How to Prove Mental Cruelty in Divorce: Telangana High Court Ruling Explained

📌 Divorce on grounds of mental cruelty requires more than allegations.

Courts rely on evidence, not emotions. This Telangana High Court ruling highlights why authenticated records and timelines are decisive.

📞 Confidential preparatory assessment available

Call/WhatsApp: +91 7780322733

👉 View the judgment carousel summarising this Telangana High Court decision:

🔑 Key Takeaway (Read This First):

In divorce cases based on mental cruelty, allegations alone are not enough. Courts rely on authenticated documentary evidence such as certified call recordings, messages, and videos. This Telangana High Court judgment shows how properly documented electronic evidence can decisively establish cruelty.

---

Why Proving Mental Cruelty in Divorce is Difficult

Mental cruelty in divorce cases is often difficult to prove because it usually lacks physical evidence.

This Telangana High Court case shows how authenticated and certified documentary evidence can decisively establish cruelty under matrimonial law.

Telangana High Court - Family Court Appeal (FCA) No: 280/2024 - Date of Order : 20.06.2025

Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya And Justice B. R. Madhusudhan Rao

D. Lakshmi (Appellant) Vs. D. Vinod (Respondent)

Appeal: Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common order dated 19.09.2024 passed in FCOP No. 812 of 2014 by the Principle District and Sessions Judge Cum Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, the wife filed the present appeal.

Why This Case Matters

Wife filed FCOP. No.1717 of 2013 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act, 1955’) for restitution of conjugal rights. The husband has filed FCOP. No.812 of 2014 for the grant of divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act, 1955. The Trial Court vide common order dated 19.09.2024 dismissed the FCOP filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights (FCOP.No.1717 of 2013) and allowed the FCOP filed by the husband for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty (FCOP.No.812 of 2014).

The wife has not preferred any Appeal against the order in FCOP.No.1717 of 2013, dated 19.09.2024.

Brief Facts: It is stated in the petition filed by the husband for grant of divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act, 1955 that his marriage with his wife is performed on 26.05.2010 at Arya Samaj, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and customs in the presence of elders and well-wishers, both the parties are divorcees and it is a second marriage to both of them. Out of lawful wedlock, they are blessed with a girl child on 18.12.2011.

Wife has a suspicious nature and used to suspect the husband that he is having sexual relationship with his mother and also attributed that the husband has sexual relationship with the servant maid and also her children, who are aged about 12 and 8 years. From January, 2012, the wife started avoiding the husband and deprived him from the marital bliss of conjugal life. The wife has opened the gas knob and the entire house was filled with gas, she threatened the husband that she will create a scene that he is trying to kill her by leaking the gas.

The husband has filed OP. No. 1476 of 2013 against the wife for judicial separation. During the pendency of the same, the wife has increased her harassment towards the husband and his family members and also lodged a criminal case at PS Chandanagar vide Crime No. 798 of 2013 under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C.’) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The husband has withdrawn OP. No. 1476 of 2013 on 22.04.2014 and filed O.P. for divorce. On one occasion, the wife has set fire to papers and put them in the room from the gap of the door from the ground side and she also collected her urine in a bowl, thrown it in the room and harassed the husband to sleep throughout the night and bear the bad odour.

The wife filed counter and denied the contents of the petition in toto and she further stated that she filed O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights vide FCOP. No. 1717 of 2013. As a counter blast to the same, the husband has filed FCOP. No. 812 of 2014 for divorce and prayed to dismiss the same.

The husband examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs. P1 to P24. The wife is examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs. R1 to R5.

The Trial Court after going through the evidence lead by the parties held that husband has proved the specific instances of cruelty by cogent and convincing evidence and granted divorce.

Submissions of the wife before the Hon’ble High Court:

 The learned Family Court failed to observe that the fact of harassment is not mentioned in FCOP. No. 1476 of 2013. After filing of the criminal case by the wife, husband has filed the O.P. for divorce. Learned Family Court made an observation that the parties are living together under same roof does not disentitle the husband to seek relief of divorce, solely relied on the certificate issued by Truth Labs, failed to consider as in what situation the wife abused or shouted on her husband. In support of her contention, she relied on the decisions in (1) Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi (2) Praveen Mehta Vs. Inderjit Mehta.

 Submissions of the Husband before the Hon’ble High Court:

 The Trial Court has considered the oral and documentary evidence filed by the husband and rightly allowed the O.P. and granted divorce and needs no interference of the Court. In support of his contentions, he relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Dr. N. G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane, (2) V. Bhagat Vs. Mrs. D. Bhagat, (3) Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli, (4) Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (5) Gurbux Singh Vs. Harminder Kaur, (6) K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D. A. Deepa, (7) D. Narasimha @ Narsimlu Vs. D. Anita Vaishnavi.

Documentary Evidence Relied Upon by the Court

- Ex. P3: Certified SMS records showing abusive language

- Ex. P4: Certified call recordings containing false and defamatory allegations

- Ex. P5: Certified video recordings evidencing threats and monetary demands

- Exs. P6–P7: CDs and forensic certification by Truth Labs

The Court placed significant reliance on the authenticity and consistency of this electronic evidence.

Observations of the Hon’ble High Court:

The Point for Consideration is whether the order passed in FCOP. No. 812 of 2024 requires interference of this Court or not?

