# K. SRINIVAS RAO v. D.A. DEEPA

- **Citation:** [2013] 2 S.C.R. 126
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-02-22
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1794 of 2013
- **Bench:** Aftab Alam, Ranjana Prakash Desai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/k-srinivas-rao-v-d-a-deepa-28856
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
c
ss.13(1)(i-a) and (b) - Petition for dissolution of marriage
on grounds of cruelty and desertion - 'Cruelty' - Explained -
Held: In the instant case, the conduct of respondent-wife in
filing a complaint making unfounded, indecent and
defamatory allegation against her mother-in-law, in filing
0 revision seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the
appellant-husband, and filing and pursuing litigations against
appellant-husband and his parents indicates that she made
all attempts to ensure that he and his parents are put in jail
and he is removed from his job - There is no manner of doubt
E that this conduct has caused mental cruelty to appellanthusband - The parties are living separately for more than ten
years - This separation has created an unbridgeable distance
between the two - The marriage has irretrievably broken down
- In the circumstances, the marriage between the appel/anthusband and the respondent-wife is dissolved by a decree of
F divorce - Keeping in view the circumstances of both, the
appellant is directed to pay to the respondent-wife permanent
alimony.
G
H
Alternative Dispute Resolution:
Mediation - Held: Mediation as a method of alternative
dispute resolution has got legal recognition - Therefore, at
the earliest stage i.e. when the dispute is taken up by the
Family Court or by the court of first instance for hearing, it
126
K. SRINIVAS RAO v. D.A. DEEPA
127
must be referred to mediation centres - Matrimonial disputes
A
particularly those relating to custody of child, maintenance,
etc. are preeminently fit for mediation - s. 9 of Family Courts
Act enjoins upon Family Court to make efforts to settle the
matrimonial disputes - Family Courts shall make all efforts
to settle matrimonial disputes through mediation - In
B
appropriate cases, criminal courts should also direct parties
to explore possibility of settlement through mediation - In
suitable cases of non-compoundable offences u/s 498 -A /PC,
parties can approach High Court and get the complaint
quashed - Mediation Centers shall also set up pre-litigation c
desks/clinics - Fmily Courts Act, 1984 - s.9.
The marriage between the appellant-husband and
the respondent-wife was solemnized on 25.4.1999 as per
Hindu rites and customs. On the following day disputes
arose between the elders on both sides. On 27.4.1999,
D
the respondent was taken by her parents to their house.
On 4.10.1999, the respondent lodged a complaint against
the appellant before the Women Protection Cell alleging
inter alia, that he was harassing her for more dowry. In
the said complaint a defamatory allegation was made
E
against the mother of the appellant. The said complaint
and the subsequent protest petitions led to the conviction
of the appellant for the offence punishable uls 498-A IPC.
His parents were, however, acquitted. The appellant filed
an appeal. However, the respondent kept on to pursue
F
the proceedings at higher forums. The respondent also
filed a petition uls 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for
restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court. The
appellant filed a counter-claim seeking dissolution of
marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion uls G
13(1)(i-a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The
Family Court dismissed the petition for restitution of
conjugal rights and granted decree of divorce. However,
the High Court allowed the appeal of the wife and set
~'ide the decree of divorce granted in favour of the
H
128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A husband.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Under s.13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, a marriage can be dissolved by a decree of
B divorce on a petition presented either by the husband or
the wife on the ground that the other party has, after
solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with
cruelty. Cruelty is evident where one spouse has so
treated the other and manifested such feelings towards
C her or him as to cause in her or his mind reas

## Text

_Characters 0–39,966 of 52,673. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39966 for what follows._

A
B
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 126
K. SRINIVAS RAO
v.
D.A. DEEPA
(Civil Appeal No. 1794 of 2013)
FEBRUARY 22, 2013
[AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.]
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
c
ss.13(1)(i-a) and (b) - Petition for dissolution of marriage
on grounds of cruelty and desertion - 'Cruelty' - Explained -
Held: In the instant case, the conduct of respondent-wife in
filing a complaint making unfounded, indecent and
defamatory allegation against her mother-in-law, in filing
0 revision seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the
appellant-husband, and filing and pursuing litigations against
appellant-husband and his parents indicates that she made
all attempts to ensure that he and his parents are put in jail
and he is removed from his job - There is no manner of doubt
E that this conduct has caused mental cruelty to appellanthusband - The parties are living separately for more than ten
years - This separation has created an unbridgeable distance
between the two - The marriage has irretrievably broken down
- In the circumstances, the marriage between the appel/anthusband and the respondent-wife is dissolved by a decree of
F divorce - Keeping in view the circumstances of both, the
appellant is directed to pay to the respondent-wife permanent
alimony.
