Q 1:- What are triple test for grant of bail?
Cohabitation is an essential part of a matrimonial relationship and if the wife declines to cohabit with the husband by forcing him to live in a separate room, she deprives him of his conjugal rights, which will have an adverse impact on his mental and physical well being and which will amount to both physical and mental cruelty. The plaintiff’s allegation of being wrongfully deprived of his conjugal rights has not been controverted by the defendant-respondent and the same has been admitted by implication. {Para 20}
21. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view that there was sufficient evidence to prove the grounds of cruelty pleaded by the plaintiff-appellant for grant of a decree of divorce the plaintiff has successfully proved by his ex-parte evidence that the defendant was treating him with cruelty.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case :-FIRST APPEAL No. - 32 of 2023
Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Vs Smt. Sweta Srivastava
Coram: Hon’ble Rajan Roy J & Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:57446-DB.
Date: 22.08.2024.
Print PageIn essence, whether the conduct inflicted by one party on the other clears the threshold of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act is wholly fact-dependent. In fact, there is no threshold test at all. The concept of cruelty is social milieu-dependent where the upbringing, level of education, sensitivity, financial position, social status, religious beliefs and cultural backgrounds of the parties would set the standard of whether the conduct complained of would be unmitigated cruel behaviour. The degree of tolerance to the conduct complained of would also depend on the outlook, experience and exposure of the complainant as well as the perpetrator. Any act of damage to reputation, social standing or work prospects by one spouse to the other would fall within the term “cruelty”. It may not be too far-fetched to say-hesitantly-that depriving a spouse from being on Facebook and Instagram may also amount to cruelty!
{Para 11}
12. The absence of a specific definition of ‘cruelty’ encourages a revisit of the requirement to prove cruel treatment as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. The concept of marital duties and obligations has changed at every level with changes in social structures. Family set-ups have been transformed with financial independence and greater equality in relationships. A marriage is more of a voluntary bond these days and less of a social compulsion. The law must move with the times.
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
CORAM: SMT. JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND
SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
C.M.A. No.68 OF 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
Dated:21.06.2024.
Print PageThe concept of mental cruelty as a remedy in Indian law has evolved significantly over the years, yet it continues to need further attention and development. Let's delve into the concept of mental cruelty within the context of Indian law, and evaluate whether it has reached its limits or requires further refinement.
1. Definition and Context:
In our considered view, a partner in matrimonial relationship who goes to the extent of filing police complaints against mother, friend, well wishers, Prosecutor or Advocate of his own wife, is a kind of person who is difficult to deal with and certainly causing mental harassment. {Para 31}
32. Original copy of newspaper Dainik Divya Marathi dated 13.07.2014 is at Exh. 279, in which alleged defamatory news about Respondent/Wife was published at the instance of Appellant/husband. Whether the actual news is defamatory or not is irrelevant for the present purpose. The fact that allegations and accusations are leveled by a party (husband in this case) against the spouse (wife) in newspaper, itself has an effect of lowering her reputation in the eyes of her peers and colleagues. Embarrassment is a bitter bonus ! Learned counsel for the Respondent/wife has submitted that because of news published by the Appellant/husband, the reputation of the Respondent/wife got damaged and she was embarrassed before her peers, colleagues and co-workers. Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja MANU/SC/0493/2017 : (2017) 14 SCC 194 and K. Shrinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa MANU/SC/0180/2013 : (2013) 5 SCC 226, both arising out of matrimonial disputes, are relied upon in support of this case. We fully agree with the submission. The proposition of law laid down in the said cases apply to the fact of this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Family Court Appeal No. 36 of 2021,
Decided On: 24.03.2023
Uday Vs. Rupali
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.D. Dhanuka and M.M. Sathaye, JJ.
Author: M.M. Sathaye, J.
Citation: MANU/MH/1142/2023.
Print PageNo uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behavior which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive.
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behavior of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behavior of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty. {Para 74}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 151 of 2004
Decided On: 26.03.2007
Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.N. Agrawal, P.P. Naolekar and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
Author: Dalveer Bhandari, J.
Citation: ( 2007 ) 4 SCC 511, MANU/SC/1386/2007.
