Supreme Court - Stray Acts do not Constitute Mental Cruelty-1999

Document1.txt 4/11/2007
PETITIONER: S.HANUMANTHA RAO
Vs.
RESPONDENT: S.RAMANI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/03/1999
BENCH: V.N.Khare, R.P.Sethi
JUDGMENT:
J U D G E M E N T
V.N.KHARE, J.
The appellant is the husband who is in appeal. The
respondent is his wife. The appellant and the respondent
were married according to Hindu rites and customs on 26-8-88
at Hyderabad. The marriage was also consumated. During
October 1988, while the couple were in a honeymoon, it is
alleged that the respondent told the appellant that she was
forced into marriage by her parents, while she was more
interested in her career rather than a married life, as she
had studied M.Sc. in electronics. It is also alleged by
the appellant that on 15.10.88, on a petty quarrel, the
respondent walked out of his house and it was after great
persuasion she was brought back to his house. The very next
day of the said incident, the respondent was taken by her
parents to their house and despite request by the appellant
and members of his family, she did not return for about
two-and-a-half months to the house of the appellant. During
that period, there was a reconciliation, as a result of
which the respondent was sent to the house of the appellant
on the condition that she should be sent to the house of her
parents on every Thursday and taken back on Saturday to
facilitate her to perform Santoshimata Puja on every Friday.
According to the appellant, this arrangement also did not
suit the respondent and all the time she complained of
deprivation and expressed her desire to return to her
parents house permanently. On 8-3-89, it is alleged that
the respondent in privacy took out her Mangalsutra and threw
it at the appellant, and on the very next day, she went to
her parents place and thereafter she never returned to the
appellants house, despite several requests.
Thereafter, there were several meetings for
reconciliation which failed. It is also alleged that the
respondent got a complaint lodged through her uncle who was
then posted as Superintendent of Police, with the Womens
Protection Cell, CID, Hyderabad against him and his father
and other members of his family as a result of which they
had to seek anticipatory bail from the court. Subsequently,
again, efforts were made for reconciliation but they did not
fructify and under such circumstances, the appellant filed a
petition before the Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for
dissolution of marriage by granting decree of divorce on the
grounds of mental cruelty and desertion. The grounds of
1
Document1.txt 4/11/2007
cruelty were attributed to three acts of the respondent.
Firstly, while in privacy, the respondent took out her
Mangalsutra and threw it at the appellant; secondly, the
respondent kept, maintained and preserved the copies of the
letters sent by her to the appellant which shattered the
mutual confidence between the couple; and thirdly, that the
respondent lodged a complaint through her uncle against the
appellant and the other members of his family u/s 498A IPC
with the Womens Protection Cell, Hyderabad, for which they
had to obtain anticipatory bail from the court. According
to the appellant, all these three acts of the respondent
constituted mental cruelty upon him and thus was entitled to
a decree of divorce. The wife filed counter affidavit to
the petition filed by her husband wherein she admitted that
while in privacy she took out Mangalsutra and that she
maintained and preserved the copies of letters sent by her
to her husband. However, she denied having lodged any
complaint with the Womens Protection Cell, Hyderabad or
threw Mangalsutra at the face of her husband. The appellant
examined himself as well as his witnesses in support of his
allegation and filed the letters sent by the respondent to
him which were exhibited as Exts. A1 to A10. The Fourth
Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, found that the
acts of the respondent in taking out Mangalsutra and
throwing it at the husband, keeping and maintaining the
copies of letters sent to her husband and lodging of
complaint with the Women Protection Cell constituted mental
cruelty upon the husband and as such the appellant was
entitled to decree of divorce. However, the trial court
found that the wife did not desert the appellant.
Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the
Andhra Pradesh High Court. The High Court, on appreciation
of evidence found, that the incidents alleged by the
appellant were blown out of proportion and in fact those
incidents did not constitute mental cruelty. Consequently,
the decree of the trial court was reversed and the appeal
was allowed. It is against this judgment the appellant is
in appeal before us.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that
the view taken by the High Court that since the parties
after the incident of 8th March, 1989, cohabited and it
therefore amounts to condonation of guilt of the wife is
based on no evidence, and as such the said finding suffers
from legal infirmity. It is true that the High Court
recorded the following finding in its judgment - the very
admission in the petition of the respondent that he did not
make an issue of the incident and cohabited with the
appellant, thereafter constituted condonation.
On a perusal of the petition filed by the appellant,
what we find is that in the petition for divorce, the
appellant has alleged that on 8th March, 1989, his wife took
out her Mangalsutra and threw it at him and thereafter
finally deserted him. We further find that the appellant
and his witness in their testimony nowhere admitted that
after the date of the incident i.e. on 8th March 1989 the
wife and the husband cohabited. The respondent also in her
evidence never stated that she cohabited with her husband
after the date of incident. It is, however, correct that
the appellant in connection with the incident of 8th March,
1989 stated that he did not make an issue out of the said
incident as it would have disturbed the peaceful life of his
family. But, he would never forgive his wife for the said
act. We, therefore, do not find any evidence of the fact
2
Document1.txt 4/11/2007
that the parties cohabited after 8th March, 1989, as the
wife stated to have left the house of the appellant after
that date. In the absence of such evidence, the finding of
the High Court that since the parties cohabited after 8th
March, 1989 and as such same would constitute condonation of
guilt, is unsustainable.
It was then urged that the view taken by the High
Court that the incident of throwing of Mangalsutra by the
wife as alleged by the appellant has not been substantiated
and further the removal of Mangalsutra by his wife would not
amount to mental cruelty within the meaning of Section
13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, is erroneous. The
appellant in his petition as well as in his evidence,
alleged that his wife after taking out her Mangalsutra threw
at him. The wife in her counter affidavit and statement
admitted that she removed the Mangalsutra but denied that
she had ever thrown the Mangalsutra at her husband. As
stated above this incident took place in privacy. There was
no other witness to the incident. The respondent very well
could have denied the alleged incident. But she admitted to
have removed the Mangalsutra only to please her husband.
Moreover, when the wife was being cross-examined before the
trial court no question was put to her about throwing of
Mangalsutra at the appellant. For all these reasons we find
that testimony of the respondent was rightly believed by the
High Court while disbelieving the incident of throwing of
Mangalsutra by the respondent, as alleged by the appellant.
Coming to the second limb of the argument whether the
removal of Mangalsutra by the respondent constituted mental
cruelty upon the husband, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that Mangalsutra around the neck of a wife is a
sacred thing which symbolises the continuance of married
life and Mangalsutra is removed only after the death of
husband. Thus, the removal of Mangalsutra by the
respondent-wife was an act which reflected mental cruelty of
highest order as it caused agony and hurt the sentiments of
the appellant.
Before we deal with the submission it is necessary to
find out what is mental cruelty as envisaged under section
13(1)(ia) of the Act. Mental cruelty broadly means, when
either party causes mental pain, agony or suffering of such
a magnitude that it severs the bond between the wife and
husband and as a result of which it becomes impossible for
the party who has suffered to live with the other party. In
other words, the party who has committed wrong is not
expected to live with the other party. It is in this
background we have to test the argument raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant. The respondent after
having admitted the removal of Mangalsutra stated, that
while in privacy the husband often used to ask her to remove
the chain and bangles. She has also stated that in her
parents house when her aunt and mother used to go to
bathroom they used to take out Mangalsutra from their neck
and therefore she thought that she was not doing anything
wrong in removing Mangalsutra when she was asked to do so by
her husband. She also stated that whenever she removed
Mangalsutra, she never thought of bringing an end to the
married life and was still wearing her Mangalsutra; and it
is when her husband made hue and cry of such removal of
Mangalsutra, she profusely apologized . From all these
evidence the High Court concluded that the incident was
blown out of proportion and the appellant attempted to take
advantage of the incident by picturising the same as an act
of cruelty on the part of the wife. The question,
3
Document1.txt 4/11/2007
therefore, arises whether the removal of the Mangalsutra by
the wife at the instance of her husband would amount to
mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of
the Act. It is no doubt true that Mangalsutra around the
neck of a wife is a sacred thing for a Hindu wife as it
symbolises continuance of married life. A Hindu wife
removes her Mangalsutra only after the death of her husband.