G
H
Alternative Dispute Resolution:
Mediation - Held: Mediation as a method of alternative
dispute resolution has got legal recognition - Therefore, at
the earliest stage i.e. when the dispute is taken up by the
Family Court or by the court of first instance for hearing, it
126
K. SRINIVAS RAO v. D.A. DEEPA
127
must be referred to mediation centres - Matrimonial disputes
A
particularly those relating to custody of child, maintenance,
etc. are preeminently fit for mediation - s. 9 of Family Courts
Act enjoins upon Family Court to make efforts to settle the
matrimonial disputes - Family Courts shall make all efforts
to settle matrimonial disputes through mediation - In
B
appropriate cases, criminal courts should also direct parties
to explore possibility of settlement through mediation - In
suitable cases of non-compoundable offences u/s 498 -A /PC,
parties can approach High Court and get the complaint
quashed - Mediation Centers shall also set up pre-litigation c
desks/clinics - Fmily Courts Act, 1984 - s.9.
The marriage between the appellant-husband and
the respondent-wife was solemnized on 25.4.1999 as per
Hindu rites and customs. On the following day disputes
arose between the elders on both sides. On 27.4.1999,
D
the respondent was taken by her parents to their house.
On 4.10.1999, the respondent lodged a complaint against
the appellant before the Women Protection Cell alleging
inter alia, that he was harassing her for more dowry. In
the said complaint a defamatory allegation was made
E
against the mother of the appellant. The said complaint
and the subsequent protest petitions led to the conviction
of the appellant for the offence punishable uls 498-A IPC.
His parents were, however, acquitted. The appellant filed
an appeal. However, the respondent kept on to pursue
F
the proceedings at higher forums. The respondent also
filed a petition uls 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for
restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court. The
appellant filed a counter-claim seeking dissolution of
marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion uls G
13(1)(i-a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The
Family Court dismissed the petition for restitution of
conjugal rights and granted decree of divorce. However,
the High Court allowed the appeal of the wife and set
~'ide the decree of divorce granted in favour of the
H
128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A husband.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Under s.13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, a marriage can be dissolved by a decree of
B divorce on a petition presented either by the husband or
the wife on the ground that the other party has, after
solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with
cruelty. Cruelty is evident where one spouse has so
treated the other and manifested such feelings towards
C 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.
In a given case, while staying away, a spouse can cause
mental cruelty to the other spouse by sending vulgar and
D defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints
containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of
judicial proceedings making the other spouse's life
miserable. This is what has happened in the instant case.
[para 10 and 24] [136-G-H; 144-F-G]
E
V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR
796 = 1994 (1) SCC 337; Vijayakumar R. Bhate vs. Nee/a
Vijayakumar Bhate 2003 (3) SCR 607 = 2003 (6) SCC 334;
and Naveen Kohli vs. Nee/u Kohli 2006 (3) SCR 53 = 2006
F (4) SCC 558 - referred to.
1.2 The first instance of mental cruelty is seen in the
scurrilous, vulgar and defamatory statement made by the
respondent-wife in her complaint dated 4.10.1999
addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Women
G Protection Cell stating that the mother of the appellant
asked him to sleep with his father. It is the case of the
appellant-husband that this humiliation of his parents
caused great anguish to him. He and his family were
traumatized by the false and indecent statement made in
H the complaint. His grievance appears to be justified. This
K. SRINIVAS RAO v. D.A. DEEPA
129
complaint is a part of the record. It is a part of the
A
pleadings. That the statement made in the complaint is
false is evident from the evidence of the mother of the
respondent-wife. It is well settled that such statements
cause mental cruelty. By sending this complaint, the
respondent-wife has caused mental cruelty to the
B
appellant-husband. [para 22] [143-B-F]
1.3 The conduct of the respondent-wife in filing a
complaint making unfounded, indecent and defamatory
allegation against her mother-in-law, in filing revision C
seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the
appellant-husband, in filing appeal questioning the
acquittal of the appellant-husband and acquittal of his
parents indicates that she made all attempts to ensure
that he and his parents are put in jail and he is removed
from his job. There is no manner of doubt that this
D
conduct has caused mental cruelty to the appellanthusband. [para 23] [144-D-E]
1.4 It is also to be noted that the appellant-husband
and the respondent-wife are staying apart since 27/4/
E
1999. Thus, they are living separately for more than ten
years. This separation has created an unbridgeable
distance between the two. As held in Samar Ghosh, if
court refuses to severe the tie, it may lead' to mental
cruelty. [para 25] [145-A-B]
F
Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh 2007 (4) SCR 428 = 2007
(4) sec 511 - relied on.