Print PageThese allegations in the FIR some of which can be found in the statements of the witnesses show that these applicants, prima facie, subjected non-applicant no. 2 to humiliation, harassment and cruelty of such a nature as is contemplated under Section 498-A of the IPC and therefore, we are of the view that there is prima facie case made out against each of the applicants, inspite of their sometimes residing away from the place where non-applicant no. 2 resided. One cannot forget the fact that cruelty as envisaged under Section 498-A of the IPC is not only physical, it also takes within its fold several other forms of cruelty, including mental cruelty. The mental cruelty is an abstract concept and it is a matter of experience for a person who is subjected to cruelty. Many a times certain taunts are made against another person but it all depends upon the manner in which the person takes those remarks or responds to them. Sometimes, the taunts might be seen to be innocuous by one person, while they may not be necessarily so perceived by another person. There are also certain derogatory remarks, which have been held by Supreme Court to be presumptively constituting cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC, as for example consistently suspecting fidelity of wife {See A. Jayachandra Vs. Annel Kaur [MANU/SC/1023/2004 : (2005) 2 SCC 22]}. Such being the nature of mental cruelty, it is not necessary that it must take place in the physical presence of persons and that it can be handed out even from a distant place. Here, in this case, for meting out mental cruelty to non-applicant no. 2, of course, in prima facie way, these applicants seems to have employed modern means of communication i.e. telephone etc. and on many occasions, they have also remained present in the company of non-applicant no. 2. Therefore, this is not a case where the applicants, by virtue of their separate residence, could be presumed to not have treated non-applicant no. 2 in a cruel manner. {Para 7}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
Criminal Application (APL) No. 1660 of 2022
Decided On: 22.12.2022
Sunita Kumari and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.B. Shukre and M.W. Chandwani, JJ.
Author: S.B. Shukre, J.
Citation: MANU/MH/4535/2022.
Print PageIn the context of marriage, 'mental cruelty' refers to behavior or actions that cause significant emotional or psychological distress to one spouse by the other. Specifically, in cases involving unfounded scandalous allegations against a spouse made in the pleadings or filing of false complaints, such actions can be considered as instances of mental cruelty.
We would like to emphasize that an element of subjectivity has to be applied albeit, what constitutes cruelty is objective. Therefore, what is cruelty for a woman in a given case may not be cruelty for a man, and a relatively more elastic and broad approach is required when we examine a case in which a wife seeks divorce.
{Para 7}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 5700 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15793 of 2014)
Roopa Vs. Kamalnarayan
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sanjiv Khanna and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
Decided On: 06.09.2023
Citation: MANU/SC/0980/2023.
Read full Judgment here: Click here
Print PageEven with such a liberal construction of matrimonial legislations, the socio- economic stigma and issues attached to a woman due to divorce or separation are raised. Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, in his concurring opinion in Reynold Rajamani and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. MANU/SC/0148/1982 : (1982) 2 SCC 474 (see paragraph 14), took note of the position of women in a marital relationship and the consequent social and economic inequalities faced by the female spouse in view of divorce. The resultant stigmatization hinders societal reintegration, making a woman divorcee socially and economically dependent. Courts must adopt a holistic approach and endeavor to secure some measure of socio-economic independence, considering the situation, case and persons involved. An empathetic and contextual construction of the facts may be adopted, to avert the possibilities of perpetuating trauma - mental and sometimes even physical - on the vulnerable party. It is needless to say that the courts will be guided by the principles of equity and may consider balancing the rights of the parties. The Court, while applying these provisions, must adopt 'social-context thinking', cognisant of the social and economic realities, as well as the status and background of the parties.
9. This concept of "social justice adjudication" has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr. MANU/SC/1084/2013 : (2014) 1 SCC 188:
14. Of late, in this very direction, it is emphasised that the courts have to adopt different approaches in "social justice adjudication", which is also known as "social context adjudication" as mere "adversarial approach" may not be very appropriate. There are number of social justice legislations giving special protection and benefits to vulnerable groups in the society. Prof. Madhava Menon describes it eloquently:
It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that 'social context judging' is essentially the application of equality jurisprudence as evolved by Parliament and the Supreme Court in myriad situations presented before courts where unequal parties are pitted in adversarial proceedings and where courts are called upon to dispense equal justice. Apart from the social-economic inequalities accentuating the disabilities of the poor in an unequal fight, the adversarial process itself operates to the disadvantage of the weaker party. In such a situation, the Judge has to be not only sensitive to the inequalities of parties involved but also positively inclined to the weaker party if the imbalance were not to result in miscarriage of justice. This result is achieved by what we call social context judging or social justice adjudication." [Keynote address on "Legal Education in Social Context" delivered at National Law University, Jodhpur on October 12, 2005, available on http://web.archive.org/web/20061210031743/http:/www.nlujodhpur.ac.in/ceireports.htm [last visited on 25-12-2013]]
