# Smt. Seema @ Aarju v. Ravindra Singh

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1331
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-17
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 69 of 2017
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-seema-aarju-v-ravindra-singh-45665
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Hindu Marriage Act (25 of
1955) - S.13(1)(ia) - Divorce - Cruelty -
specific instances of 'cruelty' - suit for
divorce
on
ground
of
'cruelty'
can
succeed only when specific instances of
'cruelty' are pleaded & proved by plaintiff
- single instance of cruelty by itself is
insufficient to constitute 'cruelty' - Held -
husband
not
pleaded
any
specific
instance of 'cruelty', but only made
general allegations of 'cruelty' - vague
and general allegations are insufficient to
constitute 'cruelty' - Husband not entitled
for decree of divorce (Para 21)

First Appeal allowed. (E-5)

List of cases cited :

## Text

_Characters 0–39,953 of 42,794. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39953 for what follows._

2 All. Smt. Seema @ Aarju Vs. Ravindra Singh
1331
(2020)02ILR A1331

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

First Appeal No. 69 of 2017

Smt. Seema @ Aarju ...Appellant
Versus
Ravindra Singh ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ms. Pragya Pandey, Sri Imran Syed

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Gulab Chandra, Sri Hari Manish
Bahadur Sinha, Sri Vinay Kumar Singh

A. Civil Law-Hindu Marriage Act (25 of
1955) - S.13(1)(ia) - Divorce - Cruelty -
specific instances of 'cruelty' - suit for
divorce
on
ground
of
'cruelty'
can
succeed only when specific instances of
'cruelty' are pleaded & proved by plaintiff
- single instance of cruelty by itself is
insufficient to constitute 'cruelty' - Held -
husband
not
pleaded
any
specific
instance of 'cruelty', but only made
general allegations of 'cruelty' - vague
and general allegations are insufficient to
constitute 'cruelty' - Husband not entitled
for decree of divorce (Para 21)

First Appeal allowed. (E-5)

List of cases cited :

1. Srikant Ram Sajiwan Vs Saroj 2001 (2) DMC 295

2.Kusum Lata Vs Kamta Prasad AIR 1965 All 280

3.Narayan Ganesh Dastane Vs Smt. Sucheta Narayan
Dastane AIR 1970 Bombay 812

4.Abha Agarwal Vs Sunil Agarwal AIR 2000 All (77)

5.Hanumantha Rao Vs Shamani AIR 1990 SC 1318

6.Mukesh Vs Chanchal 2006 Legal (LE) Delhi 957

7.Neelam Kumar Vs Daya Rani 2010 (13) SCC 298

8.Vishwanath Vs Prakash Chand AIR 1992 ALL 261

9.Samar Ghosh Vs Jaya Ghosh 2007 (4) SCC 511

10.Navin Kohli Vs Nilu Kohli 2006 (4) SCC 558

11.Anil Kumar Jain Vs Smt. Kalpana Jain 2019 (8) ADJ
1

12.Smt. Sarita Devi Vs Sri Ashok Kumar Singh 2018 (3)
AWC 2328

13.Neelam Kumar Vs Daya Rani 2010 (13) SCC 298

14.Vishwanath Vs Prakash Chand AIR 1992 ALL 261

15.Ravi Kumar Vs Julmi Devi 2010 (4) SCC 476

16.K. Srinivas Rao Vs D. A. Deepa 2013 (5) SCC 226

17.Manish Tyagi Vs Deepak Kumar 2010 (4) SCC 339

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.)

1. Challenge in this appeal under
section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1984')
preferred by defendant respondent is to the
judgement dated 30.11.2016 and decree
dated 3.12.2016, passed by Kamlesh
Dubey, Principal Judge, Family Court,
Hapur, whereby Suit No. 468 of 2018
(Ravindra Singh Vs. Seema @ Aarju) filed
by plaintiff-respondent for divorce has
been decreed.

