In a recent ruling that has caught the attention of legal circles and the public alike, Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court have made a significant observation. They noted that while regular disagreements are part and parcel of married life, there exists a delicate boundary that must not be crossed.
This statement was made in the context of the case X v. Y, which has been under scrutiny. The case revolves around a couple whose marriage was conducted under the Arya Samaj rites when they were both underage. The wife claimed that her husband’s family excessively interfered in their marital affairs. The couple, who have a son together, have been living separately since 2004.
The husband lodged a complaint against his wife, citing cruelty as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). The court, after examining the incidents narrated by the husband, concluded that even though these incidents might not implicate the wife when viewed individually, they collectively reveal her inability to adjust. This attitude resulted in public humiliation for the husband, causing him to experience mental cruelty.
The concept of cruelty towards a husband under the HMA is defined in Section 13(1)(i-a), which allows either spouse to seek divorce on grounds of cruelty. The Act encompasses both physical and mental cruelty.
Several landmark cases have shaped the interpretation of this provision. In Dastane v. Dastane (1975), the Supreme Court acknowledged that the wife’s actions constituted mental cruelty towards the husband. However, the court refrained from granting a divorce due to the ongoing sexual relationship between the couple.
In Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad (2007), the wife was accused of making frequent demands for money, issuing threats, and exhibiting cruelty towards her husband and children. She was alleged to have abused, threatened, and ultimately caused the death of their three children. Despite a pending criminal appeal, the courts deemed her guilty of both mental and physical cruelty, leading to the husband being granted a divorce.
In Vishwanat v. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal (2012), the husband sought a divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences and mental cruelty. He alleged that his wife had shown disrespect towards his family and indifference towards his mother’s health. The wife publicly accused her husband of being a womanizer and a drunkard in newspapers and fabricated false charges against him. The court ruled in favour of the husband, granting him a divorce.
These cases underline the complexity of marital disputes and the fine line that separates normal disagreements from cruelty. The recent ruling in the X v. Y case further emphasizes the need for sensitivity and understanding in resolving such issues.
