COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF PARVEEN MEHTA v.

INDERJEET MEHTA AIR 2002 SC 2582

Submitted by
Mayank Singh
Division: C PRN: 18010224183 Class: 2018-2023

Of
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
Symbiosis International (Deemed University), PUNE

In
August, 2019

Under the guidance of

Ms. Charvi Kumar
Assistant Professor
 CERTIFICATE

The project entitled “COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF PARVEEN MEHTA v. INDERJEET

MEHTA AIR 2002 SC 2582” submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for Business
Statistics as part of Internal assessment is based on my original work carried out under the
guidance of Ms. Charvi Kumar from July 2019 to August 2019. The research work has not been
submitted elsewhere for award of any degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the research report has been duly
acknowledged.

I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any,
detected later on.

Signature of the candidate:

Date:
INTRODUCTION

The sources of Hindu Marriage act are the Vedas, Shruti, Smritis and customs and they state that
once a couple is tied in this holy institute of marriage, they cannot break the bond or marriage. In
the Indian legal system, mainly the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, there is a decree for divorce
provided in its Section 13.

Section 13 of the Act provides the grounds for divorce vary from adultery to cruelty and even
renouncement from the world by entering into a religious order. Under the Hindu Marriage act,
1955 as enacted originally, though cruelty was one of the grounds for obtaining judicial
separation, yet it was not a ground for obtaining divorce. After its amendment, cruelty was made
a ground for both divorce and judicial separation.

In the clause 13(1) (a) of Hindu marriage act, only cruelty is mentioned and not specified
whether it is mental or physical cruelty. The courts have interpreted it in a broader prospective
and said that it includes both physical and mental and in this project will discuss the latter aspect
of Cruelty.

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. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. In the
absence of a positive act of cruelty a party is not entitled to obtain a decree of divorce.

This project will discuss this provision of law in depth manner to achieve a better comprehension
of this topic both from the point of view of legislature and also the judiciary through the case of
Parveen Mehta v. Inderjeet Mehta1. Analysis of the Judgment given by the Supreme Court will
be studied in a comprehensive fashion. This findings of this research will be beneficial in
understanding the Section 13 of the Act, specially, Cruelty as a ground for divorce in India.

1
AIR 2002 SC 2582
FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant and respondent were married on 6th Dec. 1985. The husband (respondent) was a
judicial officer. He stayed together with his wife (Appellant) till 28th April, 1986. On 10th
December, 1985 the respondent took his wife to see Mr. Sastry at Chandigarh who informed him
that father of the girl was his close friend and he was already seized of the problems of her
health.

On February, 1986 the appellant agreed to be examined by Dr.B.M.Nagpal of Civil Hospital,

Panipat. The doctor advised a thorough check up and diagnosis. However, this was not possible
since the appellant did not cooperate and ultimately on 28th April, 1986 her brother and brother's
wife came and took the appellant home. The husband later on filed the petition for divorce in
1996 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Several attempts were made for reconciliation but
were of no use. The Supreme Court laid down that the petition for dissolution of marriage was
filed in 1996. So many years had passed since the spouse parted company.

The marriage had broken down irretrievably without any fault on the part of respondent and
hence divorce was granted in favour of the husband.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT

1. The contention of the husband (respondent) was that right from day one after marriage,
they were unable to consummate the marriage because there was no co-operation from
the side of the wife.
2. The husband also stated that he had been misled into believing that she was weak and
fragile due to being on diet-control by his father-in-law before marriage.
3. Subsequently he came to know that she was already undergoing medical treatment
because of some major ailment.
4. The respondent further alleged that state of health of the appellant continued to
deteriorate. She continued to lose weight, suffered from asthmatic attacks.
5. Due to her health she became very quarrel some and over trivial matters, threatened to
leave the house.

ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT

1. The Wife (appellant) denied that her husband had been misled regarding the state of her
health before their marriage.
2. She alleged that the marriage was duly consummated and the phera ceremony was
performed; and that her husband had been expressing full love and affection towards her.
3. She denied that she suffered from any serious ailment as claimed by the Husband
4. She even claimed that she became pregnant from the wedlock and subsequently there was
miscarriage.
5. Appellant also alleged that her husband and his parents wanted to pressurise her parents
to agree for a divorce by mutual consent.
6. According to her several attempts were made by her parents and other relatives to
persuade the respondent to take the appellant to his house but such attempts were in
totality in vain and futile.
JUDGMENT

Decision

The High Court ruled in favour of the respondent and ordered for the dissolution of the marriage
on the grounds of mental cruelty being inflicted by the wife against the husband as provided
under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Principle Applied by the Court

Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i)(a) is to be taken as a behavior by one spouse towards
the other which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him
or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other.

Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behavior or
behavioral pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty the mental cruelty is difficult
to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts
and circumstances of the case.

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 was drawn from the attending
the facts and circumstances taken cumulatively.
LAWS AND LEGISLATIONS INTERPRETTED BY COURTS

 Under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Section 13(1) (i) (a) states that marriage may be
dissolved on the grounds that ‘the other party has after the solemnization of marriage has
treated the petitioner with cruelty.
 The Special Marriage Act, 1954, states the position is same as under the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955.
 Under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 cruelty can be used for both judicial
separation and divorce.
 Under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, a wife could seek divorce if the husband had been
guilty of cruelty and adultery.

Cruelty is ground for divorce and judicial separation and also for a divorce. The Act was made
in par with Special Marriage Act and Hindu Marriage Act with recent amendments in 2001.

Under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, Cruelty has been mentioned as one of the
ground for divorce. Section 2 (ix) talks about cruelty as a ground for divorce.

 Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1960 provides for punishment to a husband or his
relatives who subject women to cruelty. Cruelty under this section means any wilful
conduct which is of such nature as if likely to drive a woman to suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health(whether mental or physical.)
CASES PRECEDENT AND RELATED TO THIS MATTER

1. Abha Gupta Vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta2

The husband alleged that the wife did not allow him to consummate the marriage right from day
one till the date of filing the petition and whenever he desired to consummate the marriage, wife
flatly refused to have an access to her person inspite of his persuasion that it was an essential
aspect of married life. But all the times, the wife showed her repugnance and even on some
occasions used abusive language, as a result the husband suffered mental agony and shock.

Mental cruelty can only be adjudged by having regard to the facts of the case. It can only be
perceived and not defined. It will depend on the facts of each case. Inaction or omission or series
of such acts of a spouse may cause injury to the other spouse which may further cause mental
agony amounting to mental cruelty. Sex is a binding force to keep two spouses together and the
denial thereof by one spouse to the other would, effect mental health amounting to mental cruelty
especially in a case where the parties are young and have recently married after a prolonged
courtship.

2. Dastane vs. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 15343

This matter formed the foundation of the case of 'cruelty' as a matrimonial offence is based on
the allegations made by the husband that right from the day one after marriage the wife was not
prepared to cooperate with him in having sexual intercourse on account of which the marriage
could not be consummated.

When the husband offered to have the wife treated medically she refused. As the condition of her
health deteriorated she became irritating and unreasonable in her behavior towards the husband.

2
Abha Gupta Vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, (1995) 109 PLR 453

3
AIR 1975 SC 1534,
She misbehaved with his friends and relations. She even abused him, scolded him and caught
hold of his shirt collar in presence of elderly persons like.

The Court in this case observed that "Sex plays an important role in marital life and cannot be
separated from other factors which lend to matrimony a sense of fruition and fulfillment".
CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Prior to Hindu marriage enactment a husband could correct his wife even by beating. Breaking
the legs of wife when she disregards husband can be considered as cruelty during common law
regime. According to Manu, a husband should beat his wife only with a rope or split bamboo, so
that no bones are broken in the process.

In Ancient times, the concept of divorce was not known to anyone. They considered marriage as
a sacred concept. According to Manu, the husband and wife cannot be separated from each other,
their martial tie cannot be broken. Later the concept of divorce came in the picture and
established as a custom to put the marriage to an end.

According to the Arthashastra, marriage can end if dissolved by mutual consent and should be
unapproved marriage. But Manu does not believe in the concept of the dissolution. According to
Manu the only way to end the marriage is the death of one of the spouses.

The provision related to the concept of divorce was introduced by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Hindu Marriage Act defines divorce as a dissolution of the marriage. For the interest of the
society, the marriage or the marital relationship needs to be surrounded by every safeguard for
the cause specified by law. Divorce is permitted only for a grave reason otherwise given other
alternative.

After the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, as per Sec. 10 (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 cruelty was only a ground for judicial separation. However, after the amendment of the act
in 1976, Sec. 13 (1) (i) (a), cruelty was also a ground for divorce.

With the amendment the concept of cruelty changed as well. Earlier, it was confined to
“such cruelty as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be
harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party.”

However, now the petitioner has to simply establish that the respondent has treated the petitioner
with cruelty there is no condition as regarding the nature or fear of injury or harm.
Under the statutory provision cruelty includes both physical and mental cruelty. The legal
conception of cruelty and the kind of degree of cruelty necessary to amount to a matrimonial
offence has not been defined under the Act. Probably, the Legislature has advisedly refrained
from making any attempt at giving a comprehensive definition of the expression that may cover
all cases, realising the danger in making such attempt.

Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i) (a) 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.

In this landmark case of Praveen Mehta v Inderjeet Mehta AIR 2002 SC 2582 a husband’s
divorce petition against the wife on grounds of cruelty was based on the allegation of non-
cooperation in conjugal relationship as the result of which the marriage was not consummated,
her abusive and the rude behavior in the presence of elders and outsiders, police complaints
against him and his partners, making false allegations that she has conceived and there was
miscarriage, etc.
The couple had lived together hardly for six months and were separated for ten years. All efforts
to bring her around failed. The court held that the acts alleged were grave enough constitute
mental cruelty.

The major element as to why mental cruelty needs such an extensive application of judicial mind
is the factum of their being a lack of direct evidence unlike in the case of physical cruelty. Yet
another element that comes into play is the fact that in case of mental cruelty, there cannot be a
straight-jacket formula to determine what would constitute mental cruelty universally.

What may constitute cruelty for one might not be cruelty for the other. It depends on a fact to
fact basis, depending on the social status, circumstances, situations etc. to determine if certain
acts would come under the definition of mental cruelty and it is for this determination, that the
role of Judiciary is very essential and integral for the effective adjudication of such matters.
CONCLUSION

Section 13 of the Act provides the grounds for divorce vary from adultery to cruelty and even
renouncement from the world by entering into a religious order. Under the Hindu Marriage act,
1955 as enacted originally, though cruelty was one of the grounds for obtaining judicial
separation, yet it was not a ground for obtaining divorce. After its amendment, cruelty was made
a ground for both divorce and judicial separation.
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.

Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behavior or
behavioral pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty the mental cruelty is difficult
to establish by direct evidence. It

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.

In end we can say that cruelty as a ground of divorce has both positive side and negative side.
But the persons using its negative side are not successful in their intention as the judiciary of our
country smells it and don’t let them successful in their intention. But it is also proving to be
effective for the people who are actually facing cruelty. And they are getting the justice.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Praveen Mehta v Inderjeet Mehta AIR 2002 SC 2582

 Abha Gupta Vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta

 Dastane vs. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534