2. We have heard Ms. Pragya
Pandey, learned counsel for defendantappellant
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
'appellant') and Mr. Hari Manish Bahadur
Sinha for plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter
referred to as respondent.
1332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. Respondent filed Original Suit No.
468 of 2013 (Ravindra Singh Vs. Seema @
Aarju) in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division) Hapur for a decree of divorce vide
plaint dated 1.8.2013. According to plaint
allegations, case of plaintiff in brief was that
marriage of appellant and respondent was
solemnized on 29.6.2012 in accordance with
Hindu Rites and Customs without any dowry.
Respondent in discharge of his obligation as
husband provided every comfort to appellant;
however, inspite of aforesaid, appellant was
neither satisfied nor happy; Appellant is of an
agitated mind and demanding in nature;
Appellant is physically assaulted respondent
and his mother; On account of her charged
character,
appellant
extended
threat
to
respondent of getting him killed; Appellant is
having relationship with another person as she
holds talk with him for long hours on
telephone; Family of respondent complained to
family members of appellant regarding her
aforesaid character but in vain; appellant and
his family members have committed 'mental
cruelty' upon respondent; there is a serious
threat to his life in company of appellant, as he
can be murdered on any day; and on 4.7.2013,
appellant left house of respondent along with
Gold and Silver Jewellery, expensive clothes
and
Rs.10,000/-
cash,
without
taking
permission of respondent. On the aforesaid
basis, respondent is alleged to have requested
appellant to seek divorce which ultimately, she
refused on 26.7.2013. The suit for divorce was
filed by respondent on the ground of 'cruelty'
which is a ground recognized for divorce,
under section 13 (1) (ia) of Act 1955.

4. Suit filed by plaintiff was contested by
appellant by filing a written statement.
Appellant in her written statement, not only
denied plaint allegations but also raised
additional pleas. Appellant denied allegations
of 'cruelty' levelled against her in plaint.
Appellant pleaded that respondent is working
in Excise Department, Hapur and drawing
salary of Rs. 35,000/- per month; Respondent
was having illicit relationship with his Bhabi
namely, Monika @ Guddu and was caught by
appellant in compromising position, for which
respondent felt sorry; To save marriage,
appellant excused plaintiff for the aforesaid act
of adultery but again on 13.3.2013, plaintiff
was seen in compromising position with his
Bhabi, upon which hue and cry was raised and
Police was informed on Phone No. 100; on
27.4.2013 criminality was committed upon her
by her Jeth Indrajeet, which is punishable
under section 376 IPC; as no F.I.R. was lodged
as Indrajeet is working in Police Department,
an application under section 156 (3) was filed
before the concerned Magistrate which is
pending; Appellant agreed to return to her
matrimonial home on conditions that plaintiff
will not talk to his Bhabi and Indrajeet will
never visit her house; On 10.8.2013 appellant
returned to her matrimonial home along with
her bhabi as she was in advanced family way;
however, on 21.8.2013, family members of
plaintiff as well as plaintiff assaulted appellant
and her Bhabi for which complaint was made
at Police Station- Babughad and appellant and
her Bhabi were medically examined. It was
thus prayed that divorce suit has been filed
with an oblique motive and on non existent
grounds. As such, divorce suit is liable to be
dismissed.

5. On the pleadings of parties, Trial
Court
framed
following
issue
for
determination:

(I) Whether in view of grounds
raised in plaint, marriage of parties
solemnized on 29.6.2012, is liable to be
disolved.

6. After issue was framed, parties
went to trial. Respondent (plaintiff) in
order to prove his case, filed documentary
2 All. Smt. Seema @ Aarju Vs. Ravindra Singh
1333
evidence
which
included
complaint
pertaining to Complaint Case No. 65 of
2014
(Rakesh
Vs.
Ravindra)
under
sections 498 A, 452, 323, 504 IPC and
section
3⁄4
Dowry
Prohibition
Act,
summoning order dated 21.3.2014 passed
in above mentioned complaint case and
also copy of charge-sheet submitted in
Case Crime No. 48 of 2014, under
Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC. Respondent
(plaintiff),
besides
himself,
further
adduced P.W. 2 Mahendri and , P.W. 3
Monika to prove his case. s

7. Appellant in order to establish her
defence,
Court
below,
also
filed
documentary evidence. She filed copy of
letter dated 24.9.2013, addressed to
Superintendent of Police, Hapur, Certified
copy of application filed by appellant
before
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Ghaziabad, under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C,
Certified copy of summoning order dated
24.9.2016 passed in Complaint Case No.
3474 of 2015 (Seema Vs. Indrajeet) under
sections 452 and 376 IPC. Defendant
adduced herself as D.W.1 and Rajendri
Devi as D.W.2 to prove her case.

8. Upon appreciation of pleadings of
parties and evaluation of oral and
documentary evidence on record, Court
below concluded that commission of
'cruelty' upon plaintiff by appellant is
established and therefore, decreed suit for
divorce filed by plaintiff on the ground of
'cruelty' vide judgement dated 30.11.2016
and decree dated 3.12.2016.