But here we are not concerned with a case where a wife after
tearing her Mangalsutra threw at her husband and walked out
of her husbands house. Here is a case where a wife while
in privacy, occasionally has been removing her Mangalsutra
and bangles on asking of her husband with a view to please
him. If the removal of Mangalsutra was something wrong
amounting to mental cruelty, as submitted by learned counsel
for the appellant, it was the husband who instigated his
wife to commit that wrong and thus was an abettor. Under
such circumstances the appellant cannot be allowed to take
advantage of a wrong done by his wife of which he himself
was responsible. In such a case the appellant cannot be
allowed to complain that his wife is guilty of committing an
act of mental cruelty upon him, and further by such an act,
has suffered mental pain and agony as a result of which
married life has broken down, and he is not expected to live
with his wife. It also appears to us that, whenever the
appellant asked her wife for removal of her Mangalsutra, the
respondent never comprehended that her husband at any point
of time would react to such occurrences in the way he did.
Under such circumstances, the appellant was not expected to
have made an issue out of it. We are, therefore, of the
view that removal of Mangalsutra by the respondent would not
constitute mental cruelty within the meaning of Section
13(1)(ia) of the Act.
The next ground of act of cruelty attributed to the
wife relates to her preserving and maintaining copies of her
letters sent to her husband. Learned counsel urged that the
act of the wifes preserving copies of such letters has
shaken the confidence of the husband which amounts to mental
cruelty upon her husband, as according to him, copies of
such letters were preserved knowingly to use them as
evidence in future and such an action definitely amounts to
mental cruelty.
The view taken by the High Court was that mere
retention of copies of the letters would not amount to
mental cruelty. We also find that if the wife had any
intention to use copies of those letters she would have
filed the same before the trial court. Excepting filing a
counter affidavit the respondent-wife did not file any copy
of the letters sent to her husband, whereas the husband has
filed all the letters sent to him by his wife in the court
which were exhibited. The respondent wife in her testimony
stated that she wrote several letters to her husband, but
her husband did not reply any of them and as such she
started preserving the copies of the letters sent by her to
her husband. This act of the respondent, according to us,
is a most natural behaviour of human being placed in such
circumstances. Thus, we find mere preserving the copies of
the letters by the wife does not constitute an act which
amounts to mental cruelty, and a result of which it becomes
impossible for the husband to live with his wife. We,
therefore, reject the submission of learned counsel for the
appellant.
The last act of the respondent, which according to the
learned counsel for the appellant, amounts to mental cruelty
is that she lodged a complaint with the Women Protection
4
Document1.txt 4/11/2007
Cell, through her uncle and as a result of which the
appellant and the members of his family had to seek
anticipatory bail. The respondent in her evidence stated
that she had never lodged any complaint against the
appellant or any members of his family with the Women
Protection Cell. However, she stated that her parents
sought help from Women Protection Cell for reconciliation
through one of her relative who, at one time, happened to be
the Superintendent of Police. It is on the record that one
of the functions of the Women Protection Cell is to bring
about reconciliation between the estranged spouses. There
is no evidence on record to show that either the appellant
or any member of his family were harassed by the Cell. The
Cell only made efforts to bring about reconciliation between
the parties but failed. Out of panic if the appellant and
members of his family sought anticipatory bail, the
respondent cannot be blamed for that. Thus, we are of the
opinion, that representation made by the parents of the
respondent to the Cell for reconciliation of the estranged
spouses does not amount to mental cruelty caused to the
appellant.
For all these reasons, we do not find any merit in
this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
5