II Year B.A./B.B.A., LL.

B – Semester-III

1st -Internal Assessment

FAMILY LAW

NAME: SAKSHI SAUGAT

DIVISION: D

PRN: 20010125378

COURSE: BA LL.B.

BATCH: 2020-2025
 NAME OF THE CASE: A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur (2005) 2 SCC 22

Civil Appeal Nos.7763 of 2004 - 7764 of 2004

Decided On, 02 December 2004

At, Supreme Court of India

By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMA PAL

By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT & THE HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE C.K. THAKKER

Brief: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal & withheld the decision of HC in not granting
divorce. The court observed that the constant nagging & inappropriate behavior of the wife
has certainly caused mental agony to the husband which amounts to cruelty.

Appellant: A. Jayachandra

Respondent: Aneel Kaur

Citation: (2005) 2 SCC 22

FACTS OF THE CASE

Both the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife were doctors in the instant instance.
Under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the husband filed a divorce case
against his wife based on cruelty. The trial court determined that the wife's claims against her
husband amounted to mental anguish and cruelty. However, in consideration of the welfare of
the children, it issued a judicial separation decree rather than a divorce decree. The HC, on
the other hand, overturned the trial court's decision, claiming that the evidence on file was
insufficient to show mental cruelty. As a result, the appellant-husband chose this appeal.
ISSUES RAISED

In this matter following are the issues raised –

1. What constitutes cruelty under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
2. Whether the order passed by High Court is justified?

RULE OF LAW
In this matter, relevant sections are as follows:

The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, Section 10: This section of the act deals with judicial
separation and states that an action for a judicial separation order can be brought by any party
of the marriage on the reasons set out in section 13(1) or by the wife on the grounds set forth
in section 13(2) of the act. Furthermore, depending on the facts and circumstances of the
case, courts may provide this decree as an alternative redress in divorce proceedings.

Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This part of the legislation deals with divorces that
can be filed for the reasons listed below:

Section 13 specifies the reasons for fault (1)

Section 13(1A) of the Act outlines the reasons for the breakdown (i)

Section 13-B provides for divorce with mutual consent.

In the case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, the husband filed the divorce case based on
mental cruelty by the wife given under section 13(1)(ii) of the act.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

The appellant-husband argued that the High Court's ruling was incorrect because the
evidence on the record had not been thoroughly examined. He claimed that mental cruelty
had been proven and that the marriage had irreversibly broken down in any event, therefore
the divorce order should have been granted simply on that basis. The respondent-wife, on the
other hand, argued that the evidence was insufficient and that there was no proof of mental
cruelty. The court in S. Hanumantha Rao v. S. Ramani considered what constituted cruelty,
concluding that regular wear and tear in a partnership cannot be used as a basis for divorce.

So, to analyze whether the approach taken by High Court is right or not, we should first look
into the requisite ingredients for constituting cruelty.

The term "cruelty" is not defined in the act; it might be either mental or physical. Cruelty,
defined as willful and unjustifiable behavior of a nature such as to trigger, or give birth to a
fair apprehension of, a danger to life, bodily or mental, can be defined as willful and
unjustifiable behavior of a nature such as to trigger, or give birth to a fair apprehension of, a
danger to life, bodily or mental. The topic of mental cruelty must be evaluated in light of the
social standards of marital relations to which the parties belong, their social values, their
status, and the environment in which they live. If the same can be proven by his spouse's
behaviors, or a reasonable conclusion can be drawn that the partner's care causes concern in
the other partner's brain about her/his mental well-being, then this would be considered
cruelty.

Physical cruelty may be supported by actual and concrete proof, but there may be no such
evidence in the case of mental cruelty. Courts are required to evaluate the mental process and
impacts of evidence-based events in situations when there is a lack of physical and direct
proof. The facts in marital conflicts must be examined from this perspective.

In Sobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, the court stated that when there is mental cruelty, "first,
the inquiry should start with respect to the essence of cruel treatment, second, the effect of
such treatment on the spouse's mind, whether it induced a reasonable fear that living with the
other spouse would be injurious to life or health," and "third, the effect of such treatment on
the spouse's mind, whether it induced a reasonable fear that living with the other spouse
would be Finally, a conclusion should be drawn based on the substance of the acts and their
impact on other partners. However, there is a possibility that the stated action is incorrect and
illegal in and of itself. Then it is inappropriate to inquire about or consider the negative
influence on the other spouse in such a circumstance. In such matters, whether the conduct
itself is proven, the cruelty would be established.

In such cases, the cruelty would be established regardless of whether the behavior was
confirmed. According to Baker v. Baker, the reported behavior must be "grave and
substantial" in order for the court to decide that the complaining partner cannot fairly live
with the other partner. The behavior should go above and beyond the normal wear and tear of
marriage. Physical abuse is not required to qualify as cruelty, and a clear sequence of
behavior that causes immeasurable mental anguish might very well qualify as cruelty under
Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may also include insults and abuses delivered through
nasty and unpleasant words, disrupting the mental well-being of other partners.

Any marital behaviour that irritates the other, on the other hand, may not be considered
cruelty. Even little disagreements between spouses that arise in ordinary marital life cannot
qualify as cruelty. Cruelty in marriage can take the form of unjustified words, acts, or even
silence.
The court in Dastane v. Dastane held that tolerating and respecting one another is the
foundation of a happy marriage. Tolerance for one another's errors must be ingrained in each
marriage to a certain degree. When determining what constitutes cruelty in each case, the
social standing and character of the spouses, as well as the physical and mental circumstances
of the partners, must always be considered. Ideal spouses are not dealt with in court. It must
deal with actual men and women instead. The perfect or ideal couples would have no cause to
go to the Family Court.