9. Perusal of judgement passed by Court
below goes to show that Court below
concluded that various allegations of cruelty
levelled by plaintiff in the plaint against
appellant, when considered cumulatively,
constitute commission of 'cruelty'. To arrive at
aforesaid conclusion, Court below has referred
to Srikant Ram Sajiwan Vs. Saroj, 2001 (2)
DMC 295; Kusum Lata Vs. Kamta Prasad,
AIR 1965 All 280; Narayan Ganesh
Dastane
Vs.
Smt.
Sucheta
Narayan
Dastane, AIR 1970 Bombay 812; Abha
Agarwal Vs. Sunil Agarwal, AIR 2000 All
(77); Hanumantha Rao Vs. Shamani, AIR
1990 SC 1318; Mukesh Vs. Chanchal, 2006
Legal (LE) Delhi 957.

10. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid
judgement and decree passed by Court below,
appellant has now come to this Court by
means of present first appeal under section 19
of Act 1984.

11. Ms. Pragya Pandey, learned counsel
for appellant, in support of her challenge to
impugned judgement and decree submits that
plaintiff has not pleaded any specific instance
of 'cruelty', but has only made general
allegations of 'cruelty' in the plaint; law on the
subject is now crystallized and suit for divorce
on ground of 'cruelty' can succeed only when
specific instances of 'cruelty' are pleaded and
proved by plaintiff; single instance of cruelty
by itself is insufficient to constitute 'cruelty'
vide Neelam Kumar Vs. Daya Rani, 2010
(13) SCC 298 and Vishwanath Vs. Prakash
Chand, AIR 1992 ALL 261.

12. Elaborating her arguments, she
invited attention of Court to plaint of
Original Suit No. 468 of 2013 (Ravindra
Singh Vs. Seema @ Aarju) which is part
of paper book, to contend that plaint
presented by plaintiff is vague and
ambiguous. Allegations giving specific
instances of cruelty are conspicuous by
their absence.

13. We find force in the argument
raised by learned counsel for appellant.
Accordingly, we confronted Mr. H.M.B.
1334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sinha, lerned counsel for plaintiff to
explain aforesaid anomaly. He tried to
support impugned judgement on the
strength of findings recorded therein as
well as observations made by Court below
in the impugned judgement. It was
strenuously urged by learned counsel Sri
Sinha that allegations of cruelty, made in
the plaint where considered cumulatively,
they have the effect of constituting cruelty
upon plaintiff. Therefore, no illegality was
committed by Court below in decreeing
suit for divorce filed by plaintiff. To lend
support to his submissions, reliance is
placed upon Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya
Ghosh 2007 (4) SCC 511; Navin Kohli
Vs. Nilu Kohli, 2006 (4) SCC 558 and a
Division Bench judgement of this Court in
Anil Kumar Jain Vs. Smt. Kalpana Jain
2019 (8) ADJ 1. We shall refer to them in
later part of this judgement.

14. Having heard learned counsel for
parties and upon consideration of material
on record, in our considered opinion, sole
point of determination, arise in this appeal,
is as under:

"Whether
plaintiff
has
duly
pleaded and proved commission of cruelty
upon him by defendant and finding
recorded by Court below on the issue of
cruelty is unsustainable in law."

15. Before proceeding to examine the
issue involved in the present appeal, it
would be appropriate to reproduce section
13 of Act, 1955 which provides for
grounds of divorce.

""
13
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--

[(i) has, after the solemnization
of the marriage, had voluntary sexual
intercourse with any person other than his
or her spouse; or

(i-a)
has,
after
the
solemnization of the marriage, treated the
petitioner with cruelty; or

(i-b) has deserted the petitioner
for a continuous period of not less than
two years immediately preceding the
presentation of the petition; or]

(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by
conversion to another religion; or

[(iii) has been incurably of
unsound mind, or has been suffering
continuously or intermittently from mental
disorder of such a kind and to such an
extent
that
the
petitioner
cannot
reasonably be expected to live with the
respondent.

Explanation.--In this clause,--

(a)
the
expression
"mental
disorder" means mental illness, arrested
or incomplete development of mind,
psychopathic disorder
or
any
other
disorder or disability of mind and includes
schizophrenia;

(b) the expression "psychopathic
disorder" means a persistent disorder or
disability of mind (whether or not
including sub-normality of intelligence)
which results in abnormally aggressive or
seriously irresponsible conduct on the part
of the other party, and whether or not it
requires or is susceptible to medical
treatment; or]

(iv) has, been suffering from a
virulent and incurable form of leprosy; or

(v) has, been suffering from
venereal disease in a communicable form;
or

(vi) has renounced the world by
entering any religious order; or
2 All. Smt. Seema @ Aarju Vs. Ravindra Singh
1335

(vi) has not been heard of as
being alive for a period of seven years or
more by those persons who would
naturally have heard of it, had that party
been alive;

(vii) [ Explanation. -In this subsection, the expression "desertion" means
the desertion of the petitioner by the other
party to the marriage without reasonable
cause and without the consent or against
the wish of such party, and includes the
wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other
party to the marriage, and its grammatical
variations and cognate expressions shall
be construed accordingly.]

