REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5010 OF 2007

Gurbux Singh                          .... Appellant (s)

Versus

Harminder Kaur                     .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1)   The  appellant,  a  Principal  in  ITI  College,  Sirhali,  

Amritsar, has approached this Court against the judgment  

and  final  order  dated  11.05.2007  of  the  High  Court  of  

Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 252-M of  

2006  whereby  the  learned  single  Judge  dismissed  the  

appeal filed by him against the judgment and order dated  

11.10.2006  of  the  Additional  District  Judge  (Ad  hoc),  

Amritsar, dismissing the petition filed under Section 13 of  

1

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as  

“the Act”) for a decree of divorce against the respondent-

wife,  who  is  working  as  a  Librarian  in  Government  

Institute  DIET  at  Verka,  Amritsar  on  the  ground  of  

‘cruelty’.  Both the courts have rejected the claim of the  

appellant herein on the ground that he has failed to prove  

‘cruelty’ sufficient for grant of a decree of divorce.   

The case of the Appellant

2) (a) On 23.11.1997, the appellant got married with the  

respondent  at  Amritsar  according  to  Sikh  rites  and  

customs.  Even on the date of marriage, the respondent  

had  been  working  as  a  Librarian  in  a  Government  

Institute  DIET  at  Verka,  Amristar.   From  the  very  

beginning, the respondent expressed her dislike towards  

the  appellant  and  his  family  and  gradually  started  

misbehaving  with  them.   She  started  exhibiting  short-

tempered  behaviour  and  treated  the  parents  of  the  

appellant with cruelty and disrespect.  The father of the  

2

appellant is aged about 80 years and his mother is more  

than 75 years.  In the month of January 1998, on the first  

Lohri festival  after  their  marriage,  the  respondent  being  

annoyed with the appellant on a trivial issue, abused his  

mother in filthy language in the presence of their relatives  

and  neighbours  causing  immense  pain  to  the  entire  

family.  Since then, the respondent started insisting that  

she cannot live with the parents of the appellant who are  

mental  and  nuisance  in  her  life  and  pressed  upon the  

appellant to have a separate abode from his parents.   

(b)   On  15.05.1999,  a  male  child  was  born  out  of  the  

wedlock.  Even after the birth of the child, there was no  

improvement  in  the  behaviour  of  the  respondent.   She  

always insisted that she being financially independent is  

not in need of the appellant and his family.   

(c)  Just five days before the third birthday of their child  

i.e. on 10.05.2002, the respondent, without any justifiable  

reason  left  the  matrimonial  home  leaving  the  child  

3

unattended and went to her parents house and staying  

there since then.  The appellant having failed in his efforts  

to  bring  back the  respondent  to  the  matrimonial  home  

and in view of the consistent cruelty filed HMA Case No.  

19  of  2003  before  the  Addl.  District  Judge,  Amritsar,  

praying for a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act.  

The stand of the Respondent

3)  In reply to the divorce petition, while denying all the  

averments  made  by  the  appellant,  the  respondent  has  

stated  that  the  appellant  is  a  greedy  person  and  not  

satisfied with the dowry articles received in marriage.  He  

always  misbehaved  and  maltreated  her  and  abused  on  

several  occasions.   She  alleged  that  the  appellant  is  a  

habitual  drinker  and  used  to  threaten  her  to  kill  with  

poison.  She also alleged that the appellant pulled her hair  

and  gave  merciless  beatings  in  the  presence  of  his  

parents.   

4

Decision of the District Court and High Court   

4)  By judgment dated 11.10.2006, the Additional District  

Judge,  Amritsar,  after  analyzing  the  plea  of  both  the  

parties,  oral  and  documentary  evidence  concluded  that  

the  appellant-husband  failed  to  substantiate  the  

allegations of ‘cruelty’ and dismissed his divorce petition.  

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the High  

Court by filing FAO No. 252-M of 2006.  The learned single  

Judge of  the High Court,  by the impugned order  dated  

11.05.2007,  while  agreeing  with  the  conclusion  of  the  

Additional  District  Judge  dismissed  the  appeal  filed  by  

the  appellant.   Questioning  the  above  said  orders,  the  

appellant has filed the present appeal by way of special  

leave petition.   

5)  Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the  

appellant and Mr. Seeraj Bagga, learned counsel for the  

respondent.

5

6)  The only question for consideration in this appeal is  

whether the appellant-husband has made out a case for  

divorce on the ground of ‘cruelty’ by the respondent-wife.

