MINAKSHI Vs. BIRESH RANJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cruelty is a matrimonial offence. It has, however, defied definition. It cannot, of course, be doubted that physical or mental torture has to be taken as cruelty. It is equally evident that normal wear and tear of married life cannot amount to cruelty. In this context we have also to remember that for the Hindus with whom this case is concerned, marriage is still a sacrament and as such it is moral and religious responsibility of a spouse to try to live with his partner as long as possible, suffering in the process some pinpricks and pangs. The door of cruelty cannot be opened too wide lest we find ourselves granting divorce on the ground of even incompatibility of temperament. This would endanger the sacred institution of marriage. If the situation, however, becomes unbearable, a spouse would be within the parameters of law to knock the door of a Court. If the acts constituting cruelty are committed day-in-and-day-out, night-in-and-night-out, it would definitely become impossible for the offended spouse to live with the offending spouse without physical or mental agony, torture or distress. So, a Court would be justified in snapping marriage tie if its conscience is satisfied that the relationship between the parties has deteriorated to such an extent that the offended spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other spouse.

(2.) From what has been stated above, it is apparent that apart from physical violence, the term "cruelty" would include mental cruelty as well. So, though the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for short the Act, has not defined cruelty, which is now a good ground for divorce under S.13(1)(ia), the same takes within its fold mental cruelty. This is an accepted and established position. What amounts to mental cruelty would, however, depend on facts and circumstances of each case.

(3.) In the case at hand we are primarily concerned with the allegation of mental cruelty by the wife towards the husband who approached the Court seeking a decree of divorce on that ground. To believe the husband, the cruelty started within 10 days of the marriage which had taken place on 21-1-72. The culminating point, however, came in 1980 whereafter the present suit was filed in Sept., 1981. In the suit as filed the respondent claimed for a decree of nullity of marriage under S.12(1)(c) of the Act, and for a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage under S.13(1)(ia) and (ib) and (iii) of the Act. The learned trial Court, however, felt satisfied only about the allegation of cruelty and instead of passing a decree of divorce, ordered for judicial separation under S.10 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the wife has preferred this appeal The husband in his turn has filed cross-objection as he wants divorce.