[(1-A)
Either
party
to
a
marriage, whether solemnised before or
after the commencement of this Act, may
also present a petition for the dissolution
of the marriage by a decree of divorce on
the ground--

(i) that there has been no
resumption of cohabitation as between the
parties to the marriage for a period of 22
[one year] or upwards after the passing of
a decree for judicial separation in a
proceeding to which they were parties; or

(ii) that there has been no
restitution of conjugal rights as between
the parties to the marriage for a period of
22 [one year] or upwards after the passing
of a decree for restitution of conjugal
rights in a proceeding to which they were
parties.]

(2) A wife may also present a
petition for the dissolution of her marriage
by a decree of divorce on the ground,---

(i) in the case of any marriage
solemnised before the commencement of
this Act, that the husband had married
again before such commencement or that
any other wife of the husband married
before such commencement was alive at
the time of the solemnisation of the
marriage of the petitioner: Provided that
in either case the other wife is alive at the
time of the presentation of the petition; or

(ii) that the husband has, since
the solemnisation of the marriage, been
guilty of rape, sodomy or [bestiality; or]

[(iii) that in a suit under section
18
of
the
Hindu
Adoptions
and
Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), or in
a proceeding under section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) [or under the corresponding section
488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898 (5 of 1898)], a decree or order, as
the case may be, has been passed against
the husband awarding maintenance to the
wife notwithstanding that she was living
apart and that since the passing of such
decree or order, cohabitation between the
parties has not been resumed for one year
or upwards; or

[(iv) that her marriage (whether
consummated or not) was solemnised
before she attained the age of fifteen years
and she has repudiated the marriage after
attaining that age but before attaining the
age of eighteen years.]

Explanation.
--This
clause
applies
whether
the
marriage
was
solemnised
before
or
after
the
commencement of the Marriage Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976).]

STATE AMENDMENT

Uttar
Pradesh.--
In
its
application to Hindus domiciled in Uttar
Pradesh and also when either party to the
marriage was not at the time of marriage
a Hindu domiciled in Uttar Pradesh, in
section 13--

(i) in sub-section (1), after
clause (i) insert (and shall be deemed
always to have been inserted) the
following

"(1-a)
has
persistently
or
repeatedly treated the petitioner with such
cruelty
as
to
cause
a
reasonable
1336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
apprehension in the mind of the petitioner
that it will be harmful or injurious for the
petitioner to live with the other party; or",
and

(ii) for clause (viii) (since
repealed) substituted and deem always to
have been so substituted for following.

"(viii)
has
not
resumed
cohabitation after the passing of a decree
for judicial separation against that party
and--

(a) a period of two years has
elapsed since the passing of such decree,
or

(b) the case is one of exceptional
hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional
depravity on the part of other party; or"."
"

16. The term 'cruelty' has not been
defined in Act of 1956 and therefore, same
has been subject matter of debate for long.
Different Courts in India have tried to
explain meaning of the term 'cruelty' and
also
crystallize
actions
which
can
constitute 'cruelty'. In doing so varied
aspects of human nature in the changing
vicissitudes of time have been taken into
consideration.

17. A Division Bench of this Court in
Smt. Sarita Devi Vs. Sri Ashok Kumar
Singh reported in 2018 (3) AWC 2328 has
considered the concept of 'cruelty' in detail
by referring to the meaning assigned to the
term in different dictionaries and text.
Following
has
been
observed
in
paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19:-

"16. In Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya
Ghosh
(2007)
4
SCC
511
Court
considered the concept of cruelty and
referring to Oxford Dictionary defines
'cruelty' as 'the quality of being cruel;
disposition of inflicting suffering; delight
in or indifference to another's pain;
mercilessness; hard-heartedness'.

17. In Black's Law Dictionary,
8th Edition, 2004, term "mental cruelty"
has been defined as, "a ground for
divorce, one spouse's course of conduct
(not involving actual violence) that creates
such anguish that it endangers the life,
physical health, or mental health of the
other spouse."