15. The provision of maintenance would definitely fall in this category which aims at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice or equality and dignity of the individual. While dealing with cases under this provision, drift in the approach from "adversarial" litigation to social context adjudication is the need of the hour.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 5700 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15793 of 2014)
Roopa Vs. Kamalnarayan
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sanjiv Khanna and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
Decided On: 06.09.2023
Citation: MANU/SC/0980/2023
Print PageThese allegations in the FIR some of which can be found in the statements of the witnesses show that these applicants, prima facie, subjected non-applicant no. 2 to humiliation, harassment and cruelty of such a nature as is contemplated under Section 498-A of the IPC and therefore, we are of the view that there is prima facie case made out against each of the applicants, inspite of their sometimes residing away from the place where non-applicant no. 2 resided. One cannot forget the fact that cruelty as envisaged under Section 498-A of the IPC is not only physical, it also takes within its fold several other forms of cruelty, including mental cruelty. The mental cruelty is an abstract concept and it is a matter of experience for a person who is subjected to cruelty. Many a times certain taunts are made against another person but it all depends upon the manner in which the person takes those remarks or responds to them. Sometimes, the taunts might be seen to be innocuous by one person, while they may not be necessarily so perceived by another person. There are also certain derogatory remarks, which have been held by Supreme Court to be presumptively constituting cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC, as for example consistently suspecting fidelity of wife {See A. Jayachandra Vs. Annel Kaur [MANU/SC/1023/2004 : (2005) 2 SCC 22]}. Such being the nature of mental cruelty, it is not necessary that it must take place in the physical presence of persons and that it can be handed out even from a distant place. Here, in this case, for meting out mental cruelty to non-applicant no. 2, of course, in prima facie way, these applicants seems to have employed modern means of communication i.e. telephone etc. and on many occasions, they have also remained present in the company of non-applicant no. 2. Therefore, this is not a case where the applicants, by virtue of their separate residence, could be presumed to not have treated non-applicant no. 2 in a cruel manner. {Para 7}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
Criminal Application (APL) No. 1660 of 2022
Sunita Kumari and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.B. Shukre and M.W. Chandwani, JJ.
Author: S.B. Shukre, J.
Decided On: 22.12.2022.
Citation: 2023 Lawweb (Bom HC ) 5.
Print PageThe Supreme Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226 has held that making unfounded allegations against the spouse or his relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints etc. which may have adverse impact on the job of the spouse in the facts of a case, amounts to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse. The same view was expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Srinivas v. K. Suneetha (2014) 16 SCC 34. {Para 34}
47. It is a settled position that leveling of unsubstantiated allegations in the pleadings or otherwise amount to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act (See AS v. SNS 226 (2016) DLT 565 Manisha Sandeep Gade v. Sandeep Vinayak Gade AIR 2005 Bom. 180). VimlaBalani (supra) Mahendra Kumar Sharma (supra) and Jayanta Nandi (supra).
48. Thus the writing of the complaint to the CAW cell (Ex. RW-1/5) tantamounted to causing grave mental agony and cruelty to the respondent as it contained serious and baseless allegations against the respondent and his family members of demanding dowry from the appellant and her parents and also of the respondent maintaining illicit relations with other women. The said allegations were nothing short of character assassination of the respondent. The making of such serious allegations must have caused grave mental agony to the respondent and his claim that the matrimonial bond has been destroyed on that account cannot be negated. The respondent has a reasonable ground to believe that living with the appellant may again lead to serious injury to his name and reputation and to that of his family. The finding of the learned ADJ on this aspect is therefore affirmed.
40. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the appellant has been able to make out a case of being subjected to cruelty and desertion at the hands of the respondent. We are unable to agree with the findings of the Family Court. That the appellant is entitled to succeed on both the grounds i.e. Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib). The facts and circumstances that lead us to the following conclusion are:-
i. The respondent-wife filed an unsubstantiated criminal complaint against the Appellant and his family members which caused them immense mental cruelty and agony.
ii. The Respondent-wife made several contradictory and unsubstantiated allegations in her written statements, complaint before the CAW Cell, and her evidence by way of affidavit. The Respondent failed to prove and establish the averments she made, which itself amounts to mental cruelty. In respect of her testimony, she stood discredited in the light of the said contradictions.
iii. As far as the relations between the parties are concerned, they are sufficiently beyond repair. Both the Appellant and the Respondent allege acts of cruelty against each other.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 247/2019;
Appellant Vs Respondent
Coram:VIPIN SANGHI; JASMEET SINGH, JJ.
