Cruelty Against Husband| Andhra Pradesh High Court Affirms Divorce for Husband on Ground of Mental Cruelty by Wife| X v. Y (2025)

In a significant judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has affirmed a divorce decree, decisively granting relief to a husband who demonstrated that his wife's actions and "attitude" constituted cruelty sufficient for the dissolution of the marriage. This ruling is a powerful reminder that the law recognises cruelty as a gender-neutral ground for divorce, moving past outdated notions that often frame the wife as the exclusive victim in matrimonial disputes.

Appeal: A Petition under Section 151 CPC filed by the wife seeking suspension of the operation of the order of the Judge, Family Court, Vizianagaram, dated November 2008.

Reason: The Family Court, Vizianagaram, by its order and decree dated November 2008, allowed the application filed by the husband and dissolved the marriage between the parties.

Brief Facts

The parties were married in June 2002 as per Hindu rites and commenced their matrimonial life at Pataduppada, Vizianagaram. A daughter was born during the wedlock.

According to the husband, from the beginning, the wife insisted on setting up a separate household and frequently left for her parents’ home without intimation. She allegedly refused to reside with him, spent her salary on personal luxuries, and often quarrelled on trivial issues.

He further alleged that she did not prepare food, demanded his entire salary, and prevented him from meeting their daughter. His efforts to resolve the issues proved futile. She allegedly returned home late at night and, when questioned, threatened to lodge false complaints and have him arrested.

In 2004, both parties filed a petition before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, seeking divorce by mutual consent. However, on the advice of conciliators, they agreed to resume cohabitation, and the petition was closed.

The wife rejoined the husband in January 2005, but, according to him, her conduct remained unchanged. She opted for termination of a pregnancy without his consent, causing him mental anguish. The advice of elders also failed to bring about reconciliation. The husband thereafter issued a legal notice dated April 2005 and subsequently initiated the present divorce proceedings.

Wife’s Contentions

The wife denied all allegations and contended that the husband was sadistic, ill-treated her, used abusive language, and assaulted her indiscriminately. She claimed the situation became unbearable. She further alleged that the husband insulted her father, drove her out of the marital home, locked her in a room, and coerced her to sign divorce papers. She stated that she had no choice but to sign.

She asserted that even after the proceedings commenced, the husband continued to harass her. He allegedly misled her regarding the legal notice dated April 2005, stating it had been issued earlier on his instructions and that she need not worry. She also stated that he subsequently invited her to return, but after she went with her daughter, he beat her again and sent her away.

She maintained that she had love and affection for her husband and in-laws, and that she handed over her entire salary to him while seeking only daily expenses. She argued that the husband’s petition lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed.

Evidence Adduced

Husband:The husband examined himself, his mother, and panchayat elders.

Exhibits:

• Legal notice issued by the husband dated April 2005

• Notice issued by the wife dated June 2004

• Agreement written by the wife’s father dated December 2003

• Letter written by the wife

  
  

Wife:The wife examined herself and her father. No documentary evidence was produced on her behalf.

Family Court Order

Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the husband, the learned Judge, Family Court, allowed the husband’s petition and granted a decree of divorce.

Arguments in the Appeal

Wife

1. The Family Court failed to properly evaluate the evidence and erred in concluding that cruelty was proved.

2. The Court failed to consider her evidence and wrongly granted divorce.

3. The issuance of a legal notice for mutual consent divorce itself showed absence of ill-treatment.

4. The impugned order was liable to be set aside.

   
   

Husband

1. The Family Court correctly appreciated the evidence, which clearly established the cruelty he had suffered and justified dissolution of the marriage.

   
   

Points for Consideration Before the High Court

1. Whether the husband was subjected to cruelty sufficient to warrant dissolution of the marriage?

2. Whether the order and decree dated 18.11.2008 passed by the Family Court, Vizianagaram, were sustainable in law and on facts or required interference?

3. What should be the result of the appeal?

   
   

Analysis, Reasons and Findings of the High Court

1. The evidence did not establish a continuous period of two years’ separation from the last act of cohabitation. Therefore, the ground of desertion was not available.

2. The husband relied on cruelty, including mental cruelty. He referred to persistent quarrels, separation from the marital family, termination of pregnancy without his consent, refusal to heed advice of elders, and insistence on setting up a separate family.

3. The evidence of both parties revealed absence of affection and no genuine attempt by the wife to maintain cordial relations.

4. The oral and documentary evidence supported the husband’s assertion that the wife’s conduct made continuation of the matrimonial relationship impossible.

   
   

High Court’s Observations

The word ‘cruelty’ is required to be understood in different dimensions. It can be either physical or mental. The meaning of ‘being cruel’ or ‘cruelty’ encompasses inhuman behaviour generally. A strict definition of ‘cruelty’, covering both physical and mental aspects, is not possible. In matrimonial law, it is very difficult to give a strict definition for ‘cruelty’. The causes which warrant separation generally must be grave and weighty, such as to show an absolute impossibility that the duties of married life can be discharged. In a state of personal danger, no marital duties can be discharged. Self-preservation will take priority over the marital duties. What wounds the mental feeling is, in few cases, to be admitted as a cruelty, even though it is not accompanied with bodily injury. Mere temper, rudeness of language or a want of civil attention, if they do not threaten bodily harm, do not amounts to legal cruelty. But they are high moral offences in the field of marriage.

The ordinary wear and tear in the matrimonial life and general misconduct of either of the parties, sometimes exists on one side and sometimes on the other, or even both. The parties will bear to some degree, either by prudent conciliation or by suffering in silence. If one has to take only danger to life, limb or health as the cruelties, which are usually considered as a cruelty for the purpose of enforcing penal law as grounds, in matrimonial litigation. It may not be sound and logical. The Court is not to wait till hurt is actually done, but if apprehension is reasonable, it is sufficient. Injury to body is one branch, and injury to health is another branch. Injury to health would include mental health. Every wilful act or omission or negligence indicated with some behaviour will amount to cruelty but what shall be such behaviour cannot be precisely defined with straight jacket formula. That depends on the way of life of the parties and their social and economic conditions, including the customs and traditions. Harassment of a woman with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for any property amounts to cruelty. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty. A consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture will amount to cruelty.

The evidence adduced on behalf of both sides indicating that the  husband is able to show that the attitude of wife exposed him to cruelty/ harassment sufficient to seek relief of dissolution of marriage. Further, the findings of the learned Judge, Family Court are found sound, legal and logical.

Conclusion

There were no grounds to interfere with the order and decree dated November 2008 passed by the Family Court, Vizianagaram. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.