1.5 This Court is also satisfied that the marriage
between the parties has irretrievably broken down. G
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for
· divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But, where
marriage is beyond repair on account .of bitterness
created by the acts of the husband or the wife or of both,
the courts have always taken irretrievable breakdown of H
130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A marriage as a very weighty circumstance amongst others
necessitating severance of marital tie. Dissolution of
marriage will relieve both sides of pain and anguish. In
this Court the respondent-wife has expressed that she
wants to go back to the appellant-husband, but, that is
B not possible now. The appellant-husband is not willing
to take her back. Besides, the claim of the wife appears
to be too desolate, merely born out of despair rather than
based upon any real, concrete or genuine purpose or
aim. [para 26, 28 and 29] [145-8-C; 146-8-C-E]
c
1.6 While this Court is of the opinion that decree of
divorce must be granted, it is alive to the plight of the
respondent-wife. The appellant-husband is getting a
good salary. The respondent-wife fought the litigation for
more than 10 years.
She appears to be entirely
D dependent on her parents and brother. Therefore, her
future must be secured by directing the appellanthusband to give her permanent alimony. In the result, the
impugned judgment is set aside. The marriage between
the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife is
E dissolved by a decree of divorce. The appellant-husband .·
shall pay to the respondent-wife permanent alimony in
the sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, in three instalments. [para 30]
[146-F-G; 147-A-B]
F
2.1 In the instant case, the matrimonial dispute started
with a quarrel between the elders of both sides. The ego
battle of the elders took an ugly turn. Parties were
dragged to the court and relations between the two
families got strained. Even the efforts of this Court could
G not bring about a settlement. [para 8] [136-A-B]
2.2 Quite often, the cause of the misunderstanding
in a matrimonial dispute is trivial and can be sorted.··
Mediation as a method of alternative dispute resolution
has got legal recognition. Therefore, at the earliest stage
H i.e. when the dispute is taken up by the Family Court or
K. SRINIVAS RAO v. D.A. DEEPA
131
by the court of first instance for hearing, it must be
A
referred to mediation centres. Matrimonial disputes,
particularly, those relating to custody of child,
maintenance, etc. are preeminently fit for mediation.
Section 9 of the Family Courts Act enjoins upon the
Family Court to make efforts to settle the matrimonial
B
disputes and in these efforts, Family Courts are assisted
by Counsellors. Though a complaint u/s 498-A IPC
presents difficulty because the said offence is not
compoundable except in the State of Andhra Pradesh, in
suitable cases, parties can approach the High Court and c
get the complaint quashed. This Court has always
adopted a positive approach and encouraged settlement
of matrimonial disputes and discouraged their escalation.
Accordingly, directions are issued in the judgment to
settle matrimonial disputes through mediation and to deal
0
with complaints involving offences punishable u/s 498A IPC; as also to set up pre-litigation desks/clinics.
[para 32, 34, 35 and 36] [148-B-C-E, 149-A-B-D; 150-H;
151-E-H; 152-C]
Ramgopal & Anr.
v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
E
2010 (9) SCR 354 = 2010 (13) sec 540; G. v. Rao v. L.H. V.
Prasad & Ors. 2000 (2) SCR 123 = 2000 (3) SCC 693, B.S.
Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. 2003 (2)
SCR 1104 = 2003 AIR 1386; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
& Anr. 2012 (10) SCC 303- referred to.
F
G. V.N. Kameswara Rao vs. G. Jabilli 2002 (1) SCR
153 = 2002 (2) SCC 296; Parveen Mehta vs. lnderjit Mehta
2002 (5) SCC 706; and Durga Prasanna Tripathy vs.
