Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 2
CASE ANALYSIS OF MANISHA TYAGI V CAPT. DEEPAK KUMAR ............................................ 2
FACTS OF THE CASE ............................................................................................................................ 3
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT ............................................................................................ 4
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT ......................................................................................................... 5
CASE REVIEW (NARENDRA VS. K MEENA): FORCING HUSBAND TO LEAVE HIS PARENTS
AMOUNTS TO CRUELTY IN INDIA.................................................................................................... 8
RAJ TALREJA V. KAVITA TALREJA(2017): SUPREME COURT ON MENTAL CRUELTY ........ 9
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................... 12
INTRODUCTION

Marriages in India are considered as the unification of a girl and a boy for approval of social
status in the society. Nowadays marriages are easily broken either due to the fault of the husband
or the wife. Also, there were situations where the wife makes a false complaint against her
husband. In most of such cases, the husband had no remedy because the laws of India are in
favor of women.

What is cruelty is explained in section 498A of IPC it states that- any wilful conduct which is of
such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger
to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or harassment of the woman
where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any
person related to her to meet such demand1.

Most of false cases are filed for Misuse of Dowry Laws, Domestic Violence Act and ‘Sec: 498-
A’ of IPC by wife against husband and in-laws of husband through lodging false complaints,
Desertion of wife who deliberately intending for separation , extra marital affairs, Wife opting
for second marriage without applying for the divorce ,Threatening to leave husband’s home and
threat to commit suicide by the wife. Cruel behaviour of wife, Abusing and accusing husband,
Wife refusing to have sex with husband without any sufficient , filing FIR against husband and
in-laws which has later proved as false report, Conduct and misbehaviour of the wife against
husband, mental disorder or unsoundness of wife, Impotency of wife, illicit relationship of wife
with some other person and Wife suffering from the filarial etc2.

CASE ANALYSIS OF MANISHA TYAGI V CAPT. DEEPAK KUMAR

The Indian judiciary is only in the nascent stage of developing an unwavering position on cruelty
as a ground for divorce. This case discusses the issue of cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of
marriage as grounds of divorce before and subsequent to the 1976 amendment of the Hindu
Marriage Act. The analysis provided by the author also highlights the undulating positions

1
Section 498A of Indian Penal Code
2
http://www.pathlegal.in/top-30-divorce-judgement-on-mental-cruelties-by-wife-blog-1165244
adopted by the Courts while addressing the issue. At the same time, it is crucial to understand the
judicial approach to deciding whether the factual matrix merits a decree of judicial separation or
divorce. The evolution of cruelty as a ground for divorce encompasses its varying definitions and
prerequisites of proof of reasonable apprehension3.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In this case, an army officer, and an advocate, got married according to Hindu rites on
17.11.1991. However, they soon fell apart, and started living separately from 31.12.1992
onwards. The husband filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty, before the District
Court of Gurgaon under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband alleged that the
wife was rude, ill- mannered, quarrelsome and schizophrenic, and that she had made his life a
living hell. He alleged that she shouted and made scenes and humiliated him in front of his
officers and jawans, made allegations of sodomy against him, and allegations against his old and
infirm father of molesting her. Besides, the husband also alleged that the wife filed various
criminal cases against him, which ended in either his acquittal, discharge, or were quashed,
thereby indicating that they were all false. Further, that she hurled filthy abuses on him and his
family members, compared him to a barking dog, and had erratic sexual behaviour. According to
him, she has been constantly threatening him as well as his family that since she and her two
uncles are advocates they would make the lives of the husband and his family miserable. The
husband complained that the wife had been making baseless complaints to his superiors, which
has affected his career prospects in the Army. The husband filed a claim for cruelty against his
wife.

