Undoubtedly, not allowing a spouse for a long time, to
have sexual intercourse by his or her partner, without sufficient
reason, itself amounts mental cruelty to such spouse. A Bench
of Three Judges of this Court in Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh
(2007) 4 SCC 511 has enumerated some of the illustrations of
mental cruelty. Paragraph 101 of the said case is being
reproduced below:
“101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down
for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to
enumerate some instances of human behaviour
which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of
“mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the
succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not
exhaustive:
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life
of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and
suffering as would not make possible for the parties
to live with each other could come within the broad
parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire
matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes
abundantly clear that situation is such that the
wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put
up with such conduct and continue to live with other
party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot
amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language,
petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may
reach such a degree that it makes the married life
for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling
of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one
spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long
time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating
treatment calculated to torture, discommode or
render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and
behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical
and mental health of the other spouse. The
treatment complained of and the resultant danger or
apprehension must be very grave, substantial and
weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied
neglect, indifference or total departure from the
normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury
to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can
also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than
jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which
causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and
emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of
divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear
and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-
day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce
on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a
whole and a few isolated instances over a period of
years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct
must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where
the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that
because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the
wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with
the other party any longer, may amount to mental
cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation
of sterilisation without medical reasons and without
the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if
the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without
medical reason or without the consent or knowledge
of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead
to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have
intercourse for considerable period without there
being any physical incapacity or valid reason may
amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife
after marriage not to have child from the marriage
may amount to cruelty.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9036 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No.25056 of 2012)
VIDHYA VISWANATHAN
VERSUS
KARTIK BALAKRISHNAN
Dated;SEPTEMBER 22, 2014
PRAFULLA C.PANT,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
13.2.2012 passed in CMA No.2862 of 2011 by the High Court
of Judicature at Madras whereby the said Court has allowed the
appeal filed by the husband under Section 19 of Family Courts
Act, 1986, and dissolved the marriage between the parties.
3.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Vidhya
Viswanathan
got
married
to
the
respondent,
Karthik
Balakrishnan on 6.4.2005 in Chennai following the Hindu rites.
After the marriage, the couple went to London where the
respondent (husband) was working, and they lived there for
some eight months. In December, 2005, the appellant and the
respondent came back to India. However, the appellant went
back to England all alone, and his wife did not go there though
her husband had purchased a return ticket for her. On
13.9.2008, the husband filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (ia)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage. It is
pleaded by the respondent (husband) that while the appellant
was with him in London, she used to insult him. It is alleged by
him that at times she used to get violent and hysterical. The
husband further pleaded that even after his best efforts, the
appellant did not allow him to consummate the marriage. It is
further stated that in November, 2005 i.e. about seven months
after the marriage the wife ( the present appellant) fell sick, and
she was taken to a Medical Specialist who diagnosed that she
was suffering from tuberculosis. According to the husband, he
provided the best possible treatment to his wife. After the
couple came back to India in December, 2005, the wife stayed
back in Chennai and continued her treatment. It is alleged by
the present respondent (husband) that his wife used to send
him e-mails which were derogatory and in bad taste. It is also
alleged by the respondent that his wife refused to join his
company even after his best efforts. With the above pleadings,
the present respondent filed a petition for divorce before the
Family Court, Chennai on the ground of cruelty.
4. The appellant contested the divorce petition, and filed her
written statement. She denied the allegations made against her.
She stated that she went with her husband to London with great
expectations. She alleged that her husband and his mother did
not treat her well. She admitted that she came back with her
husband to India in December, 2005. She further pleaded that
though the respondent purchased the return ticket for her but
he himself instructed not to return to England without his
permission. It is also stated by her that marriage could not be
consummated for the reason that her husband wanted to have
children after one or two years of marriage. She did not deny
having sent e-mails but stated that she only responded to the
respondent as he wanted divorce decree based on her consent.
