

9. Section 13 of the Act makes provision with regard to divorce and one of the grounds is that either of the parties has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the other party with cruelty. 5

10. ‘Cruelty’ as such has not been defined in the Act. In the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “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 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 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 or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted”.

11. In the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, the Hon’ble Supreme Court illustratively enumerated some of the instances, which may be relevant in dealing with a case of mental cruelty and in para 101, summed up as follows:- “101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances 6 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: (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. (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. 7 (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.”

12. Referring to the judgment in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra), the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case of the appellant falls under clause (xiv) of para 101 above.

13. In the case of Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Paramjit Kaur Panesar alias Ajinder Kaur Panesar, (2025) 3 SCC 790, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the terms ‘cruelty’ as well as ‘desertion’ and in para 11 observed that “The crux of the various decisions of this Court on the interpretation of the word “cruelty” is that it has to be construed and interpreted considering the type of life the parties are accustomed to; or their economic and social conditions and their culture and human values to which they attach importance. Each case has to be decided on its own merits.”

14. The question is as to whether in the instant case, the respondent had ever committed any cruelty to the appellant? 8

15. The appellant has been examined as PW 1. In his examination in chief, he has submitted an affidavit. In fact, he reiterates the averments made in the petition. The grounds as taken in the petition have been reiterated.

16. Similarly, the respondent has also filed here affidavit in her examination in chief and reiterated what has been stated in her written statement.

17. In his cross-examination, the PW1, the appellant has stated that, in fact, one month after marriage he had gone to Mumbai and one year thereafter he returned home; he was then working in Mumbai. When asked about the person with whom the respondent was talking over phone, the appellant in answer to question No. 20 could not tell as to who was calling the respondent and to whom she was talking. He admits that after one month, they started fighting. In answer to one question asked in para 8 of his cross-examination, the appellant tells that even his wife agrees to stay with him, but he is not ready to stay with her.

18. These allegations have been rebutted by the respondent in her examination in chief.

19. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to one of the answers given by the respondent in her cross-examination, wherein she has stated that they would fight as the respondent would insist her husband to take partition from her family. It is the case of the respondent that the mother-in-law and the brother-in-law would harass her, therefore, she wanted to stay separate. 9

20. It would not be termed as a cruelty, neither physical nor mental. The respondent was staying in her matrimonial house. Her husband i.e. the appellant was serving in Mumbai. Therefore, under these circumstances, insisting to stay separate per se may not amount to cruelty. Whatever allegations have been levelled by the appellant, he has not been able to substantiate them. In fact, it is the appellant, who committed cruelty. In ground 8(g), the appellant writes that the respondent was having an extra marital affair. This is wild and vague allegation. It amounts to cruelty to the respondent.

21. The court below has discussed the material on record and has recorded a categorical finding that cruelty by the respondent has not been proved, which may entitle the appellant a decree of divorce. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference. The appeal deserves to be dismissed accordingly.

22. The appeal is dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 10.09.2025 (Ravindra Maithani, J)

10.09.2025 Avneet/