top of page
Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh (2007)
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
S. Hanumath Rao v. S. Ramani (1999)
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.
Narendra v. K. Meena (2016)
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.
Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad (2007)
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.
Supreme Court: Wife Entitled to Maintain Matrimonial Home Lifestyle During Divorce Proceedings
The Supreme Court directed the husband to pay Rs.1,75,000 monthly interim maintenance while considering the instant appeal revolving around an order of reduction of maintenance by Madras High Court, whereby the husband prayed for further reduction of monthly interim maintenance amount and wife prayed for an enhancement; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., found errors in evaluation made by the High Court and pointed out that it was on record that th
bottom of page