7)  Section 13 of the Act specifies the grounds on which a  

decree for divorce may be obtained by either party to the  

marriage.  Though in the divorce petition filed before the  

Additional  District  Judge,  Amritsar  in  HMA  No.  19  of  

2003, the appellant had sought divorce merely mentioning  

Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage by decree  

of divorce, and did not specify the grounds on which he is  

entitled to decree of divorce.  In the petition, the appellant  

has  highlighted  only  one  aspect,  namely,  that  after  the  

marriage, in the month of January 1998, on first festival  

of  Lohri,  when  they  were  enjoying  the  festival,  the  

respondent-wife abused his mother and the father in the  

presence of  relatives and neighbours.   In para 6 of  the  

petition, the appellant has alleged that:

6

“…..She called nuisance, idiot and mental to the parents of  the petitioner and the respondent openly said that she did  not  want to live  with the petitioner  if  he live with his old  parents.”  

In para 10, the appellant has stated:

“That  on  10th May  of  2002,  the  respondent  left  her  matrimonial  home  without  giving  any  information  to  any  member and she also left her child in the matrimonial home  this shows that the respondent did not have any love and  affections towards petitioner and his family members.  She is  living in her parental house for the last more than one year.  Hence,  the  necessity  has  been  arisen  to  file  the  present  petition…..”

Except  the  above  allegations,  the  appellant  has  not  

highlighted  any  other  instance(s)  about  cruelty  by  the  

respondent.   Though  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  

attempted  to  argue  “desertion”,  in  the  absence  of  any  

plea/evidence and material, we disallowed him to pursue  

the said point.   

8)  In the reply to the petition under Section 13 of the Act,  

the  respondent  has  highlighted  her  stand  and  in  fact  

denied all the allegations against her.  She also projected  

her case that the custody of the child was forcibly taken  

7

by the appellant when she returned from her matrimonial  

home.   She also  highlighted that  the  appellant  used to  

force her to bring cash from her parents as he wanted to  

purchase a car in the month of February 2000.  When she  

refused to bring cash, she was mercilessly beaten by the  

appellant.  She also stated that in February 4, 2000, her  

parents gave Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant and thereafter  

the  appellant  agreed  to  keep  the  respondent  in  her  

matrimonial home.  She also alleged that the appellant is  

habitual of taking liquor and under influence of liquor, he  

used to beat her.  She further alleged that the appellant’s  

maternal uncle’s daughter used to interfere in their family  

affairs.   

9)   Apart  from  the  above  pleadings,  both  parties  filed  

statement in the form of an affidavit/petition and also let  

in  evidence  reiterating  their  respective  pleas.   As  

discussed  earlier,  the  only  instance  highlighted  by  the  

appellant for divorce was that the respondent-wife abused  

8

his parents on the day of festival of Lohri in the presence  

of relatives and neighbours.   

10)  In Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511,  

a  three-Judge  Bench  of  this  Court  while  considering  

Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act laid down certain guidelines.  

The analysis and ultimate conclusion are relevant which  

reads as under:-

“98. On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments of  this Court and other courts, we have come to the definite  conclusion  that  there  cannot  be  any  comprehensive  definition of the concept of “mental cruelty” within which all  kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. No court in  our  considered  view  should  even  attempt  to  give  a  comprehensive definition of mental cruelty.

99. 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 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  

9

matrimonial  matters.  The prudent and appropriate  way to  adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar  facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors  in consideration.

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  

10

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. (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 situations,  it may lead to mental cruelty.”

11)  A Hindu marriage solemnized under the Act can only  

be dissolved on any of the grounds specified therein.  We  

have  already  pointed  out  that  in  the  petition  for  

dissolution  of  marriage,  the  appellant  has  merely  

mentioned Section 13 of the Act and in the body of the  

petition  he  highlighted  certain  instances  amounting  to  

cruelty  by  the  respondent-wife.   Cruelty  has  not  been  

11

defined  under  the  Act.   It  is  quite  possible  that  a  

particular conduct may amount to cruelty in one case but  

the same conduct necessarily may not amount to cruelty  

due  to  change  of  various  factors,  in  different  set  of  

circumstances.  Therefore, it is essential for the appellant,  

who  claims  relief,  to  prove  that  a  particular/part  of  

conduct or behaviour resulted in cruelty to him.  No prior  

assumptions  can  be  made  in  such  matters.  Meaning  

thereby  that  it  cannot  be  assumed  that  a  particular  

conduct will, under all circumstances, amount to cruelty,  

vis-à-vis the other party.  The aggrieved party has to make  

a  specific  case  that  the  conduct  of  which  exception  is  

taken amounts to cruelty.  It is true that even a single act  

of  violence which is of  grievous and inexcusable nature  

satisfies  the  test  of  cruelty.   Persistence  in  inordinate  

sexual demands or malpractices by either spouse can be  

cruelty if  it  injures the other spouse.  There is no such  

complaint by the appellant. In the case on hand, as stated  

earlier,  the  appellant  has  projected  few  instances  in  

12

which,  according  to  him,  the  respondent  abused  his  

parents.   We  have  verified  all  the  averments  in  the  

petitions, reply statement, written submissions as well as  

the evidence of both parties.  We are satisfied that on the  

basis of such instances, marriage cannot be dissolved.   

