Jus Spake

There has been an alarming increase in the  number of  divorce cases.  While many couples these days ensure that not too much of linen is washed in public, the case is not always so.  Therefore while some choose to obtain dissolution of marriage by a decree of mutual consent, warring couples go through the emotion draining process.  Invariably one of the spouses allege cruelty – physical and or mental cruelty and seek divorce on the said ground.  Dealing with one such petition a division bench of the AP High Court comprising Justices NV Ramana and KS Appa Rao ruled that: Evidently mental cruelty cannot be comprehensively defined, within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered.  Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated.  Similarly human ingenuity has no bound and therefore to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible.  What may amount to cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in the other case because , concept of cruelty differ from person to person, depending upon his/her upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs human values and their value system.  The bench was dealing with an appeal filed by the wife whose petition for divorce n the ground of mental cruelty was rejected by the Family court at Vishakapatnam. The wife who is visually challenged and has a hearing impediment , complained that her husband would come home drunk, was a womanizer and gambler and would physically abuse her.  The husband no tonly denied the allegations made against him but also said that the marriage was ruined by the over drive of the parents of the wife and how after he met with an accident matters became worse.  The Family Court rejected the petition for divorce on the ground that cruelty as pleaded was not proved.

Taking the contra view on appreciation of the evidence on record  Jus. Appa Rao pointed out that the conduct of the husband would show that he has been harassing the wife  and the acts amounted to “mental cruelty” .  The Justices pointed out that the husband married the victim ‘for the sake of money and thereafter started ill-treating , humiliating for money and even ventured to make a paper publication demanding Rs.25.00 lakhs for maintenance , which cumulatively tantamount to cruelty.”

          IN another case a division bench of Justice V. Eshwariah and Justice B. Chandra Kumar, set aside the divorce granted by the Civil court in Tadipalligudem of West Godavari District in favour of  the husband. Here the husband sought divorce on the ground that his wife was unfit for marital life.  He also alleged that she had filed false criminal cases against him under Section 498 a and that amounted to cruelty. Speaking for the bench on the question of cruelty Justice Chandra Kumar said: mere filing of criminal cases cannot be treated as treating the husband with cruelty. The bench went on to reason that where the husband remarries, or harasses demanding dowry the wife has every right to initiate criminal proceedings. “Where in a case it is proved that without any basis and without any truth and only for the purposes of harassing the husband or his close relatives of the husband,  the wife initiated criminal proceedings such act may be treated as an act of cruelty”