What amounts to mental cruelty?

Disha Agarwal | ICFAI Hyderabad | 20th August 2020 

SA v AA

Facts:

In the present case, an appeal is filed by the Appellant (Wife) under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the impugned judgment by the learned ADJ Delhi, which was granted in favour of the Respondent (Husband) and the Appellant was held guilty of subjecting Respondent to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955. The Appellant and Respondent were married on 03.02.2005 and they have one male child. After the solemnization of the marriage, the Appellant subjected the Respondent to constant mental torture.  Thus, based upon the facts, circumstances and evidences, the Learned ADJ stated that the Respondent (husband) had established the ground of cruelty thereafter to seek dissolution of marriage which is being appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the Appellant subjected Respondent with cruelty after the solemnization of marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Rules:

Section 13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: 

Divorce- (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party

(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty

Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:

Appeals from decrees and orders.—(1) All decrees made by the court in any proceeding under this Act shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be appealable as decrees of the court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, and every such appeal shall lie to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the court given in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction

Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 

Order of examinations. –– Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief

Section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

When a witness is cross-examined, he may, in addition to the questions hereinbefore referred to, be asked any questions which tend–– (1) to test his veracity, (2) to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or (3) to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture:

Contentions:

Appellant:

• The Appellant (Wife) contends that failure to provide formal suggestion with respect each allegation made against her by PW in the cross examination will not constitute admission of the same as construed by the Trial Court. The Appellant also states that she has denied all the allegations specifically in the written statement and the above failure should not be fatal to the case.
• The Appellant also submits that the allegations made by the Respondent are vague and non-specific, thereafter cannot be accepted by the Court.
• The Appellant also contended that the Respondent had asserted cruelty by stating that his wife had injured his private parts but the same stands condoned as they cohabited soon after that which is proved from the subsequent pregnancy.
• The Appellant further states that the Trial Court has adopted a different yardstick in appreciation of evidence of the Appellants.

Respondent:

• The Respondent alleged that the Appellant has subjected him to various instances of cruelty such as injured Respondents’ private parts, repeatedly slapping, repeatedly insulting him by calling him mota, mota haathi and taunting him that he cannot satisfy her etc.
• The Respondent (Husband) submits that generally matrimonial matters, physical intimacy, acts of cruelty are extremely private affairs and thereafter is difficult to corroborate it with eye-witness.
• The Respondent further submits that the Appellant not only failed to question their correctness against the allegations in examination-in-chief but also failed to falsify the testimony or its credit-worthiness.  The Respondent relied on previous Supreme Court precedents to prove that Section 138 & 146 of Indian Evidence Act,1872 bear no distinction per se when it is either civil or criminal case.
• The Respondent contended that the nature of proof in such matrimonial matters is distinct due to the private intimate life between husband and wife. Thus, corroboration of such matters from an independent source cannot be expected and usually such matters are decided on preponderance of probabilities.

Analysis:

The Hon’ble Court dismissed the appeal, refusing to interfere with the judgment passed:

• The Court divulged in this matter of condonation of the offence by the aggrieved spouse by relying on “Dastane v. Dastane^[1]” & “Dr. Seema v. Dr Akhilesh Chaudhary^[2]”, a subsequent offence by the spouse will revive the previous condonation by the aggrieved spouse, thereby allowing aggrieved spouse to base his contention on the earlier condoned act as well.
• The Court has also submitted that specific allegations along with general statements were made by the Respondent. Specific allegations such as ‘Mota’, ‘Mota Haathi’, injuring the private parts, taunting him repeatedly that he was unable to satisfy her. There were also specific incidents addressed revealing acts of cruelty. The Court explicitly laid down that such taunts, harassment amounts to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court has also elaborated that the Respondent rightly made specific allegations along with general statements as it is not possible to maintain particular date and time for each and specific incident.
• The Court has submitted that there is no explicit distinction between the applicability of Section 138 and Section 146 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in civil and criminal matters. Thus, it has been reiterated from time and again that the right of cross-examination is considered as a valuable right^[3] and when such a right to challenge the evidence is waived then the said allegations can rightly be construed as true.^[4]
• Thus, the High Court refused to interfere with the decision of the lower court and held that the matter was decided on the basis of the merits of the case, thereby holding Appellant (Wife) guilty for cruelty under Section13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court has delivered a laudable judgment by taking into account the humiliation, taunts that people go through in their day to day life and how such inappropriate behaviour has drastic impact on their mental health. By holding the Appellant accountable under mental cruelty for her taunts such as Mota, Mota Haathi which causes destruction of the matrimonial bond, it reflects the evolution of the legal regime in the country from time to time. This case also sets an example in regard to the cruelty faced by the husbands breaking the stereotypical conduct. There is a paradigmatic shift in the violence, cruelty faced by the wives to husbands. The gender biased laws are being used as a weapon by the wives to unleash their personal vendetta against their husbands. Thus, it becomes crucial to decide each case based on the existing circumstances in the society.

^[1] AIR 1975 SC 1534 

^[2] 177 (2011) DLT 537

^[3] State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh (D) & Ors (1998) 3 SCC 561

^[4] Browne v. Dunn (1893) 6 The Reports 67