She admitted that she received legal notice from her husband
but stated that the allegations therein are false. She prayed for
counter-claim directing the respondent to restore the conjugal
rights between the parties.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court
framed the following issues:
“ (1) Whether the petitioner/husband is entitled
for divorce on the ground of cruelty ?
(2) Whether the respondent/ wife is entitled
for conjugal rights as prayed for in the counter
claim? ”
6. The parties led their oral and documentary evidence before
the trial court. The First Additional Family Court at Chennai,
after hearing the parties vide its judgment and order dated
11.8.2011, dismissed the petition for divorce, and allowed the
counter-claim of the wife. Aggrieved by said judgment and
Page 4
-5-
order the husband (Karthik Balakrishnan) filed an appeal (CMA
No.2862 of 2011 with M.P.No.1 of 2011) before the High Court.
The High Court after hearing the parties allowed the appeal,
and set aside the judgment and order dated 11.8.2011 passed
by the trial court. The High Court allowed the divorce petition,
and dissolved the marriage between the parties. Hence, this
appeal with special leave petition before this Court.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused
the papers on record.
8.
Admittedly, the appellant got married to respondent on
6.4.2005. It is also admitted that there is no issue born out of
the wedlock. This Court has now to examine whether the High
Court has rightly come to the conclusion or not that the
husband was treated with cruelty by the wife, if so, is he entitled
to decree of divorce.
9.
On going through the evidence on record, we find that the
husband (petitioner before the trial court), in his evidence has
narrated in detail, the incidents of alleged cruelty suffered by
him. The relevant paragraphs from the statement of the
husband are being reproduced below:
Page 5
-6-
“ 7) ...... the marriage was solemnized on
April 6th 2005, as stated above. But quite
surprisingly, the respondent was very moody
did not speak at all throughout the wedding
day. The respondent was not even interested
to pose for photographs, along with me. What
more worried me was that even for wedding
lunch, the respondent had to be convinced to
sit next to me to have lunch. Initially thought
that this was because she was put in a new
atmosphere. However, I could not realize that
the respondent was not interested either in my
self or the marriage itself.
xx
xx
xx
xx
8)
...... inspite of the above odd things, I
was able to get a visa to UK for the
respondent. I further submit that I had made
extensive arrangements for the Honey moon
to Scotland. Even during the Honeymoon, the
respondent was very moody, emotionless and
abnormally quiet. I was at loss to understand
as to what was hovering around in her mind.
However, I was very patiently waiting on the
fond hope that things would become normal in
due course. However, all my dreams to lead
a very happy married life with the respondent
were shattered by the intolerable behaviour of
the respondent. I further submit that after
returning from Scotland to London, I took the
respondent to various places so as to make
her to become a normal woman, but was
taken aback by her sarcastic remarks about
the London city itself. The respondent was
very lethargic, disinterested and showering
lack of interest in any of the events. Only
thereafter, I stared thinking that the
Page 6
-7-
respondent was not interested in solemnizing
the marriage itself.
xx
xx
xx
xx
9)
........between April, 2005 to December
2005, I could infer that the respondent was
always moody, throwing tantrums, showing
faces openly, showing anger and hatred
insulting me when my self and the respondent
were alone and in front others.
The
respondent reacted violently by getting
aggressive and making sarcast remarks or
locking herself in the room and stopped
talking for days together without any reason.
When I questioned about the same, the
respondent used to get even more aggressive
and shout hysterically and thereafter would
start crying.
This behaviour became more
and more frequent over the time and made it
impossible to handle the respondent during
such violent outbursts of anger and hatred.
The respondent was totally unapproachable
and this left me with a deep sense of anguish
and material agony. The attitude of the
respondent was becoming worse day by day,
resulted in pulling of the days with the
respondent became a nightmare.
xx
xx
xx
xx
10)..............the respondent did not show any
intention at all in consummating the marriage.
The respondent evinced no interest in having
physical contact with me. A times, I myself
had tried to have sexual relationship with the
respondent as a normal husband would do.