Arundhati Tripathy 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 833 = 2005 (7)
sec 353~ cited
G
Case Law Reference:
2002 (1) SCR 153
2002 (5) sec 706
cited
. cited
para 6
para 6
H
A
B
c
132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
2003 (3) SCR 607
referred to
2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 833
cited
2006 (3) SCR 53
referred to
2007 (4) SCR 428
relied on
1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 796
referred to
2010 (9) SCR 354
referred to
2000 (2) SCR 123
referred to
2003 (2) SCR 1104
referred to
para 6
para 6
para 6
para 6
para 12
para 34
para 34
para 34
2012 (10) sec 303
referred to
para 34
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
D 1794 of 2013.
E
From the Judgment & Orders dated 08.11.2006 of the
High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh ar Hyderabad in
A.A.0. No. 797 of 2003/C.M.A. No. 797 of 2003.
Jayanth Muth Raj (for C.K. Sasi) for the Appellant.
D. Rama Krishna Reddy (for D. Bharathi Reddy) for the .
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. 1. Leave
granted.
2. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by the
appellant-husband, being aggrieved by the judgment and order
dated 8/11/2006 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court
G in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.797/03, setting aside the
decree of divorce granted in his favour.
3. The appellant-husband is working as Assistant Registrar
in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The marriage between the
H appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on
K. SRINIVAS RAO v. D.A. DEEPA
133
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
25/4/1999 as per Hindu rites and. customs. Unfortunately, on
A
the very next day disputes arose between the elders on both
sides which resulted in their abusing each other and hurling
chappals at each other. As a consequence, on 27/4/1999, the
newly married couple got separated without consummation of
the marriage and started living separately. On 4/10/1999, the
B
respondent-wife lodged a criminal complaint against the
appellant-husband before the Women Protection Cell alleging
inter alia that the appellant-husband is harassing her for more
dowry. This complaint is very crucial to this case. We shall
advert to it more in detail a little later. Escalated acrimony led c ·
to complaints and counter complaints. The respondent-wife
filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court,
Secunderabad. The appellant-husband filed a counter-claim
seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and
0
desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955.
4. The Family Court while dismissing the petition for
restitution of conjugal rights and granting decree of divorce inter
alia held that the respondent-wife stayed in the appellantE
husband's house only for a day, she admitted that she did not
have any conversation with anyone and hence any amount of
· oral evidence adduced by her will not support her plea that she
was harassed and driven out of the house; that the story that
the appellant-husband ·made a demand of dowry of· F
Rs.10,00,000/- is false; that by filing false complaint against the
appellant-husband and his family, alleging offence under
Section498-A of the IPC in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Hyderabad and by filing complaints against the appellanthusband in the High Court where he is working, the respondentG
wife caused mental cruelty to the appellant-husband and that
reunion was not possible. The Family Court directed the
·appellant-husband to repay Rs.80,000/- given by the
respondent-wife's father to him with interest at 8% per annum
from the date of the marriage till payment.
H
134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S,C.R.
A
5. By the impugned judgment the High Court allowed the
appeal carried by the respondent-wife against the said
judgment and set aside the decree of divorce granted in favour
of the appellant-husband. The High Court inter alia observed
that the finding of the Family Court that lodging a complaint with
B the police against the appellant-husband amounts to cruelty is
perverse because it is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. The High Court further held that the
appellant-husband and the respondent-wife did not live together
for a long time and, therefore, the question of their treating each
c other with cruelty does not arise. According to the High Court,
the conclusion that the respondent-wife caused mental cruelty.
to the appellant-husband is based on presumptions and.
assumptions.
6. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned counsel for the appellantD husband assailed the conduct of the respondent-wife and
submitted that it disentitles her from getting any relief from this
Court. Counsel took us through the complaint lodged by the
respondent-wife with the Superintendent of Police, Women
Protection Cell, Hyderabad, making defamatory allegations
E against the mother of the appellant-husband and drew our
attention to the various legal proceedings initiated by her
against the appellant-husband and his family. Counsel
submitted that she also lodged complaints with the High Court
asking for the removal of the appellant-husband from his job.
