After more than a decade of acrimonious matrimonial litigation marked by criminal complaints, arrests, and failed mediation, the Telangana High Court upheld a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty. While denying maintenance and permanent alimony to an employed wife, the Court significantly enhanced the minor daughter’s settlement from ₹10 lakhs to INR 80 lakhs - sending a clear message on prolonged litigation, cruelty, and parental responsibility.

A 45-day marriage followed by 12 years of separation led the Telangana High Court to grant divorce, examining concealment of mental illness, non-consummation, and irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

The Telangana High Court held that when a husband’s conduct amounts to cruelty approaching depravity, the law cannot compel the wife to remain in the marriage. Once dignity and safety are compromised, the Court’s duty shifts from preserving the marital bond to protecting the aggrieved spouse.

The AP High Court reaffirmed that husbands can also be subjected to cruelty in marriage. Dismissing the wife’s Section 151 CPC petition, the Court upheld the divorce decree, holding that mental cruelty including persistent quarrels, threats, and emotional harassment can justify dissolution even without physical violence. This strengthens the legal interpretation of cruelty against men.

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 allows either the husband or wife to seek divorce on the ground of cruelty. Cruelty is broadly defined as any conduct that would cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it is harmful or injurious to live with the respondent. It can be physical or mental, intentional or unintentional, and is a subjective concept that varies in each case depending on the facts and circumstances.   Concept of Cruelty:  Cruelty is defined as c

In this case, the husband alleged that his wife, Mrs. Maya, does not provide food to him, used to threaten him to implicate false charges of dowry against him or his family and often said that she will kill his whole family.   After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court held that “although the expression of cruelty has not been defined in the Act, it may be physical or mental, direct or indirect. And in this case, the acts of the responden

Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur further refined the test for cruelty. The Supreme Court maintained that the conduct complained of must be of such a nature that it creates an environment where the aggrieved spouse is unable to live with the other without experiencing continuous mental torture, agony, or distress.   This test requires the Court to weigh the nature and frequency of the abusive conduct against the overall impact on the complaining spouse’s mental well-being.

The judgement in Rani Narasimha Sastry dealt with the complexities surrounding domestic complaints. The Court made it clear that the mere act of filing a complaint, such as one for maintenance or domestic violence, cannot be equated with cruelty unless accompanied by substantive evidence.   However, if a complaint is filed and later found to be baseless or the accused is acquitted, it can be inferred that the filing of the complaint itself might have been used as a tool of ha

In this case, the husband and wife were married in 2012. Domestic issues surfaced when the wife refused to reside in the husband’s matrimonial home. The situation escalated in 2016 when the wife initiated legal proceedings by filing a police case against her husband, his in-laws, and others, accusing them of matrimonial torture and cruelty. In response, the husband filed a petition before the Family Court under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Alt