When reading the rulings of the lower court and the High Court, one thing becomes clear.
The evidence was not addressed at all by the Court of Appeal, despite the fact that the trial
court reviewed the material on records in depth and determined that the wife's attitude
regarding her acts and behavior caused mental pain, which constituted mental cruelty. On the
flimsy basis that hospital witnesses were not questioned and so negative conclusions were to
be drawn. There was no discussion of how the evidence presented was insufficient to prove
mental cruelty. The Appellate Court's conclusion that because the respondent was using foul
language and alleging accusations of adultery with nursing staff, it was necessary to cross-
examine some hospital witnesses is unjustified. Produce should not be the exclusive criterion
for excluding evidence from the record. The ruling of the High Court is questionable on that
basis alone.

According to the evidence, the respondent-wife requested the appellant-husband to perform

various things that could not be classified as ordinary advise on good behavior. The
responder, for example, agreed that she had mentioned five things that he would follow in her
evidence. Surprisingly, the majority of them were related to women who worked at the
hospital. Despite the respondent's efforts to portray them as simple and innocuous counsel, it
is obvious that they were unambiguous evidence of her suspicions about the appellant-
loyalty, husband's character, and integrity based on a cursory reading of it.

The first so-called proposal, for example, was not to ask those female workers to come work
during off-duty hours because no one else was available at the hospital. The second was to
avoid working behind closed doors with certain team members. Contrary to what she had said
about having full trust in her husband, the so-called advice was nothing more than casting
doubt on his honesty, character, and commitment. Nagging about these details definitely
resulted in the introduction of a great deal of mental anguish, bordering on cruelty.
The respondent was a doctor, not a regular lady. She recognized the importance of the type of
job and the need for employees to labor even during off-hours and in difficult working
circumstances. Another incident was specifically addressed by the lower court. The same
may be said of the appellant's alleged extramarital affair with a married lady who was his
friend's wife. Despite the respondent's efforts to emphasize that she is not to blame for any
such accusations, the inference is that she is. When the respondent prioritises her occupation
over her spouse's freedom, the supreme court incorrectly infers discord, diffusion, and
dissolution of marital unity, from which the apex court might infer the irreversible breakup of
marriage.

WHEN CAN A CONDUCT OF A SPOUSE BE CONSIDERED AS CRUELTY TO

SEEK DIVORCE UNDER HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955?

Supreme Court of India, Parul Dhingra,

11 September 2020 Brief: The Supreme Court granted the appeal and upheld the HC's
judgement not to grant divorce. The court found that the wife's frequent nagging and
improper behaviour had caused mental anguish to the husband, which amounted to cruelty.

Citation:

Appellant: A. Jayachandra

Respondent: Aneel Kaur Citation: (2005) 2 SCC 22

Bench: Justice Ruma Pal, Justice Arijit Pasayat, Justice C.K.Thakker

Issue: When can a conduct of a spouse be considered as cruelty to seek divorce under Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955?

Facts: · The appellant (husband) married the respondent in 1978. · In 1997, when the husband
found the wife’s behavior as humiliating & causing mental cruelty to him, he asked for a
divorce with mutual consent which was rejected by wife. · A petition under Section 13 of
HMA,1955 was filed in Family courts on the basis of mental agony & no cohabitation for 2
years. · Meanwhile, the wife filed a case for maintenance & detention of appellant. · The
court passed a decree of judicial separation instead of divorce. · Both the appellant &
respondent filed appeals in HC against the decree. · The HC admitted the wife’s plea & held
there was no mental cruelty based on lack of the evidences & reversed the order of trial court.
· The appellant filed an appeal in SC. Appellant's contentions: It was contended that decision
of HC is erroneous & discarded the evidences. Mental cruelty has been clearly established as
the wife asked the husband to do certain things which can’t be considered as normal advices
& used abusive language & humiliated him in front of everyone. Therefore, divorce should
be granted. & Respondent's contentions: It was contended that allegations on the behavior of
wife are vague & doesn’t amount to cruelty. The wife has full faith on her husband.
Judgement: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal & withheld the decision of HC in not
granting divorce. The court observed that the constant nagging & inappropriate behavior of
the wife has certainly caused mental agony to the husband which amounts to cruelty. “The
conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to
reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the
matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several
factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions,
customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive
description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to
satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to
such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to
live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to
secure divorce. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and
abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party."

CONCLUSION

In this case, the supreme court found that the high court's judgement was not justified since it
did not address the evidence on the records on the spurious grounds that witnesses from the
hospital were not interviewed and therefore an unfavorable inference was to be made. It also
failed to mention how the material on file was inadequate to prove mental cruelty. It also
determined that the appellant-husband is entitled to a divorce decree.

REFERENCES

[1] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, No. 25, Act of Parliament, § 10 (1955).

[2] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, No. 25, Act of Parliament, § 13 (1955).

[3] (2015) 2 SCC 22.

[4] Ibid.

[5] (1999) 2 SCR 296.

[6] S. Hanumantha Rao v. S. Ramani, (1999) 2 SCR 296.

[7] Harinder Boparai, The Expansion of Matrimonial Cruelty, Journal of Indian Law
Institute, 23 JILI (1981) 34.

[8] (1988) 1 SCR 1010.

[9] Sobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCR 1010.

[10] Baker v. Baker, The Times, 11 December, 1919.

[11] (1975) 3 SCR 967.

[12] Dastane v. Dastane, (1975) 3 SCR 967.

[13] A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2015) 2 SCC 22.

[14] Ibid