F • Counsel submitted that by lodging such false complaints the
respondent-wife caused extreme mental cruelty to the
appellant-husband. Counsel submitted that the High Court fell
into a grave error in observing that because the respondentwife did not live with the appellant-husband for long she could
G not have caused mental cruelty to him. Counsel submitted that
this observation is erroneous and is contrary to the law laid
down by this Court. False and defamatory allegations made
in the pleadings can also cause mental cruelty. Counsel
submitted that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and,
H therefore, it is necessary to dissolve it by a decree of divorce.
K. SRINIVAS RAO v. D.A. DEEPA
135
[RANJANA PRAKASH bESAI, J.]
In support of his submissions counsel placed reliance on
A
· G. V.N. Kameswara Rao vs. G. Jabi/Jif, Parveen Mehta vs.
lnderjit Mehta2, Vijayakumar R. Bhate vs. Nee/a Vijayakumar
Bhate3, Durga Prasanna Tripathy vs. Arundhati Tripathy4,
Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Koh/i5 and Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya
Ghosh6•
B
7. Mr. D. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondent-wife, on the other hand, submitted that the father
of the respondent-wife had given Rs.80,000/- and 15 tolas of
gold as dowry to the appellant-husband's family. However, they
demanded additional cash of Rs.10,00,000/-. Because this
C
· demand could not be met, the respondent-wife and her family
was humiliated and ill-treated. Therefore, the parents of the
respondent-wife had to return to their house along with her
immediately after marriage. The father of the respondent-wife
made efforts to talk to the appellant-husband's family, but, they
D
I did not respond to his efforts. They persisted with their
demands and, therefore, the respondent-wi~ had no alternative
but to lodge complaint against them under Section 498-A of
the IPC before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The
appellant-husband thereafter gave a false assurance that he will
E
not harass her and, therefore, she withdrew the complaint and
went to the matrimonial house. However, the approach oHhe
appellant-husband and his family did not change. She had to
therefore renew her complaint. Counsel submitted that only
because of the obstinate and uncompromising attitude of the
appellant-husband and his family that the respondent-wife had
F
to take recourse to court proceedings. Counsel submitted that
the respondent-wife values the matrimonial tie. She wants to
lead a happy married life with the appellant-husband. She had,
1.
c2002i 2 sec 296.
2
c2002i 5 sec 106.
3.
(2003) 6 sec 334.
4.
(2005) 1 sec 353.
5. (1.000) 4 sec 558.
6.
c2007) 4 sec s11.
G
H
136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A therefore, filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which
should have been allowed by the Family Court. Counsel
submitted that after properly evaluating all the circumstances
the High Court has rightly set aside the decree of divorce and
granted a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. The High
B Court's judgment, therefore, merits no interference.
8. The matrimonial dispute started with a quarrel between
the elders of both sides in which initially the appellant-husband
and the respondent-wife were not involved. The ego battle of
the elders took an ugly turn. Parties were dragged to the court
C and the inevitable happened. T-he relations between the two
families got strained. With a fond hope that we could bring
about a settlement we requested the counsel to talk to the
parties and convey our wishes that they should bury the hatchet
and start living together. We also tried to counsel them in the
D court. The respondent-wife appears to be very keen to go back
to the matrimonial home and start life afresh, but the appellant- .
husband is adamant. He conveyed to us through his cou.nsel
that by filing repeated false complaints against him and his
family the respondent-wife has caused extreme cruelty to them
E and therefore it will not be possible to take her back. In view
of this we have no option but to proceed with the case.
9. The High Court has taken a view that since the
appellant-hus~and and the respondent-wife did not stay
F together, there is no question of their causing cruelty to each
other. The High Court concluded that the conclusion drawn by
the Family Court that the respondent-wife caused mental cruelty
to the appellant-husband is erroneous. We are unable to agree
with the High Court.
G
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 solemnization of the
marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty. In a series of
H judgments this Court has repeatedly stated the meaning and
K. SRINIVAS RAO v. D.A. DEEPA
137
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
outlined the scope of the term 'cruelty'. Cruelty is evident where
A
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.
11. In Samar Ghosh this Court set out illustrative cases
B
where inference of 'mental cruelty' can be drawn. This list is
obviously not exhaustive because each case presents it's own
peculiar factual· matrix and existence or otherwise of mental
cruelty will have ta be judged after applying mind to it. We must C
quote the relevant paragraph of Samar Ghosh. We have
reproduced only the instances which are relevant to the present
case.
"101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for
guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some
D
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:
E
(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
F
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))()()(
. )()()(
)()()(
G
(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
~~
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 2 S.C.R.
(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)
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
(viii) )()()(
)()()(
)()()(
(ix)
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
(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)
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
(xii)
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
(xiii) )()()(
)()()(
)()()(
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous
separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial
bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction
though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that
tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of
marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the
feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like sit~ations,
it may lead to mental cruelty."
K. SRINIVAS RAO v. D.A. DEEPA
139
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
It is pertinent to note that in this case the husband and wife
A
had lived separately for more than sixteen and a half years.
This fact was taken into consideration along with other facts
as leading to the conclusion that matrimonial bond had
been ruptured beyond repair because of the mental cruelty
caused by the wife. Similar view was taken in Naveen
B
Kohli.
12. In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat7 in the divorce petition filed
by the husband the wife filed written statement stating that the
. husband was suffering from mental hallucination, that his was
C
a morbid mind for which he needs expert psychiatric treatment
and that he was suffering from 'paranoid disorder'. In crossexamination her counsel put several questions to the husband
suggesting that several members of his family including his
grandfather were lunatics. This court held that these assertions
cannot but constitute mental cruelty of such a nature that the
D
husband cannot be asked to live with the wife thereafter. Such
pleadings and questions it was held, are bound to cause
immense mental pain and anguish to the husband. In
Vijaykumar Bhate disgusting accusations of unchastity and
indecent familiarity with a neighbour were made in the written
E
statement. This Court held that the allegations are of such
quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain,
agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated concept of
cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting
disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and
F
reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous to live with
her husband. In Naveen Kohli the respondent-wife got an
•
advertisement issued in a national newspaper that her husband
was her employee. She got another news item issued
cautioning his business associates to avoid dealing with him.
G
This was treated as causing mental cruelty to the husband.
13. In Naveen Kohli the wife had filed several complaints
and cases against the husband. This Court viewed her conduct
1.
(1994) 1 sec 337.
H
140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A as a conduct causing mental cruelty and observed that the
finding of the High Court that these proceedings could not be
taken to be such which may warrant annulment of marriage is
wholly unsustainable.
14. Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty noted
B in Samar Ghosh, 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
C 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.
15. We shall apply the above principles to the present
case. Firstly, it is necessary to have a look at the legal
D proceedings initiated by both sides against each other. The
facts on record disclose that after the marriage, due to some
dispute which arose between the elders, both sides abused
and virtually attacked each other. The respondent-wife was
taken by her parents to their house. According to the
E respondent-wife, her father made efforts to bring about an
amicable settlement but the other side did not respond
favourably and, therefore, on 4/10/1999 she lodged a complaint
with the Superintendent of Police, Women Protection Cell
against the appellant-husband and members of his family. In
F our opinion, this complaint is, to a large extent, responsible for
widening the rift between the parties. In this complaint, after
alleging ill-treatment and harassment for dowry, it is alleged that
mother of the appellant-husband asked the respondent-wife to
sleep with the father of the appellant-husband. When she was
G cross-examined in the Family Court during the hearing of her
petition for restitution of conjugal rights the respondent-wife
admitted that she had lodged the complaint. PW-2 her mother,
in her cross-examination stated that though they had asked ,her
not to lodge the complaint, the respondent-wife lodged it. She
H told them that she had lodged the complaint because the
K. SRINIVAS RAO v. D.A. DEEPA
141
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
appellant-husband was not listening to her. Thus, it appears
A ·
that this complaint was lodged out of frustration and anger and
was a reaction to the appellant-husband's refusal to live with
her. It was, perhaps, felt by her that because of the pressure
of such a complaint the appellant-husband would take her back
to his house. Far from helping the respondent-wife, the
B
complaint appears to have caused irreparable harm to her. It
increased the bitterness. Perhaps, the respondent-wife was
misguided by someone. But, such evidence is not on record.
Even in this court, this complaint appears to us to be a major
factor amongst others impeding settlement. Pursuant to the c
said complaint, Crime No.8/2000 was registered by C.l.D.,
Hyderabad, in the Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court),
Hyderabad against the appellant-husband and his family under
Section 498-A of the IPC. It is the respondent-wife's case that
the appellant-husband gave an assurance before the police that
0
he will not harass her. She, therefore, withdrew the complaint.
