GRACYKUTTY Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Decree for judicial separation in favour of the husband granted on the ground of cruelty, is attacked by the wife in this appeal. The parties are governed by the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.

(2.) The appellant was married to the respondent on 10-5-1976. The couple has no, issues. The husband moved the court in 1978 for divorce alleging that the wife was insane at the time of marriage. That application was dismissed in 1981. In the present petition under S.22 of the Act cruelty is alleged. Allegation is denied by the respondent. The court below found that the petitioner's case of cruelty is established by the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 who were examined. According to the appellant the various acts alleged are not proved by independent evidence and even if the act alleged is assumed to be true, such conduct of the appellant would not amount to legal cruelty.

(3.) The law is well settled that cruelty as a matrimonial offence has to be determined by taking into account the particular individuals concerned and the particular circumstances of the case rather than by an unalterable standard. Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact. If the cumulative conduct of the wife towards the husband is such that the husband ought not to be called upon to endure it, the husband is justified in seeking relief on the ground of cruelty. Therefore, in a case where the wife, by reprehensible conduct, causes mental stress and tension to the husband and frustrates his life, the conduct of the wife amounts to cruelty. An intention by the wife to injure the husband is not necessary. Where the behaviour causes serious and deep impact and injury to the health and mind leading the husband to desperation, the latter is entitled to approach the court. Therefore, when it is established that the wife had been using foul and abusive language to the husband, making false and disgusting accusation of immorality disturbing his mental peace by persistent reprehensible conduct cruelty entitling the husband to seek the relief is clearly made out (Vide Gollins v. Gollins 1963 (2) A.E.R.966, Dastano v. Dastano, AIR 1975 SC 1534 , Sobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121 and Jyotish Chandra v. Meera Guha, AIR 1970 Cal. 266 ).