Author: JASMEET SINGH, J
Dated:10.03.2022
Print PageThe testimony of PW4 Doctor is to the effect that, the
appellant was suffering from impulse control disorder which means,
not able to control anger, and exhibiting anger in an excessive
manner, which may adversely affect marital life. The persons
suffering from impulse control disorder may be assaultive in nature
and may throw things or may exhibit homicidal or suicidal tendency
as stated by the doctor. The doctor further stated that there is no
complete cure for this illness, but it could be controlled under
proper medication. Even according to the appellant, after
12.11.2007, she had not continued the treatment. The allegations
of arrogance, and abusive and assaultive nature of the appellant,
spoken to by her husband and children, get corroboration from
Ext.A1 medical report, and the testimony of PW4 Doctor. {Para 18}
19. One may suffer mental stress or strain due to very many
reasons. But, not taking treatment for the same in order to bring
out a peaceful and harmonious family atmosphere, also may have to be counted as cruelty to the persons at the receiving end. The appellant has no case that, she had any difficulty to continue the treatment, but according to her, she had no psychiatric problem and so she discontinued the treatment. The doctor gave testimony to the effect that, the impulse control disorder, will definitely affect a normal family life. If proper treatment is given, it can be brought under control.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Mat. Appeal No.1119 of 2015
MARY MARGRET Vs JOS P THOMAS
PRESENT
MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2022
Sophy Thomas, J.
Print Page
The respondent has resorted to filing multiple cases in courts against the appellant. It may be noticed that such repeated filing of cases itself has been held in judicial pronouncements to amount to mental cruelty.
17. There are episodes of further harassment by the respondent even at the place of work of the appellant including insulting the appellant in front of students and professors, as is apparent from the judgment of the Trial Court. She is stated to have threatened the appellant of physical harm in front of his colleagues as per the testimony of PW.3 and complained to the appellant’s employer threatening to file a criminal complaint against him (PW.3). The first appellate court somehow brushed aside these incidents as having not been fully established on a perception of wear and tear of marriage. The moot point is that the marriage has not taken of from its inception. There can hardly be any ‘wear and tear of marriage’ where parties have not been living together for a long period of time. The parties, undisputedly, never lived together even for a day.
19. In view of the legal position which we have referred to aforesaid, these continuing acts of the respondent would amount to cruelty even if the same had not arisen as a cause prior to the institution of the petition, as was found by the Trial Court. This conduct shows disintegration of marital unity and thus disintegration of the marriage. A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22 In fact, there was no initial integration itself which would allow disintegration afterwards. The fact that there have been continued allegations and litigative proceedings and that can amount to cruelty is an aspect taken note of by this court. Malathi Ravi v. B.V. Ravi, (2014) 7 SCC 640 The marriage having not taken of from its inception and 5 years having been spent in the Trial Court, it is difficult to accept that the marriage soon after the decree of divorce, within 6 days, albeit 6 years after the initial inception of marriage, amounts to conduct which can be held against the appellant.
20. In the conspectus of all the aforesaid facts, this is one case where both the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the ground of cruelty on account of subsequent facts would favour the grant of decree of divorce in favour of the appellant.
21. We are, thus, of the view that a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties be passed not only in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India on account of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, but also on account of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act in light of the subsequent conduct of the respondent during the pendency of judicial proceedings at various stages.
Supreme Court
JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
SIVASANKARAN Vs. SANTHIMEENAL
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4984-4985 OF 2021
13th September 2021
Author: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
Citation: 2021 ALL SCR 2007
Print PageYet another facet of mental cruelty on the part of the
respondent canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is
regarding the parental alienation. The learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the respondent intentionally alienated the child from the appellant depriving his parental right to be loved by the child. It amounts to nothing but mental cruelty, argued the counsel. We find some force in the said argument.{Para 16}
17. Parental alienation describes a process through which a
child becomes estranged from a parent as the result of the
psychological manipulation of another parent. It occurs when one parent undermines or prejudices the contact and relationship between the child and the other parent without well-founded reasons. It is a strategy whereby one parent intentionally displays to the child unjustified negativity aimed at the other parent. The purpose of this strategy is to damage the child’s relationship with the other parent and to turn the child’s emotions against the other parent. A child has right to the love and affection of both parents. Similarly, the parents have the right to receive the love and affection of the child. Any act on the
part of the one parent calculated to deny the love and affection of the child to the other parent by alienating the child from him/her amounts to mental cruelty.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
18TH DAY OF MAY 2021
Mat.Appeal.No.523 OF 2019
PRABIN GOPAL Vs MEGHNA
Dated this the 18th day of May 2021
Author: Kauser Edappagath, J.
Print Page
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behavior of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behavior of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
