Mental cruelty on husband by wife

To prove mental cruelty of one spouse to another, it depends on the facts and circumstances for each case. It is different for each case. There are some case laws dealing with mental cruelty of the wife on the husband. Here we will inform the some historical decisions of the court.

Forcing a husband to live in a dead marriage is mental cruelty.

The Supreme Court held that the refusal by the defendant-wife to participate in the divorce proceedings and forcing the appellant-husband to live in a dead marriage leads to mental cruelty. The court said that the wife’s conduct shows that she is not interested in married life with her husband. Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the court exercised its power to dissolve the marriage even if the case had no grounds for divorce as per the facts.

The case relates to the divorce case of the appellant-husband and the defendant-wife who were district judges in West Bengal and got married in 1992 as per Special Marriage Act, 1954. A year later, a daughter was born from their marriage. Due to the discord between them, they lived separately since the year 2000, which filed the appellant’s file for divorce under section 27 of the Special Marriage Act.

According to the appellant, the defendant was indifferent to her husband, who was unwell, who gave way to discord between them and the defendant left her and did not give the child custody to her. Also, when he was ill, the defendant did not care to see him. In addition, the defendant threatened to involve her in criminal cases if she continued her case for divorce from the defendant.

The City Civil Court, Calcutta stated that the defendant did not appear for proceedings in the case and therefore dismissed the case. Again, an appeal was filed in the Calcutta High Court, where the defendant did not care to appear for the proceedings and the court observed that the judicial authorities tried to form a consensus between the two parties, where both did not appear and The appeal was dismissed on this basis. There was no basis for divorce. The court also held that the appellant was not able to prove the cruelty of the defendant.

The Supreme Court observed that a notice was sent to the duo to resolve the dispute in their marriage at the arbitration center of the Supreme Court, where the defendant did not reappear and was repeated even after sending another notice.

The Supreme Court commented:

“7 Despite serving notice, the respondent showed no interest in appearing in this court as well. This conduct of the respondent indicates that she is not interested in being with the appellant. The refusal to participate in proceedings for divorce and forcing the appellant to live in a dead marriage would constitute mental cruelty (Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh). Despite entering into the disputed facts of the case, we are of the view that the appellant and the respondent are unlikely to live together and for all practical purposes is a contentious breakdown of marriage. “