The police then filed a closure report. According to the
respondent-wife, the appellant-husband did not abide by the
promise made by him and, therefore, she filed a protest
petition. The Magistrate Court, Hyderabad, then, took
E
cognizance of the case and renumbered the case as
C.C.No.62/2002.
16. In the meantime, the respondent-wife filed O.P.No.88/
2001 in the Family Court, Secunderabad, for restitution of
conjugal rights. The appellant-husband filed a counter claim for
F
divorce on 27/12/2002. The Family Court dismissed the
petition for restitution of conjugal rights and allowed the counter
claim for divorce filed by the appellant-husband. The
respondent-wife challenged the Family Court judgment in the
High Court. On 8/12/2006 the High Court reversed the Family
G
Court's order and allowed the petition for restitution of conjugal
. rights. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-husband
against the said judgment.
17. According to the respondent-wife, on 17/9/2007 when
she, along with her mother, came out of the court after a case
H
142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 2 S.C.R.
A filed by her against the appellant-husband was adjourned, the
appellant-husband beat her mother and kicked her on her
stomach. Both of them received injuries. She, therefore, filed
complaint for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the
IPC against the appellant-husband {C.C.No. 79/2009). It may
B be stated here that on 19/10/2009 the appellant-husband was
acquitted in this case.
18. On 24/6/2008 the judgment was delivered by Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No. 62/2002.
C The appellant-husband was convicted under Section 498-A of
the IPC and was sentenced to undergo six months simple
imprisonment. He and his parents were acquitted of the
offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act His parents were
acquitted of the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. After
this judgment the respondent-wife and her parents filed a
D complaint in the High Court saying that since the appellanthusband was convicted he should be dismissed from service.
Similar letters were sent to the High Court by the maternal uncle
of the respondent-wife.
E
19. On 14/7/2008 the appellant-husband filed Criminal
Appeal No.186/2008 challenging his conviction under Section
498-A of the IPC before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge. It
is pertinent to note that the respondent-wife filed Criminal
Appeal No.1219/2008 in the High Court questioning the
F acquittal of the appellant-husband and his parents of the
offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act and also the acquittal
of his parents of the offence punishable under Section 498-A
of the IPC. This appeal is pending in the High Court. Not
being content with this, the respondent-wife filed Criminal
G Revision Case No.1560/2008 in the High Court seeking
enhancement of punishment awarded to the appellant-husband
for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC.
20. According to the appellant-husband on 6/12/2009 the
brother of the respondent-wife came to their house and
H attacked his mother. His mother filed a complaint and the
K. SRINIVAS RAO v. D.A. DEEPA
143
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
police registered a complaint under Section 354 of the IPC.
A
The brother of the respondent-wife also lodged a complaint and
an offence came to be registered. Both the cases are pending.
21. On 29/6/2010 Criminal Appeal No. 186/2010 filed by
the appellant-husband challenging his conviction for the offence
8
under Section 498-A of the IPC was allowed by the
Metropolitan Sessions Judge and he was acquitted. The
respondent-wife has filed criminal appeal in the High Court
challenging the said acquittal which is pending.
22. We need to now see the effect of the above events.
C
In our opinion, the first instance of mental cruelty is seen in the
scurrilous, vulgar and defamatory statement made by the
respondent-wife in her complaint dated 4/10/1999 addressed
to the Superintendent of Police, Women Protection Cell. The
statement that the mother of the appellant-husband asked her D
to sleep with his father is bound to anger him. It is his case
that this humiliation of his parents caused great anguish to him.
He and his family were traumatized by the false and indecent
statement made in the complaint. His grievance appears to
us to be justified. This complaint is a part of the record. It is a
E
part of the pleadings. That this statement is false is evident
from the evidence of the mother of the respondent-wife, which
we have already quoted. This statement cannot be explained
away by stating that it was made because the respondent-wife
was anxious to go back to the appellant-husband. This is not
F
the way to win the husband back. It is well settled that such
statements cause mental cruelty. By sending this complaint the
respondent-wife has caused mental cruelty to the appellanthusband.