18. The concept of cruelty has
been summarized in Halsbury's Laws of
England, Vol.13, 4th Edition Para 1269,
as under:

"The general rule in all cases of
cruelty is that the entire matrimonial
relationship must be considered, and that
rule is of special value when the cruelty
consists not of violent acts but of injurious
reproaches, complaints, accusations or
taunts. In cases where no violence is
averred, it is undesirable to consider
judicial pronouncements with a view to
creating certain categories of acts or
conduct as having or lacking the nature or
quality which renders them capable or
incapable
in
all
circumstances
of
amounting to cruelty; for it is the effect of
the conduct rather than its nature which is
of paramount importance in assessing a
complaint of cruelty. Whether one spouse
has been guilty of cruelty to the other is
essentially
a
question
of
fact
and
previously decided cases have little, if any,
value. The court should bear in mind the
physical and mental condition of the
parties as well as their social status, and
should
consider
the
impact of
the
personality and conduct of one spouse on
the mind of the other, weighing all
incidents
and
quarrels
between
the
spouses from that point of view; further,
the conduct alleged must be examined in
the light of the complainant's capacity for
endurance and the extent to which that
2 All. Smt. Seema @ Aarju Vs. Ravindra Singh
1337
capacity is known to the other spouse.
Malevolent intention is not essential to
cruelty but it is an important element
where it exits."

19.
In
24
American
Jurisprudence 2d, the term "mental
cruelty" has been defined as under:

"Mental Cruelty as a course of
unprovoked conduct toward one's spouse
which causes embarrassment, humiliation,
and anguish so as to render the spouse's
life miserable and unendurable. Plaintiff
must show a course of conduct on the part
of Defendant which so endangers the
physical or mental health of Plaintiff as to
render continued cohabitation unsafe or
improper, although Plaintiff need not
establish actual instances of physical
abuse. "

18. In Vishwanath Sitram Agarwal
Vs. San. Sarle Vishwanath Agarwal,
2012 (7) SCC 288, Court considered
various earlier decisions with regard to
meaning of term 'cruelty'. Their Lordships
observed as follows in paragraphs 22 to
32:-

22.The expression "cruelty" has
an inseparable nexus with human conduct
or
human
behaviour.
It
is
always
dependent upon the social strata or the
milieu to which the parties belong, their
ways of life, relationship, temperaments
and emotions that have been conditioned
by their social status.

23.
In
Sirajmohmedkhan
Janmohamadkhan v. Hafizunnisa

Yasinkhan [(1981) 4 SCC 250 :
1981 SCC (Cri) 829] , a two-Judge Bench
approved the concept of legal cruelty as
expounded inPancho v. Ram Prasad [AIR
1956 All 41] wherein it was stated thus:
(Pancho case [AIR 1956 All 41] , AIR p.
43, para 3)

"3. ... Conception of legal cruelty
undergoes changes according to the
changes and advancement of social
concept and standards of living. With the
advancement of our social conceptions,
this feature has obtained legislative
recognition that a second marriage is a
sufficient ground for separate residence
and separate maintenance. Moreover, to
establish legal cruelty, it is not necessary
that physical violence should be used.

Continuous
ill-treatment,
cessation of marital intercourse, studied
neglect, indifference on the part of the
husband, and an assertion on the part of
the husband that the wife is unchaste are
all factors which may undermine the
health of a wife."

It is apt to note here that the said
observations were made while dealing
with the Hindu Married Women's Right to
Separate Residence and Maintenance Act
(19
of
1946).
This
Court,
after
reproducing the passage, has observed
that the learned Judge has put his finger
on the correct aspect and object of mental
cruelty.

24. In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar
Reddi [(1988) 1 SCC 105 : 1988 SCC
(Cri) 60] , while dealing with "cruelty"
under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, this
Court observed that the said provision
does not define "cruelty" and the same
could not be defined. "Cruelty" may be
mental
or
physical,
intentional
or
unintentional. If it is physical, the court
will have no problem to determine it. It is
a question of fact and degree. If it is
mental, the problem presents difficulty.
Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state
as follows: (SCC p. 108, para 4)

"4. ... First, the enquiry must
begin as to the nature of the cruel
treatment. Second, the impact of such
treatment on the mind of the spouse.
1338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Whether
it
caused
reasonable
apprehension that it would be harmful or
injurious to live with the other. Ultimately,
it is a matter of inference to be drawn by
taking into account the nature of the
conduct and its effect on the complaining
spouse. There may, however, 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."

25. After so stating, this Court
observed in Shobha Rani case[(1988) 1
SCC 105 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 60] about
the marked change in life in modern
times
and
the
sea
change
in
matrimonial
duties
and
responsibilities. It has been observed
that: (SCC p. 108, para 5)

"5. ... when a spouse makes a
complaint about the treatment of
cruelty by the partner in life or
relations, the court should not search
for standard in life. A set of facts
stigmatised as cruelty in one case may
not be so in another case. The cruelty
alleged may largely depend upon the
type of life the parties are accustomed
to or their economic and social
conditions. It may also depend upon
their culture and human values to
which they attach importance."