12) The married life should be assessed as a whole and a  

few isolated instances over certain period will not amount  

to cruelty.  The ill-conduct must be precedent for a fairly  

lengthy period where the relationship has deteriorated to  

an  extent  that  because  of  the  acts  and  behaviour  of  a  

spouse, one party finds it extremely difficult to live with  

the other party no longer may amount to mental cruelty.  

Making certain statements on the spur of the moment and  

expressing  certain  displeasure  about  the  behaviour  of  

elders may not be characterized as cruelty.  Mere trivial  

irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life  

which happens in day to day life in all families would not  

be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty.  

13

Sustained  unjustifiable  and  reprehensible  conduct  

affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse  

may  lead  to  mental  cruelty.   Both  the  appellant  and  

respondent being highly qualified persons, the appellant  

being Principal in ITI College, the respondent working as a  

Librarian in a Government Institute, an isolated friction  

on some occasion like festival of Lohri even in the presence  

of  others  cannot  be  a  valid  ground  for  dissolving  the  

marriage.  

13) Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant  by  

drawing our attention to certain allegations made by the  

respondent-wife in the reply to the petition under Section  

13 of the Act before the Addl.  District  Judge submitted  

that  by  considering  all  these  aspects  it  is  just  and  

reasonable to consider and grant divorce on the ground of  

cruelty.  In support of the same, he relied on the decision  

of  this  Court  in  Vijaykumar  Ramchandra  Bhate vs.  

Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334.  No doubt,  

14

in that decision, this Court has held that allegations made  

in  the  written  statement  or  suggested  in  the  course  of  

examination and by way of  cross-examination satisfying  

the requirement of law has also to be taken note of while  

considering the claim of either party.  In the case on hand,  

it  is  true  that  the  respondent-wife  has  made  certain  

allegations  against  her  husband-appellant.  However,  

admittedly  based  on  the  same,  the  trial  Court  has  not  

framed any issue and no evidence let in in support of the  

same.   In  such circumstances,  the  said  decision is  not  

helpful to our case.  Admittedly, no such issue was framed  

by the trial  Court or any point determined by the High  

Court  based  on  such  averments  in  the  reply/written  

statement.  Accordingly, we reject the said contention.  

14) As  regards  the  allegations  about  beating  her  child  

and not feeding him, the High Court, after analyzing the  

entire materials, disbelieved the same.  It is also brought  

to our notice that the appellant condoned the alleged act  

15

of cruelty as he wanted to bring back the respondent to  

his  house.   As  such,  the  allegations  of  cruelty  do  not  

appear to be truthful.  It is also proved that the appellant  

is not interested to keep the respondent as his wife and he  

wants divorce by any means.  As observed earlier, except  

the grounds enumerated in Section 13, a Hindu marriage  

solemnized  under  the  Act  cannot  be  dissolved  on  any  

other grounds.  

15) Finally,  a feeble argument was made that both the  

appellant and respondent were living separately from 2002  

and it would be impossible for their re-union, hence this  

Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the  

Constitution  their  marriage  may  be  dissolved  in  the  

interest of both parties.  Though, on a rare occasion, this  

Court has granted the extraordinary relief  de hors to the  

grounds mentioned in Section 13 in view of the fact that  

the  issue  has  been  referred  to  a  larger  Bench  about  

permissibility  of  such  course  at  present,  we  are  not  

16

inclined to accede to the request of the appellant.  If there  

is  any  change  of  law  or  additional  ground  included  in  

Section 13 by the act of Parliament, the appellant is free to  

avail the same at the appropriate time.  

16) In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to  

accept the claim of the appellant, on the other hand, we  

are in entire agreement with the conclusion arrived at by  

the  Addl.  District  Judge  as  well  as  the  High  Court.  

Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed  

with no order as to costs.                  

...…………………………………J.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)  

...…………………………………J.           (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)  

NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 8, 2010.           

17