Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna*, JJ., determined that the appellant’s suicide attempt by jumping was sufficient to justify the judgment dated 28-01-2019 that granted the respondent’s divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) on the ground of ‘cruelty’ as dismissed the appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The Court expressed the view that unfounded accusations of extramarital affairs constituted the height of cruelty, as they demonstrated a total erosion of confidence and reliance between the partners, which are essential for the maintenance of a matrimonial union. As a result, the Court determined that the Family Court Judge’s conclusion that the case involved extreme mental maltreatment was correct, thereby granting the respondent a divorce decree pursuant to Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HMA.
In the background The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was conducted in accordance with Hindu Rites and Ceremonies on March 10, 2009. The respondent asserted that he had been the victim of numerous abusive acts. On March 13, 2018, the appellant was presented ex parte before the Judge of the Family Courts. Despite the referrals to counseling, no resolution was reached between the involved parties. The Family Court judge determined that the respondent’s account of the acts constituted “mental cruelty” and granted the divorce pursuant to the challenged judgment dated January 28, 2019. Dissatisfied with the divorce decree, the appellant lodged the current appeal. Law, Analysis, and Decision The Court acknowledged Order V Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which stated that in cases where the defendant was not at home during the service of summons and there was no reasonable chance that he could be located there within a reasonable time, any adult family member could be served in lieu of the defendant. Additionally, the court observed that the summons was received by the appellant’s father, who instructed that it be delivered to the appellant at the provided address. As a result, the service rendered via the father was genuine.
Further Reading:
Therefore, the Court reached the conclusion that the appellant’s claim of not being served was false. In addition, the Court determined that the appellant’s absence from the trial could not be explained, and as such, she was unable to assert a denial of the Principles of Natural Justice. In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105 (the “Shobha Rani Case”), the Court found an answer to the issue of how to determine mental cruelty. “The inquiry into mental cruelty must commence with an examination of the nature of the cruel treatment,” the Supreme Court stated in the Shobha Rani Case. “Thereafter, the consequences of said treatment on the spouse must be assessed.” The question at hand is whether the aforementioned actions induced a reasonable fear that cohabitation with the other spouse would prove detrimental or dangerous. The court reached the conclusion that the respondent’s unrebutted testimony established that the appellant was prone to arguing over inconsequential matters and adopting an adamant stance, despite the respondent’s attempts to reason with her and gain her understanding. The appellant occasionally vacated the marital residence without notifying the respondent for fifteen days to one month, and she denied the respondent permission to cohabit for one or two months.
Additionally, the Court expressed the view that the conjugal relationship, upon which cohabitation was built, was the fundamental cornerstone of any matrimonial union, and that any refusal to cohabit by one spouse constituted grave maltreatment. The Court noted that while minor disputes may seem inconsequential when viewed in isolation, they can significantly disrupt mental tranquility and cause excruciating mental distress when viewed collectively. Additionally, the court noted that the appellant’s withdrawal from the matrimonial partnership indicated that she had no intention of fulfilling her matrimonial responsibilities or continuing the conjugal union. The court observed that the appellant, who was rescued by the respondent, had herself attempted suicide by jumping from the balcony. Furthermore, the appellant had previously attempted to poison the respondent and his parents while she was residing with them; however, both the respondent and his parents managed to avoid harm. Therefore, the Court reached the conclusion that while the appellant’s persistent threats of suicide or poisoning the respondent and his parents may not have been successful, the mental anguish endured by the appellant and the respondent could not have been more severe than living in constant fear or danger to their lives and safety. The respondent was not only emotionally affected by the prospect of suicide, but the conjugal dynamics of their marriage were also negatively affected.
The Court drew inspiration from the case of Pankaj Mahajan v. Dimple, (2011) 12 SCC 1, in which it determined that repeated suicide threats and an attempted suicide constituted maltreatment. Additionally, the Court drew upon Nagendra v. K. Meena, (2016) 9 SCC 455, in which the Supreme Court determined that the wife’s conduct, including locking herself in the toilet and pouring kerosene in an attempt to commit suicide, constituted mental cruelty. The Supreme Court additionally noted that had she been successful in her endeavor to end her life, the spouse would have been subjected to severe legal repercussions and had his existence been irreparably damaged. Hence, the courts could not permit such an act of mental maltreatment to pass unchallenged, and it was adequate to warrant the husband a divorce decree. Therefore, this court determined that the appellant’s suicide attempt, which involved a deliberate attempt to leap from the balcony, unequivocally constituted mental cruelty. The court acknowledged that the respondent’s allegation of an extramarital affair supported the appellant’s claims, and further noted that no evidence had been presented to prove that the respondent had ever been involved in an extramarital affair.
In Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334 (the “Vijay Kumar Case”), the Court determined that allegations of an extramarital affair by a spouse constituted inhumane acts. In the Vijay Kumar Case, the Supreme Court made the following observation: “The allegations of extramarital affairs and immorality posed a severe threat to the accused’s integrity, standing, and well-being; they constituted the most heinous form of cruelty.” These claims, which inflict mental anguish, pain, and suffering, were adequate in and of themselves to constitute the reformulated notion of cruelty in matrimonial law. Therefore, this court reached the conclusion that false accusations of extramarital affairs constituted the highest form of cruelty, as they revealed a total erosion of faith and trust between the partners, which are essential for the maintenance of a matrimonial union. This Court determined that the Family Court Judge’s conclusion that the case involved extreme mental maltreatment was correct, thereby establishing the respondent’s right to a divorce decree under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HMA. As a result, this Court determined that there was no cause to disturb the challenged judgment, as it was rationally sound and founded on valid grounds….
Attainment to commit suicide and false accusations constitute the extent of mental cruelty in Delhi (HC) (SCConline, 2023, August 18).