26. Their Lordships in Shobha
Rani case [(1988) 1 SCC 105 : 1988
SCC
(Cri)
60]
referred
to
the
observations
made
in
Sheldon
v.Sheldon [1966 P 62 : (1966) 2 WLR
993 : (1966) 2 All ER 257 (CA)]
wherein Lord Denning stated, "the
categories of cruelty are not closed".
Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to
state thus: (Shobha Rani case [(1988)
1 SCC 105 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 60] , SCC
p. 109, paras 5-6)

"5. ... Each case may be
different. We deal with the conduct of
human beings who are not generally
similar. Among the human beings there is
no limit to the kind of conduct which may
constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may
crop up in any case depending upon the
human behaviour, capacity or incapability
to tolerate the conduct complained of.
Such is the wonderful (sic) realm of
cruelty.

6.
These
preliminary
observations are intended to emphasise
that the court in matrimonial cases is not
concerned with ideals in family life. The
court has only to understand the spouses
concerned as nature made them, and
consider their particular grievance. As
Lord Reid observed in Gollinsv. Gollins
[1964 AC 644 : (1963) 3 WLR 176 :
(1963) 2 All ER 966 (HL)] : (All ER p. 972
G-H)

7. ''... In matrimonial affairs we
are not dealing with objective standards, it
is not a matrimonial offence to fall below
the standard of the reasonable man (or the
reasonable woman). We are dealing with
this man or this woman.'"

8. (emphasis in original)

9. 27. In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat
[(1994) 1 SCC 337] , a two-Judge Bench
referred to the amendment that had taken
place in Sections 10 and 13(1)(i-a) after
the (Hindu) Marriage Laws (Amendment)
Act, 1976 and proceeded to hold that the
earlier requirement that such cruelty has
caused a reasonable apprehension in the
mind of a spouse that it would be harmful
or injurious for him/her to live with the
other one is no longer the requirement.
Thereafter, this Court proceeded to deal
with what constitutes mental cruelty as
contemplated in Section 13(1)(i-a) and
2 All. Smt. Seema @ Aarju Vs. Ravindra Singh
1339
observed that mental cruelty in the said
provision can broadly be defined as that
conduct which inflicts upon the other party
such mental pain and suffering as would
make it not possible for that party to live
with the other. To put it differently, mental
cruelty must be of such a nature that the
parties cannot reasonably be expected to
live together. The situation must be such
that the wronged party cannot reasonably
be asked to put up with such conduct and
continue to live with the other party. It was
further observed, while arriving at such
conclusion, that regard must be had to the
social status, educational level of the
parties, the society they move in, the
possibility or otherwise of the parties ever
living together in case they are already
living apart and all other relevant facts
and circumstances. What is cruelty in one
case may not amount to cruelty in another
case and it has to be determined in each
case keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of that case. That apart, the
accusations and allegations have to be
scrutinised in the context in which they are
made. Be it noted, in the said case, this
Court
quoted
extensively
from
the
allegations made in the written statement
and the evidence brought on record and
came to hold that the said allegations and
counter-allegations were not in the realm
of ordinary plea of defence and did
amount to mental cruelty.

28. In Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit
Mehta [(2002) 5 SCC 706 : AIR 2002 SC
2582] , it has been held that mental cruelty
is a state of mind and feeling with one of
the
spouses
due
to
behaviour
or
behavioural pattern by the other. Mental
cruelty cannot be established by direct
evidence and it is necessarily a matter of
inference to be drawn from the facts and
circumstances of the case. "A feeling of
anguish, disappointment and frustration in
one spouse caused by the conduct of the
other can only be appreciated on assessing
the attending facts and circumstances in
which the two partners of matrimonial life
have
been
living."
(Parveen
Mehta
case[(2002) 5 SCC 706 : AIR 2002 SC
2582] , SCC p. 716, para 21) The facts
and circumstances are to be assessed
emerging from the evidence on record and
thereafter, a fair inference has to be drawn
whether the petitioner in the divorce
petition has been subjected to mental
cruelty due to the conduct of the other.

29. In Vijaykumar Ramchandra
Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate [(2003)
6 SCC 334 : AIR 2003 SC 2462] , it has
been opined that a conscious and
deliberate
statement
levelled
with
pungency and that too placed on record,
through the written statement, cannot be
so lightly ignored or brushed aside.

30. In A. Jayachandra v. Aneel
Kaur [(2005) 2 SCC 22] , it has been
ruled that the question of mental cruelty
has to be considered in the light of the
norms of marital ties of the particular
society to which the parties belong, their
social values, status and environment in
which they live. If from the conduct of the
spouse, it is established and/or an
inference can legitimately be drawn that
the treatment of the spouse is such that it
causes an apprehension in the mind of the
other spouse about his or her mental
welfare, then the same would amount to
cruelty. While dealing with the concept of
mental cruelty, enquiry must begin as to
the nature of cruel treatment and the
impact of such treatment on the mind of
the spouse. It has to be seen whether the
conduct is such that no reasonable person
would tolerate it.