Page 7
-8-
However, since the respondent showed no
intention, I convinced myself that she would
mend her ways. However, there was no
attitudinal changes in her life.
xx
xx
xx
xx
13)............ the respondent deliberately used
to wake me up rudely sometimes by even
kicking me when I was asleep and used to ask
me to talk to her saying that she was getting
bored. Without minding the respondent’s
abominable attitude, I would try to encourage
the respondent as possible as I could.
Further, the respondent used to bang her
head against the walls of the bedroom for no
reason and when I asked the reason the
respondent would deliberately remain silent,
having me spending sleepless nights. This
has caused great mental agony and torture to
me when there was no fault on me.
xx
xx
xx
xx
17)...........during November 2005, the
respondent fell sick with high fever. Despite
the adamancy, not to take treatment, I took
the respondent to a leading specialist who
diagnosed that the respondent suffered from
Tuberculosis and got-months antibiotic course
started in London........
xx
xx
xx
xx
Page 8
-9-
18)........... In December 2005, I came down
to Chennai with the respondent, took her to
my family doctor, who referred the respondent
to a top TB specialist. The doctor at Chennai
also opined the same as that of the doctor in
London and advised the respondent to
continue with the antibiotic prescribed by the
doctor in London.
xx
xx
xx
xx
19).................I came back to London, after
buying a return flight ticket to the respondent
from Chennai to London for July 2006,
presuming that the TB treatment at Chennai
for the respondent would be completed by this
time.
xx
xx
xx
xx
20)............even though, I was in London, I
used to get in touch with the respondent and
used to send emails on the fond hope that my
unconditional love would make the respondent
change her mind and behaviour and make her
correct herself. However, the respondent
continued to act irritationally and showed
anger in all the telephone calls by slamming
down the receiver”.
Page 9
-10-
P.W.1 Karthik Balakrishnan (husband) who made above
statement, was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but
nothing has come out which creates doubt in his testimony.
10.
The appellant Vidhya Viswanathan had also filed her
evidence before the trial court, in the form of affidavit, and she
also got herself cross-examined as D.W.1. She denied the
allegations made by her husband but in cross-examination she
admits that the marriage was not consummated. The relevant
portion from her cross-examination is being reproduced below:
“
....
..
It is wrong to state that
normally I used to hit the petitioner by my
legs and wake him up and that I used to throw
the objects on the petitioner and that through
this I had harassed the petitioner physically
and mentally. If it is asked that whether the
marriage was consummated, no it is not. The
petitioner said that we can beget the child
after one or two years. I and the petitioner
were close. As the petitioner joined the new
job he was under stress and tension. The
petitioner had thyroid infection frequently. The
petitioner said that the starting of the
matrimonial life shall be post-poned. It was not
taken as an issue. After 8 months of the
marriage, I became ill. Hence, I came to
Chennai. It is wrong to state that there is no
connection between thyroid infection, and the
physical relationship and that I am adducing
falsely.
Page 10
-11-
xx
xx
xx
xx
My passport is lying with me. It is correct to
state that in the passport, a seal is made for
visa. If it is asked when my U.K. visa would
expire, it is for 5 years.
xx
xx
xx
xx
Before my husband could file this case, I did
not file any case for the restitution of conjugal
rights. It is wrong to state that as I had no
intention to live together, I did not file such a
case. ”
11.
The High Court while rejecting the explanation given by
the wife as to why the marriage was not consummated
observed as under:
“ 44. It has to be further pointed out
that while P.W.1 was cross examined by the
respondent, it has not been suggested to
P.W.1 that he suggested to the respondent
that they should have a child only after two
years. Thus it appears that this explanation of
the respondent for non consummation of the
marriage is only an afterthought. Even
assuming for a moment that the appellant
wanted to have a child only after two years
that does not mean that the appellant and the
Page 11
-12-
respondent cannot and should not have
sexual intercourse. Admittedly, both of them
are well educated and there are so many
contraceptives available and they could have
used such contraceptives and avoided
pregnancy if they had wanted. Xx xx.”
12.