23. Pursuant to this complaint, the police registered a case
G
under Section 498-A of the IPC. The appellant-husband and
·'his parents had to apply for anticipatory bail, which was granted
to them. Later, the respondent-wife withdrew the complaint.
Pursuant to the withdrawal, the police filed a closure report.
Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed ·a protest petition. The trial
H
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A court took cognizance of the case against the appellanthusband and his parents (CC No. 62/2002). What is pertinent
to note is that the respondent-wife filed criminal appeal in the
High Court challenging the acquittal of the appellant-husband
and his parents of the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act
B and also the acquittal of his parents of the offence punishable
under Section 498-A of the IPC.
She filed criminal revision
seeking enhancement of the punishment awarded to the
appellant-husband for the offence under Section 498-A of the
IPC in the High Court which is still pending. When the criminal
c appeal filed by the appellant-husband challenging his conviction
for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC was allowed and
he was acquitted, the respondent-wife filed criminal appeal in
the High Court challenging the said acquittal. During this period
respondent-wife and members of her family have also filed
0 complaints in the High Court complaining about the appellanthusband so that he would be removed from the job. The
conduct of the respondent-wife in filing a complaint making
unfounded, indecent and defamatory allegation against her
mother-in-law, in filing revision seeking enhancement of the
sentence awarded to the appellant-husband, in filing appeal
E questioning the acquittal of the appellant-husband and acquittal
of his parents indicates that she made all attempts to ensure
that he and his parents are put in jail and he is removed from
his job. We have no manner of doubt that this conduct has
caused mental cruelty to the appellant-husband.
F
24. In our opinion, the High Court wrongly held that
because the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife did not
stay together there is no question of the parties causing cruelty
to each other. Staying together under the same roof is not a
G pre-condition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental
cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying
under the same roof. In a given case, while staying away, a
spouse can cause mental cruelty to the other spouse by sending
vulgar and defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints
H containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial
' -
K. SRINIVAS RAO v. D.A. DEEPA
145
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
proceedings making the other spouse's life miserable. This
A
is what has happened in this case.
25. It is also to be noted that the appellant-husband and
the respondent-wife are staying apart from 27/4/1999. Thus,
they are living separately for more than ten years. This
8
separation has created an unbridgeable distance between the
two. As hel~ in Samar Ghosh, if we refuse to sever the tie, it
may lead to mental cruelty.
26. We are also satisfied that this marriage has
irretrievably broken down. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage
C
is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
But, where marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness
created by the acts of the husband or the wife or of both, the
courts have always taken irretrievable breakdown of marriage
as a very weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating
D
severance of marital tie. A marriage which is dead for all
purposes cannot be revived by the court's verdict, if the parties
are not willing. This is because marriage involves human
sentiments and emotions and if they are dried-up there is hardly
any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial
E
reunion created by the court's decree.
27. In V. Bhagat this Court noted that divorce petition was
pending for eight years and a good part of the lives of both the
parties had been consumed in litigation, yet the end was not
F
in sight. The facts were such that there was no question of
reunion, the marriage having irretrievably broken down. While
dissolving the marriage on the ground of mental cruelty this
Court observed that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not
a ground by itself, but, while scrutinizing the evidence on record
to determine whether the grounds alleged are made out and
G
in determining the relief to be granted the said circumstance
can certainly be borne in mind. In Naveen Kohli, where
husband and wife had been living separately for more than 10
yea!'S and a large number of criminal proceedings had been
initiated by the wife against the husband, this Court observed
H
146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 2 S.C.R.
. A that the marriage had been wrecked beyond the hope of
salvage and public interest and interest of all concerned lies in
the recognition of the fact and to declare defunct de jure what
is already defunct de facto. It is important to note that in this
case this Court made a recommendation to the Union of India
B that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 be amended to incorporate
irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant
of divorce.
28. In the ultimate analysis, we hold that the respondentC wife has caused by her conduct mental cruelty to the appellanth usband and the marriage has irretrievably broken down.
Dissolution of marriage will relieve both sides of pain and
anguish. In this Court the respondent-wife expressed that she
wants to go back to the appellant-husband, but, that is not
possible now. The appellant-husband is not willing to take her
D back. Even if we refuse decree of divorce to the appellanthusband, there are hardly any chances of the respondent-wife
leading a happy life with the appellant-husband because a lot
.