31. In Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj
Pandit [(2006) 3 SCC 778] , it has been
ruled that as to what constitutes mental
1340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cruelty for the purposes of Section 13(1)(ia) will not depend upon the numerical
count of such incident or only on the
continuous course of such conduct but one
has to really go by the intensity, gravity
and stigmatic impact of it when meted out
even once and the deleterious effect of it
on the mental attitude necessary for
maintaining a conducive matrimonial
home.

32. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya
Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511] , this Court,
after surveying the previous decisions and
referring to the concept of cruelty, which
includes mental cruelty, in English,
American, Canadian and Australian cases,
has observed that: (SCC pp. 545-46, paras
99-100)

"99. ... The human mind is
extremely complex and human behaviour
is equally complicated. Similarly human
ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to
assimilate the entire human behaviour in
one definition is almost impossible. What
is cruelty in one case may not amount to
cruelty in the other case. The concept of
cruelty differs from person to person
depending upon his upbringing, level of
sensitivity,
educational,
family
and
cultural background, financial position,
social status, customs, traditions, religious
beliefs, human values and their value
system.

100. Apart from this, the concept
of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it
is bound to change with the passage of
time, impact of modern culture through
print and electronic media and value
system, etc. etc. What may be mental
cruelty now may not remain a mental
cruelty after a passage of time or vice
versa. There can never be any straitjacket
formula
or
fixed
parameters
for
determining mental cruelty in matrimonial
matters. The prudent and appropriate way
to adjudicate the case would be to
evaluate it on its peculiar facts and
circumstances...."

19. In Ravi Kumar Vs. Julmi Devi
2010 (4) SCC 476, following was
observed in paragraphs 19 to 22:-

19.It may be true that there is no
definition of cruelty under the said Act.
Actually such a definition is not possible.
In matrimonial relationship, cruelty would
obviously mean absence of mutual respect
and understanding between the spouses
which embitters the relationship and often
leads to various outbursts of behaviour
which can be termed as cruelty. Sometime
cruelty in a matrimonial relationship may
take the form of violence, sometime it may
take a different form. At times, it may be
just an attitude or an approach. Silence in
some situations may amount to cruelty.

20.
Therefore,
cruelty
in
matrimonial
behaviour
defies
any
definition and its categories can never be
closed. Whether the husband is cruel to his
wife or the wife is cruel to her husband
has to be ascertained and judged by taking
into
account
the
entire
facts
and
circumstances of the given case and not by
any predetermined rigid formula. Cruelty
in matrimonial cases can be of infinite
variety--it may be subtle or even brutal
and may be by gestures and words. That
possibly explains why Lord Denning in
Sheldon v.Sheldon [(1966) 2 WLR 993 :
(1966) 2 All ER 257 (CA)] held that
categories of cruelty in matrimonial cases
are never closed.

21.This Court is reminded of
what was said by Lord Reid inGollins v.
Gollins[1964 AC 644 : (1963) 3 WLR 176
: (1963) 2 All ER 966 (HL)] about judging
cruelty in matrimonial cases. The pertinent
observations are: (AC p. 660)
2 All. Smt. Seema @ Aarju Vs. Ravindra Singh
1341

"... In matrimonial cases we are
not concerned with the reasonable man as
we are in cases of negligence. We are
dealing with this man and this woman and
the fewer a priori assumptions we make
about them the better. In cruelty cases one
can hardly ever even start with a
presumption
that
the
parties
are
reasonable people, because it is hard to
imagine any cruelty case ever arising if
both the spouses think and behave as
reasonable people."

The aforesaid passage was
quoted with approval by this Court
inN.G. Dastane (Dr.) v. S. Dastane
[(1975) 2 SCC 326] .

22.
About
the
changing
perception of cruelty in matrimonial
cases, this Court observed in Shobha
Rani v. Madhukar Reddi[(1988) 1 SCC
105 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 60 : AIR 1988
SC 121] at AIR p. 123, para 5 of the
report: (SCC p. 108, para 5)

"5. It will be necessary to
bear in mind that there has been [a]
marked change in the life around us. In
matrimonial duties and responsibilities
in particular, we find a sea change.
They are of varying degrees from
house to house or person to person.
Therefore,
when
a
spouse
makes
complaint about the treatment of
cruelty by the partner in life or
relations, the court should not search
for standard in life. A set of facts
stigmatised as cruelty in one case may
not be so in another case. The cruelty
alleged may largely depend upon the
type of life the parties are accustomed
to or their economic and social
conditions. It may also depend upon
their culture and human values to
which they attach importance. We, the
Judges and lawyers, therefore, should
not import our own notions of life. We
may not go in parallel with them. There
may be a generation gap between us and
the parties."