The learned Trial Court has heavily placed reliance on the evidence of the parties and Exs. P3 to P7 while deciding the lis.

Ex. P3 is the copy of Short Message Service (SMS), certified by the Truth Labs dated 02.08.2013 which goes to show that the wife has abused the husband and his mother in filthy language which cannot be reproduced in the judgment as they are un-heard of.

Ex. P4 is the copy of call recording certified by Truth Labs dated 19.04.2013 and 07.08.2013 which goes to show that the wife has abused the husband in vulgar language and uttered that he has sexual relations with his mother. The words used by the wife on her husband under Ex. P4 definitely causes mental cruelty to him.

Ex. P5 is the copy of video recording content certified by Truth Labs dated 09.04.2013, 13.08.2013, 09.09.2013 and 17.09.2013 which show that the wife has demanded Rs.20,00,000/- from the husband for separation and also uttered that she will file false dowry harassment case and want to take revenge (09.04.2013). The wife has also threatened and scolded the husband that she will beat him with chappal (13.08.2013); also book reverse cases against him (09.09.2013); file atrocity case against him and his sister (17.09.2013).

Ex. P6 is the copy of CD containing SMS, call records and video recording. Ex. P7 is the video and audio CD’s of the wife which is certified by Truth Labs.

Cruelty has not been defined in the Act but has received Judicial Interpretation. The Law relevant to the issue at hand are set out below.

Cruelty does not have a fixed definition. What may appear as ordinary friction in one marriage could be seen as intolerable in another, depending on the circumstances: Shobha Rani’s case.

Mental cruelty cannot be established by direct evidence and it is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment, and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The facts and circumstances are to be assessed emerging from the evidence on record and thereafter, a fair inference has to be drawn whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to the conduct of the other: Praveen Mehta’s case.

Condonation and forgiveness means restoration of the offending spouse to the same position as he/she was before the offence was committed. The evidence must also point to this direction: Dr. N. G. Dastane’s case.

Mental cruelty in Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act, 1955 can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it possible further party to live with the other. Mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is of such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner: V. Bhagat’s case.

Cruelty is a course or conduct of one which adversely affect the other. Cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. Cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economy or social conditions and their culture and human values to which they attached importance: Naveen Kohli’s case.

The concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system etc., what may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice-versa. There can never be a straight-jacket formulae or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking the aforementioned factors into consideration: Samar Ghosh’s case.

Cruelty has not been defined under the Act. It is quite possible that a particular conduct may amount to cruelty in one case but the same conduct necessarily may not amount to cruelty due to change of various factors, in different set of circumstances. Therefore, it is essential for the appellant, who claims relief, to prove that a particular/part of conduct or behaviour resulted in cruelty to him: Gurbux Singh’s case.

Cruelty is evident where one spouse so treats other and manifests such feelings in other, as to cause reasonable apprehension in mind of other that it would be harmful or injurious to reside with other spouse: K. Srinivas Rao’s case.

It is the evidence of the husband that the wife has attributed sexual relationship with the maid servant and her children who are aged about 12 and 8 years, sexual relationship with his mother, sexual relationship with his 3 months old daughter. He further deposed that his wife has opened gas during mid-night and created a scene in the house, abused him in filthy language and threatened him to make impotent by hitting on his private parts. The worst thing is that the wife has collected her urine in a bowl and has thrown the same from underneath the door and shouted that her husband shall sleep throughout the night and bear the bad odour.

Though the husband was cross-examined by the wife’s counsel, except putting suggestions no material is elicited from his cross-examination.

The wife in her cross-examination has denied the suggestion that she harassed her husband that he is having sexual activities with other ladies and also opened the knob of the gas cylinder and tried to kill them.

Mental Cruelty cannot be defined within a Straightjacket formula. What may be seen as mental cruelty by one party may be perceived as behaviour which is irritating or unwelcome, but not cruel. The fact that two persons cannot imagine a life together any more should be seen as sufficient ground to dissolve the marriage and grant a Decree of Divorce: In D. Narasimha’s case.

The documentary evidence (Exs. P3 to P7) goes to the root of the matter and proves that it is the wife, who harassed the husband which caused cruelty to the husband which falls within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act, 1955. Due to the acts of the wife, the husband thought it fit that it is highly unsafe and injurious to live with his wife.

The documents filed by the wife are not much helpful to support her contentions. The words used by the wife in Exs. P3, P4 and P5 are unheard of, which also demonstrates her cruel attitude towards her husband and that of her mental status. The evidence of the husband coupled with the documents proves that he underwent harassment in the hands of his wife and it is unsafe to live with her.

The Trial Court has examined the evidence adduced by the parties and also taken into consideration the documents filed thereon and passed a reasoned order.

The wife has not made out any case to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court in FCOP. No. 812 of 2014, dated 19.09.2024. We hold that the Trial Court has gone into the matter in detail and rightly granted divorce to the husband. There are no merits in the Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

What This Judgment Means for Divorce Litigants

- Mental cruelty must be proved through evidence, not mere assertions

- Electronic records should be legally authenticated

- Consistent documentation strengthens credibility before the Court

- Unsupported allegations are unlikely to succeed

FCA.No.280 of 2024 is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.