SAMAR GHOSH Vs. JAYA GHOSH

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MARCH 26, 2007

CASE ON MENTAL CRUELTY UNDER HINDU MARRIAGE ACT

Facts of the case : 

The respondent, an IAS officer, was a divorcee who was having a daughter from her first marriage. She did the second marriage with the petitioner who is also an IAS officer, but always refused her husband of her matrimonial obligations. Husband filed the petition for the divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty. 

Contention of the parties : 

Petitioner : The husband alleged that the wife has performed the acts of mental cruelty to him. He cited several incidence to support his arguments. The wife unilaterally declared to him that she won't share the bed with him and even won't give birth to his child. She and her mother always use to teach her daughter from the first marriage that the petitioner is not his father. Respondent also use to warn the petitioner that her daughter does not have any blood relationship with him this he need to stay away from her. Moreover she neither took his care nor even enquired about him in any way when he was ill and had the bypass surgery. She only use to cook for herself and the husband has to eat outside. She also insulted the petitioner in front of her father and after that they are living apart from each other from about sixteen and half years.

Respondent : The respondent denies nearly all her acts of mental cruelty on the petitioner. She although accepted that after that particular incident of insult they both were living seperately and never had the cordial relations with each other after marriage. 

JUDGEMENT

The additional district magistrate found the respondent guilty of mental cruelty on husband and passed the decree in favour of husband. 

The high court turned down the judgement of lower court and observed that it cannot be established that the acts if wife amount to cruelty to husband. It further observed that the wife is of high social status as that of husband therefore she is not bound to cook alone for both or to take care of her husband due to her high profiled job. Moreover the wife's unilateral decision to not give birth to any child or to not share bed with her husband sounds logical to the high court due her high social status. High court believed that it does not amount to the act of cohabiting. Further high court observed that the husband is not abled to provide the exact date of the announcement of wife's decision and therefore it cannot be upheld. Moreover the court held that even if the act amount to cruelty, then the act of husband living with the wife under the same roof amounts to the act of condonation.

The supreme court in the appeal filed by the husband overturned the decision of the high court and upheld the decision of additional district magistrate. The court observed that the high court was unnecessarily obsessed with the respondent being an IAS officer. The court ruled that there is no necessity of the intention in such cases and even the acts done without intention may amount to cruelty. The court mentioned that the situation has been now so much deteriorated that it is impossible for the couple to live together without mental agony ot torture. Physical acts may not necessary and acts done that inflict on the other immeasurable mental agony and torture sufficiently constitutes cruelty under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court futher observed that mere wear and tear of married life does not amount to cruelty but if the husband submit herself to operation of sterilization without the knowledge or consent of his wife or if the wife submit herself to vasectomy or abortion without husband's consent or knowledge amount to mental cruelty. In the present case unilateral decision of the wife to not indulge in intercourse and to not give birth to child is totally unreasonable and amounts to refusal of matrimonial obligation to husband thus amounting to matrimonial cruelty. The court further said that not taking care of husband also amount to mental cruelty as it evade away the very purpose of marriage. The question regarding cooking is not that why the wife only cooks having the same social status and responsibilities as husband but it is unreasonable because while the wife cooks, she did it only for herself and not for her husband which clearly shows the apathy of emotions of love, empathy etc which are the very basics of marriage. 

Therefore the Supreme Court found the respondent guilty of mental cruelty to the appellant and thus uphold the decree of additional district magistrate.