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

Allahabad HC grants divorce to couple living separately for over a decade, cites continuous mental cruelty by wife.   In an appeal filed by the husband under Section 19 (1) of Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) and Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the Family Court’s order, refusing to grant of decree of divorce under Section 13 of HMA the division bench of Rajan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla*, JJ. while grantin

Chhattisgarh High Court upheld divorce in an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 05-04-2023, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur, whereby the application for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) filed by the respondent (‘husband’) for grant of decree of divorce, was allowed, the Division Bench of Rajani Dubey* and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ., stated that a close scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence and admission of wife in her statement

The wife's behaviour in the case of S. Hanumath Rao vs. S. Ramani (1999) was not cordial at her matrimonial home and towards her husband. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case held that mental cruelty means when either party to a marriage causes mental pain, suffering or distress to such an extent that it severs the bond between the husband and wife and, as a result, it becomes impossible to live together.

This judgment further clarified what constitutes cruelty as a ground for divorce. The wife refused to live with the husband and repeatedly threatened him with suicide. The Supreme Court ruled that such behaviour amounts to cruelty, justifying divorce. It highlighted the impact of psychological harassment on marital relationships.

This judgment elaborates on what constitutes mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Supreme Court noted that persistent accusations, baseless allegations, and abnormal behaviour could amount to mental cruelty. It provided clarity on assessing cruelty in divorce cases.

In this case, the Court emphasised that cruelty as a ground for divorce is not limited to physical harm. Mental cruelty, which affects the emotional well-being and dignity of an individual, is equally valid.   The judgment set a precedent by recognising emotional neglect, constant false accusations, and character assassination as forms of mental cruelty. It further stated that marriage cannot be sustained at the cost of individual dignity and peace of mind.