Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — S. 13(1)(ia) — Divorce on ground of cruelty — Scope and test — Continuous non-cooperation, hostile attitude, insults, derogatory comments, and long separation — Held, sufficient to constitute “mental cruelty”.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — S. 13(1)(ia) — Divorce on ground of cruelty — Scope and test — Continuous non-cooperation, hostile attitude, insults, derogatory comments, and long separation — Held, sufficient to constitute “mental cruelty”.

Marriage between respondent-husband and appellant-wife was solemnized on 07-05-1998. A female child, Pratyusha, was born on 11-09-1999. Husband’s case: wife was pampered by her parents, became ferocious and cantankerous, insulted him saying he was fit only as a servant or gardener, that he could not get employment, and commented that because he was “not fit”, they could not beget a male child; she allowed conjugal life only at her will and wish, confined herself in a room, avoided food and maintained silence for days together, repeatedly left the matrimonial home without his knowledge and returned only after long persuasion, and during Sankranthi 2001 insisted on partition and living separately and thereafter left and did not resume cohabitation. He issued Ex.A1 notice calling upon her to join him; she replied under Ex.A5 but did not in fact resume cohabitation.

Wife’s case: allegations of dowry, pasupu-kunkuma land and house promises, demand for remaining Ac.1.65 cents and Rs.1,00,000/-, harassment and ill-treatment by husband and in-laws; she asserted willingness to join husband, relied on her own evidence and that of her father (RW2) and cousin/brother-in-law (RW3).

Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence of PW1, PW2 and RW1–RW3, held that wife had treated husband with cruelty and that there was no resumption of cohabitation from Sankranthi 2001; granted decree of divorce to husband and dismissed wife’s petition for restitution.

On appeal, High Court referred to and applied the principles in S. Hanumantha Rao v. S. Ramani, G.V.N. Kameswara Rao v. G. Jabilli, Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and related authorities on the concept of “mental cruelty”, and held that occasional anger or rudeness is not cruelty, but continuous non-cooperation and hostile attitude causing reasonable apprehension that it is harmful or injurious to live with the other spouse would amount to cruelty. On facts, conduct of the wife towards the husband, her persistent hostile behaviour and non-resumption of cohabitation since 2002 amounted to mental cruelty within S.13(1)(ia).

Held, decree of divorce on ground of cruelty justified; no interference called for.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — S. 9, S. 13(1)(ia) — Restitution of conjugal rights and divorce — Competing petitions — Wife’s plea of readiness to join in reply notice accompanied by conditions and no real steps taken — Effect.

Wife filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights; husband filed petition for divorce. In Ex.A5 reply to Ex.A1 notice, wife stated she was ready and willing to join husband on any auspicious day fixed by him, but imposed conditions seeking “protection” against alleged ill-treatment and harassment and did not herself fix any date or take any concrete step to resume cohabitation. High Court found that the “offer” in Ex.A5, coupled with continued separate residence since 2002 and absence of sincere efforts from wife’s side, was only an eyewash and did not displace the husband’s case of cruelty and desertion-like conduct.

Held, dismissal of wife’s petition under S.9 and grant of divorce to husband under S.13(1)(ia) warranted.

Family law — Matrimonial relief — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage — Long separation — Effect as mental cruelty.

Parties have been living separately since 2002. No credible evidence of genuine attempts or possibility of reconciliation. High Court noticed that separation for such a long period, coupled with findings on conduct, leads to the conclusion that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and that long time separation itself would lead to mental cruelty, relying inter alia on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and Kalapatapu Lakshmi Bharati v. Kalapatapu Sai Kumar.

Held, though “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” is not a statutory ground under the Act, long, continuous separation reinforces the finding of mental cruelty and supports the grant of divorce; forcing parties to live together would only prolong their mental agony.

Result: C.M.A. No. 911 of 2005 and C.M.A. No. 933 of 2005 dismissed; common order dated 31-03-2005 in O.P. No.55 of 2002 and O.P. No.27 of 2004 (Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem) confirmed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.