In the present appeal, the appellant-wife challenged the judgment passed by the Family Court on 28-11-2019, whereby her petition for the restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed and the counterclaim of the respondent-husband for divorce was allowed and the divorce was granted. The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale*, JJ., opined that the wife’s behaviour with his husband’s employees, humiliating him in front of his friends, refusing sexual relation

The Division Bench of Renu Bhatnagar* and Navin Chawla JJ., stated that the complaints made by wife to her husband’s employer, especially those involving unsubstantiated claims of adultery, could not be treated to address the issues of any wrong done to her, as the husband’s employer had nothing to do with all such wrongs. The Court stated that irrespective of the merits of these complaints, making such derogatory and defamatory remarks in the form of complaints to the spouse

In a divorce case, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ., and Augustine George Masih*, J., deemed it fit to invoke the power under Article 142 of the Constitution and dissolved the marriage between the parties and directed the wife, an IPS Officer, and her parents to tender unconditional apology to the husband and his family members for physical and mental trauma caused to them due to cases filed by the wife, which led to the husband and his father languishing in jail for 109

In the case of Christine Lazarus Menezes vs. Mr. Lazarus Peter Menezes (2017), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that filing false cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, constitutes cruelty and can be a ground for filing divorce. The details of the case are as follows:   The appellant's wife challenged the Family Court's decision that had approved the respondent's application for divorce. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court upheld the Family Court's ruling, rejec

This case set an important precedent regarding cruelty as a ground for divorce. The wife filed false criminal complaints against the husband and his family, leading to their harassment. The Supreme Court held that filing false cases constitutes mental cruelty, sufficient for granting divorce. It underscored the misuse of legal provisions and the need for judicial intervention in such matters. This case further delineated the threshold for establishing cruelty. The Court empha

In this judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that making  false allegations  of extramarital affairs or criminal conduct amounts to mental cruelty and is valid ground for divorce.   The Court stressed that marriage should be built on trust, and baseless accusations can severely damage the relationship beyond repair.

This case further clarified the concept of cruelty, emphasising that it must be assessed based on the cumulative conduct of the parties and its impact on the petitioner. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to grant a divorce based on the wife's behaviour, which constituted both physical and mental cruelty. This case is significant in reaffirming the broad interpretation of cruelty and its impact on individual well-being in matrimonial disputes.

This case provided comprehensive guidelines on mental cruelty as a ground for divorce. The Supreme Court held that persistent neglect, humiliation, and creating an unbearable environment could constitute mental cruelty. The judgment emphasised that mental cruelty is a state of mind and that courts must consider the cumulative effect of the conduct and its impact on the aggrieved spouse. This case is crucial in providing a nuanced understanding of mental cruelty and its impact

Madhya Pradesh High Court In an appeal seeking to set aside the Family Court, order refusing to award decree of divorce, a division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait,* CJ. and Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J., set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court and granted decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The Court held that “…forcing the wife to leave the job and live as per his wish and style, amounts to cruelty.” Poonam v. Naveen, 2024 SCC OnLine