Divorce: SC defines mental cruelty
Says Reasons Cited Can Include Secret Sterilisation, Abortion & Denial Of Sex
Dhananjay Mahapatra I TNN

New Delhi: In a path-breaking decision, the supreme court has defined what connotes 'mental cruelty' -the ground that has been frequently cited as the reason for those seeking divorce but which had so far lacked a precise definition, The court on Monday laid down an elaborate criteria of what all would constitute "mental cruelty", but said that the behaviour patterns so mentioned must persist over a period of time to warrant the conclusion that the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down and qualified to be "the ground for divorce,

In fact, the verdict seems to strike the right balance between the competing considerations of rescuing people trapped in unhappy alliances and the anxiety to save marriages against divorce petitions based on false allegations and on impulse, The definition, part of a verdict annulling the marriage of senior IAS couple Samar and Jaya, came close on the heels of court's bid to define the legal concept of "outraging of a woman's modesty",

~ 'Sustained cruelty counts' P 11
What is · Undergoing sterilisation without knowledge or consent of spouse · Wife having abortion without medical reason or without consent of spouse · Not having intercourse without physical incapacity or valid reason · Unilateral decision not to have child · Sustained reprehensive conduct; studied neglect · Actions aimed to derive sadistic pleasure · Abuse and humiliation
· Sustained unjustified conduct affecting phYSical & mental health of spouse · Frequent rudeness, indifference and neglect
What isn't · Wear & tear of marriage · Jealousy, selfishness & possessiveness causing unhappiness or stress · Mere coldness or lack of affection

A final caveat · View married life as a whole; isolated instances not cruelty

Sustained cruelty counts: st
~ From Page 1
"l"I !hile the supreme court V V said that, given the complexities of human mind, "no court should even attempt to give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty", it tried to get a handle on the issue with help from previous judgments.It listed specific actions as amounting to mental cruelty. The court, however, balanced that by inserting the caveat that a pattern persisting over a period of time rather than isolated instances should constitute the basis for divorce."Conduct must be persistent for a fairly long period and is so offensive that the other party fmds it difficult to live together," said the court.

It also stressed that while ,deciding any divorce petition based on the ground of mental cruelty, "married life should be reviewed as a whole" and "that a few isolated incidents over a period of years will not amount to cruelty". The focus of the bench was on "sustained". It said that "mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty" but made allowance for the fact that "frequent rudeness of language, petulence of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable".

In the case at stake, Jaya, an IAS officer, after divorcing her fIrst husband who also was an IAS officer and from whom she had a daughter, married a second time in December 1984. She, however, refused to cohabit with her second husband, Samar, on the ground that she did not want any more children and told him not to interact with her daughter.Humiliated, Samar fIled a divorce petition in Kolkata.

He mentioned he had been forced to live separately since August 1990. Jaya denied the allegations, but the trial court granted divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. But the Calcutta HC reversed the judgment.An apex court bench upheld the trial court verdict and said the HC was unnecessarily obsessed by the fact that the she was also an IAS officer though it is proved that she inflicted mental cruelty on him that led to a long separation without any reconciliation.