The wife also made equally vile allegations of dowry demand, sodomy, and mental and physical
torture in various ways. In sum, there were innumerable complaints and allegations made against
each other. Best efforts for reconciliation were made by the Court but to no effect. The trial
Court on evaluation of the entire evidence found that even though it was a case where marriage
had broken, but under the law as it exists, the marriage could not be dissolved on the ground of
irretrievable breakdown. The Court found both the parties at fault, and did not grant the decree of
divorce as the husband could not prove cruelty of wife so as to entitle him to a decree of divorce.

3
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/case-analysis-of-manisha-tyagi-v-capt-deepak-kumar/
On appeal against this by the husband, the single judge observed that the wife had exceeded all
limits of decency and crossed the ‘Lakshman Rekha’ when she went to the extent of lodging a
false FIR, and when she tried to humiliate him in front of his superiors. The Court found both the
parties at fault, and adopted a middle path by granting a decree of judicial separation under
Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, so that the parties might ponder over their differences and
re-unite, for the welfare of their daughter.

The husband accepted the order of the single judge, but the wife went in appeal before the
Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This Court also observed that even
though the marriage had irretrievably broken down, but in the absence of such statutory ground
the marriage cannot be dissolved on this ground. The Division Bench proceeded on the basis of
allegations of cruelty, and was convinced that the wife’s behaviour amounted to mental cruelty
of the worst type. Her allegations of sodomy against her husband, lodging false FIRs and
complaints against him, and making allegations against her infirm father-in-law of molesting her,
all amounted to cruelty and were certainly intolerable behaviour. The Court held that cruelty as
alleged by the husband stood proved, and consequently, the single judge order was set aside and
a decree of divorce granted to the husband.

The wife again went in appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Division Bench
order, and came before the Supreme Court4.

JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Apex Court in its judgment stated that, “We are of the opinion that the High Court erred in
granting a decree of divorce to the husband. She had come in appeal before the Division Bench
complaining that the Appellate Court had wrongly granted the decree of judicial separation even
after concurring with the findings of the Trial Court that the husband had failed to establish
cruelty by the wife. Therefore even if the appeal had been dismissed, the findings recorded by
the Trial Court in her favour would have remained intact. The effect of the order passed by the
Division Bench is as if an appeal of the husband against the decree of judicial separation has
been allowed. Both the parties had failed to make out a case of divorce against each other. The

4
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/case-analysis-of-manisha-tyagi-v-capt-deepak-kumar/
husband had accepted these findings. Therefore he was quite content to wait for the statutory
period to lapse before filing the petition for divorce, which he actually did on 9.5.2002. On the
basis of the proven facts the Trial Court was more inclined to believe the wife, whereas the
learned Single Judge of the High Court found both the parties to be at fault. Hence the middle
path of judicial separation had been accepted. Therefore, it was not a case where it was necessary
for the Division Bench to correct any glaring and serious errors committed by the Court below
which had resulted in miscarriage of justice. In our opinion there was no compelling necessity,
independently placed before the Division Bench to justify reversal, of the decree of judicial
separation. In such circumstances it was wholly inappropriate for the Division of High Court to
have granted a decree of divorce to the husband”.

The Supreme Court in its judgment held that the Division Bench of the High Court had
committed an error in granting the decree of divorce, and thus, the Supreme Court set aside the
Division Bench’s order by restoring the single judge order of granting judicial separation.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 states that, “any marriage solemnized,
whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the
husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party- has,
after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty”

Cruelty is a ground for matrimonial relief under all the matrimonial law statutes in India.
However, it has not been defined, and the concept of cruelty varies from time to time. What was
cruelty yesterday might not be cruelty today, and what is cruelty today might not necessarily be
understood as an act of cruelty tomorrow. The Supreme Court in Ravi Kumar v. Julmi Devi very
aptly said that cruelty has no definition, and in fact, such definition is not possible. Cruelty in
matrimonial cases can be of infinite variety, it being a very subjective concept. In the case of
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, the Supreme Court examined the development of the concept of
mental cruelty in matrimonial cases, and observed that before the 1976 amendment in the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 cruelly was not a ground for claiming divorce under the Hindu Marriage
Act. It was only a ground for claiming judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act. By the
1976 amendment, cruelty was made a ground for divorce and the words which have been omitted
from Section 10 are “as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it
will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party”. Therefore, today, it is
not necessary for a party claiming divorce to prove that the cruel treatment is of such a nature as
to cause a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him or her to live with
the other party. Now, it is sufficient to show that the conduct of one of the spouses is so
abnormal and below the accepted norm that the other spouse could not reasonably be expected to
put up with it.

Cruelty not only includes physical cruelty, but also mental cruelty. In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar
Reddi, the Supreme Court held that that cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or
unintentional. The Supreme Court defined mental cruelty in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat as that
conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not
possible for that party to live with the other. 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
party5.

Thus, in the case of Manisha Tyagi v. Capt Deepak Kumar, both the trial Court and the appellate
Court (single judge) had upon after carefully examining the case and considering the conduct of
the parties over a period of time, found that the husband could not prove cruelty on part of the
wife. The trial Court explained that to say that a person started to bark like a dog, and a person is
a dog are two different things. The Court also said that the allegations of the wife against the
husband of unnatural sex cannot be equated with sodomy. Thus, the fact that the wife had been
treating her husband with cruelty could not be established. Both the Courts had agreed that the
marriage had broken down, and was irretrievable, but, since that was not a valid ground for
divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, divorce could not be granted.

The Appellate Court granted a decree of judicial separation to the husband, since it came to the
conclusion that by doing this, the couple could get more time to ponder over the issues, while
keeping in mind the welfare of their daughter. If the parties reconciled their differences, then the
decree of judicial separation would not hold valid, and if, they do not decide to reconcile, then,
either party could ask for the dissolution of marriage on the basis of the decree of judicial

5
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/case-analysis-of-manisha-tyagi-v-capt-deepak-kumar/
separation. As is known to us by the facts, the husband had accepted the decree granted by the
single judge, and after the expiry of one year, even filed for divorce. However, the wife
challenged the grant of decree of judicial separation to the husband by the Appellate Court. The
wife complained that the single judge had wrongly granted the decree of judicial separation to
the husband, despite both the Courts (trial and appellate) coming to the conclusion that the
husband could not prove cruelty of wife. The Division Bench held that that the wife’s acts
amounted to cruelty of the worst kind, and thus it granted a decree of divorce to the husband.

It is important for us to note here, that it was not the husband who went in appeal against the
grant of decree of judicial separation. Rather, it was the wife who had challenged the decree, and
later even challenged the order of the Division Bench. Still, the Division Bench of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court granted the relief of divorce, as initially sought by the husband, as if, it
was he who had challenged the decree of separation and appealed for divorce. Also, even if the
wife’s appeal against decree of separation had been dismissed, the trial Court’s findings of her
acts not amounting to cruelty towards the husband would still have remained intact. And as
mentioned above, the effect of the order passed by the Division Bench is as if an appeal of the
husband against the decree of separation has been allowed.

As is proved by the facts, the Trial Court was more inclined to believe the wife, whereas the
learned Single Judge of the High Court found both the parties to be at fault. Thus, the middle
path of judicial separation had been accepted. There was no need for the Division Bench to grant
the decree of divorce as this was not a case where there was a need for the Court to correct any
glaring and serious errors committed by the Courts below which had resulted in a miscarriage of
justice. The trial Court and the appellate Court had both concluded that the husband could not
prove cruelty by the wife. Thus, the Apex Court very aptly stated that, “In our opinion there was
no compelling necessity, independently placed before the Division Bench to justify reversal, of
the decree of judicial separation. In such circumstances it was wholly inappropriate for the
Division of High Court to have granted a decree of divorce to the husband”6.

6
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/case-analysis-of-manisha-tyagi-v-capt-deepak-kumar/
CASE REVIEW (NARENDRA VS. K MEENA): FORCING HUSBAND TO LEAVE HIS
PARENTS AMOUNTS TO CRUELTY IN INDIA

The Supreme Court of India has decided that the coercion or forcing the husband to leave his
parents (who are dependent on his income) amounts to cruelty on part of the wife, therefore can
be a strong ground for divorce under Hindu Law. The verdict came on the appeal of Narendra vs.
K.Meena (Civil appeal no. 3253 of 2008, decided on 2016), where the Supreme Court set aside
the verdict of the Karnataka High Court.

Under ‘Sec 13(1) (i-a)’ of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 of India, cruelty is the main ground to
seek divorce as defined and the party who is filing a case must prove that living between the
husband and wife became impossible. (You can read the full verdict of Narendra vs. K. Meena
from Live Law.)

“In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the
marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the family of the husband and normally
without any justifiable strong reason; she would never insist that her husband should get
separated from the family and live only with her…. If a wife makes an attempt to deviate from
the normal practice and normal custom of the society, she must have some justifiable reason for
that and in this case, we do not find any justifiable reason, except monetary consideration of the
Respondent wife. In our opinion, normally, no husband would tolerate this and no son would like
to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his
income.”
– Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice L. Nageswara Rao; Supreme Court of India

Naturally, there are many legal and judicial provisions which facilitates the protection of the
women, which has got recognition from constitutional jurisprudence as well. Interestingly, there
is a gender bias in this procedure which is evident from that fact that unlike almost all other laws
in India, the burden of proof lies on the accused. Which means as soon as the complaint is made
by the aggrieved person/ wife, the result is that the husband and his family may be immediately
arrested and will be considered as accused in the eyes of law. According to the Indian Penal
Code (Section 498-A), the wife and her parental family can charge any or all members of the
husband’s family of physical or mental cruelty but genuineness of the case has to be looked into
by the court as this section is cognizable, non-compoundable and non-bailable in nature.

There have a significant development to improve and empower the husband to seek divorce on
the ground of cruelty. Apart from the recent verdict, a number of cases decided in the different
state High Courts shed some light on to the issue.

For instance, in Mrs. Deepalakshmi Saehia Zingade vs. Sachi Rameshrao Zingade (AIR 2010
Bom 16), the petitioner(wife) filed a false case against her husband on the ground of ‘Husband
Having Girl Friend’ which is proved as false in a court of law, ans Court ruled that it could be
considered as cruelty against husband.

In a similar manner, in Smt. Bhawna vs. Vijaykumar, (Appeal 1253/ 2008) the Nagpur Bench of
Mumbai High Court dismissed the appeal of the wife and upheld the verdict of the Family Court.
The High Court considered the wife’s ‘demand of separate residence, forcing her Husband to
leave his parents and stay separate and also the threat of filing Criminal Complaints like 498a
and threat of suicide‘ as cruelty.

This compilation of 38 recent cases can be read through to get a glimpse of the judicial
development of the cruelty against husband in India. Some of the cases are really weird, and the
Court took cautious steps to deal with it since the complexity of these decisions often leave
impacts beyond the contesting families7.

RAJ TALREJA V. KAVITA TALREJA(2017): SUPREME COURT ON MENTAL

CRUELTY

Introduction: Mental Cruelty is a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act along with
other grounds such as adultery, desertion, conversion, entering new religion, unsoundness of
mind, etc. Prior to 1976 amendment, cruelty was not a ground to divorce in India. Cruelty is not
defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. Cruelty can be of both physical cruelty and mental cruelty.
Mere trivial quarrels between the spouse do not amount to cruelty. In the case of Naveen Kohli v

7
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/case-analysis-of-manisha-tyagi-v-capt-deepak-kumar/
Neelu Kohli, of the year 2004, the Supreme Court has held that ‘Cruelty’ is a consistent course
of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture8.

Facts: – The Parties involved in the appeal got married in 1989 according to Hindu Rites. The
Husband and the Wife lived with the parents of the husband until the year 1999 and in the year
1999, the couple shifted to their own residence. On 19.03.2000, the husband left the matrimonial
home and thereafter, on 25.03. 2000, he filed a petition for grant of a decree of divorce.
Subsequently, on 07.11.2000, certain news items appeared in the Newspapers in which serious
allegations were made against the husband which were published on the intimation given by the
wife. On 04.12.2000, the wife filed a complaint to the State Women Commission making serious
allegations against the Husband. Thereafter, she also sent similar letters to the Chief Justice of
the High Court and the Superintendent of Police and a complaint was made to the Chief
Minister. On 16.03.2001, the complaints were found to be false. Thereafter, on 12.04.2001, a
FIR was filed against the appellant husband under Sections 452, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal
Code. After an investigation, the police reached the conclusion that there was no merit in the FIR
and that the wife had filed a false FIR. In view of the aforesaid, the Husband moved an
amendment application in the divorce petition incorporating the above-mentioned facts and
alleging that he had been subjected to cruelty by the wife due the filing of false complaints. The
Trial Judge dismissed the divorce petition and the appeal filed by the husband were also
dismissed9. Hence, this appeal.

Issue: – Whether a decree of divorce can be granted?

Appellants Contention: – Mr Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that
the acts of the wife in levelling defamatory allegations and filing false complaints against the
husband amounted to cruelty.

Respondents Contention: – Ms Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent
contended that her client was not at fault and the cruelty had not been proved and she submitted
that the respondent is declared to be a legally married woman and that the appeal is dismissed.

8
http://futrlaw.org/forcing-husband-leave-parents-amounts-cruelty-indian-supreme-court/
9
http://futrlaw.org/forcing-husband-leave-parents-amounts-cruelty-indian-supreme-court/
Decision of the Court: – Authored by Deepak Gupta, J.

(1) The Court allowed the appeal and the Judgments of the High Court and the Family Court was
set aside. The petition for divorce filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 was decreed and the marriage of the parties solemnised on 13.04.1989 was dissolved
by a decree of divorce. Further, the Court held that the wife would be entitled to a permanent
alimony of Rs. 50, 00, 000/- and a residential flat of the value of up to Rs. 1, 00, 00, 000.

(2) The Court opined that it was more than obvious that the allegations made by the wife were
false. The Court made a reference to Para 16 of K.Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa wherein the
Supreme Court had held that making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the
spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news
items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing
repeated false complaints and cases in Courts against the spouse would amount to causing mental
cruelty to the other spouse.

(3) The Court held that Cruelty could never be defined with exactitude and cruelty would depend
on the facts and circumstances of each case. It was observed that in the instant case, the wife
made reckless, defamatory and false accusations against the husband, his family members and
colleagues and these allegations were patently false. This would amount to an act of cruelty10.

(4) The Court disagreed with the findings of the High Court and the Family Court and they held
that the High Court and the Family Court had decided based on observations which were not
supported by any reliable or cogent evidence on record.

Ratio: – There can be no uniform definition of Cruelty for the purpose of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 and cruelty will be decided as per the facts and circumstances of every case. As Lord
Denning had held in Sheldon v. Sheldon (1963) that categories of cruelty in Matrimonial Cases
are never closed11.

10
http://futrlaw.org/forcing-husband-leave-parents-amounts-cruelty-indian-supreme-court/
11
http://futrlaw.org/forcing-husband-leave-parents-amounts-cruelty-indian-supreme-court/
CONCLUSION
From the above case law and there study this is inferred that wife of a person can use cruelty and
the section 498A of IPC for misleading the court. This is stated in the above cases that how
women uses the section may put the life of husband and his relatives in danger. But these above
cases also mentioned that how court helped on providing the justice to husband and his relative
and completely relying on the wife and her parents. We are in the stage where we think on
stereotype pattern. We always think that women are never wrong and something wrong has been
done by the other person towards her. Men are always blamed But after going through these
cases we can impliedly get on this that now men are no punishable for the wrong cruelty cases
which are filed against them.