20. Reference in this regard may be
made to the judgement in K. Srinivas Rao
Vs. D. A. Deepa, 2013 (5) SCC 226
wherein following has been observed in
paragraphs 10 and16:

"10. Under Section 13(1)(i-a) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a marriage
can be dissolved by a decree of divorce on
a petition presented either by the husband
or the wife on the ground that the other
party has, after solemnisation of the
marriage, treated the petitioner with
cruelty. In a series of judgments this Court
has repeatedly stated the meaning and
outlined the scope of the term "cruelty".
Cruelty is evident where one spouse has so
treated the other and manifested such
feelings towards her or him as to cause in
her or his mind reasonable apprehension
that it will be harmful or injurious to live
with the other spouse. Cruelty may be
physical or mental.

16.Thus,
to
the
instances
illustrative of mental cruelty noted
inSamar Ghosh[(2007) 4 SCC 511] ,
we could add a few more. Making
unfounded
indecent
defamatory
allegations against the spouse or his or
her relatives in the pleadings, filing of
complaints or issuing notices or news
items which may have adverse impact
on the business prospect or the job of
the spouse and filing repeated false
complaints and cases in the court
against the spouse would, in the facts
of a case, amount to causing mental
cruelty to the other spouse."

21. When case in hand is
examined in the light of law relating to
1342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pleadings in a suit for divorce filed on the
ground of 'cruelty', as contemplated under
section 13 (1) (ia) of Act 1955 and also as
per law laid down by Apex Court and
meaning assigned to the term 'cruelty', the
inevitable conclusion is that plaintiff failed
to plead and prove specific instances of
'cruelty' for decree of divorce prayed by
him. When plaint of divorce suit filed by
plaintiff is examined in light of law as
noted above, this Court finds that plaintiff
has miserably failed to plead and prove
specific instances of 'cruelty'. Vague and
general allegations devoid of material facts
regarding commission of cruelty by
appellant have been levelled in the plaint.
Absence of material facts regarding
allegations of 'cruelty' is an half hearted
attempt to seek divorce. Absence of
material
particulars
in
support
of
allegations made in the plaint renders the
case of plaintiff doubtful. Further once
material facts in support of allegations of
cruelty alleged in the plaint are absent, no
amount of evidence could be looked into
to support facts not pleaded. A Division
Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar
(Supra) has held that vague and general
allegations, by themselves are insufficient
to constitute 'cruelty'. Even otherwise,
when allegations made in plaint are
considered cumulatively also, it cannot be
said that there has been continuous ill
treatment, cessation of marital intercourse,
studied neglect or indifference which may
lead to inference of 'cruelty'. Reference in
this regard be made to Manish Tyagi Vs.
Deepak Kumar, 2010 (4) SCC 339,
wherein Court has observed in paragraph
27 as under:

"27.The classic example of the
definition of cruelty in the pre-1976 era is
given in the well-known decision of this
Court in N.G. Dastane (Dr.) v. S. Dastane
[(1975) 2 SCC 326] , wherein it is
observed as follows: (SCC p. 337, para
30)

"30. ... The enquiry therefore has
to be whether the conduct charged as
cruelty is of such a character as to cause
in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable
apprehension that it will be harmful or
injurious for him to live with the
respondent."

This is no longer the required
standard. Now it would be sufficient to
show that the conduct of one of the
spouses is so abnormal and below the
accepted norm that the other spouse could
not reasonably be expected to put up with
it. The conduct is no longer required to be
so atrociously abominable which would
cause a reasonable apprehension that it
would be harmful or injurious to continue
the cohabitation with the other spouse.
Therefore to establish cruelty it is not
necessary that physical violence should be
used. However, continued ill-treatment,
cessation of marital intercourse, studied
neglect, indifference of one spouse to the
other may lead to an inference of cruelty.
However, in this case even with aforesaid
standard both the trial court and the
appellate court had accepted that the
conduct of the wife did not amount to
cruelty of such a nature to enable the
husband to obtain a decree of divorce."

"

22. Consequently, view taken by
Court below that when various allegations
of 'cruelty' made by plaintiff are taken up
together, they cumulatively have the effect
of constituting cruelty upon paintiff, is
patently erroneous.

23. In view of discussion made
herein above, Impugned judgement and
decree passed by Court below cannot be
2 All. Smt. Shalini Singh Vs. Alok Kumar Singh
1343
sustained.
Appeal
succeeds
and
is
accordingly allowed.