Undoubtedly, not allowing a spouse for a long time, to
have sexual intercourse by his or her partner, without sufficient
reason, itself amounts mental cruelty to such spouse. A Bench
of Three Judges of this Court in Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh
(2007) 4 SCC 511 has enumerated some of the illustrations of
mental cruelty. Paragraph 101 of the said case is being
reproduced below:
“101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down
for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to
enumerate some instances of human behaviour
which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of
“mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the
succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not
exhaustive:
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life
of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and
suffering as would not make possible for the parties
to live with each other could come within the broad
parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire
matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes
abundantly clear that situation is such that the
wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put
up with such conduct and continue to live with other
party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot
amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language,
petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may
reach such a degree that it makes the married life
for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling
of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one
spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long
time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating
treatment calculated to torture, discommode or
render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and
behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical
and mental health of the other spouse. The
treatment complained of and the resultant danger or
apprehension must be very grave, substantial and
weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied
neglect, indifference or total departure from the
normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury
to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can
also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than
jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which
causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and
emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of
divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear
and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-
day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce
on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a
whole and a few isolated instances over a period of
years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct
must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where
the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that
because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the
wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with
the other party any longer, may amount to mental
cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation
of sterilisation without medical reasons and without
the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if
the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without
medical reason or without the consent or knowledge
of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead
to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have
intercourse for considerable period without there
being any physical incapacity or valid reason may
amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife
after marriage not to have child from the marriage
may amount to cruelty.
The above mentioned illustrations, No. (viii) and (xii) given in
Samar Ghosh case (supra), support the view taken by the High
Court in holding that in the present case the wife has treated
her husband with mental cruelty.
13.
In Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit (2006) 3 SCC 778
regarding legal proposition on aspect of cruelty has made the
following observations:
“31. It is settled by a catena of decisions
that mental cruelty can cause even more
serious injury than the physical harm and
create in the mind of the injured appellant
such apprehension as is contemplated in the
section. It is to be determined on whole facts
of the case and the matrimonial relations
between the spouses. To amount to cruelty,
there must be such wilful treatment of the
party which caused suffering in body or mind
either as an actual fact or by way of
apprehension in such a manner as to render
the continued living together of spouses
harmful or injurious having regard to the
circumstances of the case.
32. The word “cruelty” has not been
defined and it has been used in relation to
human conduct or human behaviour. It is the
conduct in relation to or in respect of
matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a
course of conduct and one which is adversely
affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental
or physical, intentional or unintentional. There
may be cases where the conduct complained
of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or
illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect
on the other spouse need not be enquired into
or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will
be established if the conduct itself is proved or
admitted.”
14.
In view of the above principle of law laid down by this
Court, and having considered the submissions of parties, and
the evidence on record, we do not find any ground to interfere
with the decree of divorce passed by the High Court on the
ground of cruelty. However, we are conscious of the fact that
the appellant, as stated by her, was doing a job before her
marriage, and she (Vidhya Vishwanathan) has stated as D.W.1
that at present she is not doing any work. As such we think it
just and proper to direct the respondent to pay to the appellant
(wife) one time lump sum amount of alimony. We are of the
view that in the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in
mind the economic status of the parties, a direction to the
respondent to pay Rs.40 lakhs (Rupees forty lakhs only) as one
time alimony to the appellant, would meet the ends of justice, to
which learned counsel for the respondent during the arguments
stated that the respondent is ready to pay the same.
15.
Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal affirming the
decree of divorce granted by the High Court dissolving the
marriage between the parties namely Karthik Balakrishnan and
Vidhya Vishwanathan, with further direction under Section 25 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that the respondent shall pay to
the appellant Rs.40 lakhs (Rupees forty lakhs only) as a lump
sum amount of permanent alimony, within a period of three
months from the date of this judgment. No order as to costs.
......................................................J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
..................................................J
(PRAFULLA C. PANT)
NEW DELHI,
SEPTEMBER 22, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment