This is the Supreme Court judgment from Justice Dipak Misra and Deepak Verma observing clear case of causing Mental cruelty by Knife on Husband.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
This is the landmark judgment of Supreme Court confirming the divorce degree granted by Family Court.
Intro
The marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 25/4/1999 as per Hindu rites and customs. Unfortunately, on the very next day disputes arose between the elders on both sides which resulted in their abusing each other and hurling chappals at each other. As a consequence, on 27/4/1999, the newly married couple got separated without consummation of the marriage and started living separately.
Later on
Knife filed complaint for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC against the appellant-husband (C.C.No. 79/2009). It may be stated here that on 19/10/2009 the appellant-husband was acquitted in this case.
The appellant- husband was convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment. He and his parents were acquitted of the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act. His parents were acquitted of the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. After this judgment the respondent-wife and her parents filed a complaint in the High Court saying that since the appellant-husband was convicted he should be dismissed from service. Similar letters were sent to the High Court by the maternal uncle of the respondent-wife
In Para 22,
The statement that the mother of the appellant-husband asked her to sleep with his father is bound to anger him. It is his case that this humiliation of his parents caused great anguish to him. He and his family were traumatized by the false and indecent statement made in the complaint. His grievance appears to us to be justified.
That this statement is false is evident from the evidence of the mother of the respondent-wife, which we have already quoted. This statement cannot be explained away by stating that it was made because the respondent-wife was anxious to go back to the appellant-husband. This is not the way to win the husband back. It is well settled that such statements cause mental cruelty. By sending this complaint the respondent-wife has caused mental cruelty to the appellant- husband.
In Para 23,
The conduct of the respondent- wife in filing a complaint making unfounded, indecent and defamatory allegation against her mother-in-law, in filing revision seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellant-husband, in filing appeal questioning the acquittal of the appellant-husband and acquittal of his parents indicates that she made all attempts to ensure that he and his parents are put in jail and he is removed from his job. We have no manner of doubt that this conduct has caused mental cruelty to the appellant- husband.
In Para 24,
Staying together under the same roof is not a pre-condition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof. In a given case, while staying away, a spouse can cause mental cruelty to the other spouse by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial proceedings making the other spouse’s life miserable.
Paras 25 and 26 talk about the death of the marriage.
the appellant-husband should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) to the respondent-wife as and by way of permanent alimony. In the result, the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside.
Directions issue by the Apex Court
a) In terms of Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, the Family Courts shall make all efforts to settle the matrimonial disputes through mediation. Even if the Counsellors submit a failure report, the Family Courts shall, with the consent of the parties, refer the matter to the mediation centre. In such a case, however, the Family Courts shall set a reasonable time limit for mediation centres to complete the process of mediation because otherwise the resolution of the disputes by the Family Court may get delayed. In a given case, if there is good chance of settlement, the Family Court in its discretion, can always extend the time limit.
b) The criminal courts dealing with the complaint under Section 498-A of the IPC should, at any stage and particularly, before they take up the complaint for hearing, refer the parties to mediation centre if they feel that there exist elements of settlement and both the parties are willing. However, they should take care to see that in this exercise, rigour, purport and efficacy of Section 498-A of the IPC is not diluted. Needless to say that the discretion to grant or not to grant bail is not in any way curtailed by this direction. It will be for the concerned court to work out the modalities taking into consideration the facts of each case.
c) All mediation centres shall set up pre-litigation desks/clinics; give them wide publicity and make efforts to settle matrimonial disputes at pre-litigation stage.
Click here to read the other judgments cited in this order.
Citations: [2013 SCC 5 226], [2013 AIOL 118], [2013 AIR SC 2176], [2013 AIR SC 1396], [2013 MHLJ SC 5 10], [2013 SUPREME 2 80], [2013 SLT 2 338], [2013 SCALE 2 735], [2013 BOMCR SC 3 129], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 2 232], [2013 JT 3 97], [2013 MPLJ SC 3 567], [2013 SCC CIV 2 775], [2013 SCC CRI 2 963], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 179], [2013 ALR 97 732], [2013 ALD 3 11], [2013 AIC 124 228], [2013 CHN 2 92], [2013 MAHLJ 5 102013 BLJ 3 379], [2013 DMC SC 1 458], [2013 ILR KER 1 813], [2013 JLJR 1 443], [2013 KHC 1 6472013 SCR 2 126], [2013 LW 2 883], [2013 PLR 171 149], [2013 CDR SC 1 161], [2013 AD SC 3 4582013 MLJ SC 3 852013 AWC SC 3 2462], [2013 WBLR SC 4 412], [2014 WLN SC 4 132], [2013 CGLRW 1 484], [2013 BOMCR 3 129], [2013 AIR SCW 1396], [2013 MAH LJ 5 10], [2013 MHLJ 5 10], [2013 ILR KERALA 1 813], [2013 RCR CIVIL 2 232], [2013 JT SC 3 97], [2013 MPLJ 3 567]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14713882/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af30e4b0149711415c0f
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/k-srinivas-rao-vs-d-a-deepa
Supreme Court delivered this verdict granting/affirming the decree of divorce granted by the High Court dissolving the marriage between the parties based on Mental Cruelty.
Excerpt from the lower court (High Court) judgement as observed by the Apex court:
“ 44. It has to be further pointed out that while P.W.1 was cross examined by the respondent, it has not been suggested to P.W.1 that he suggested to the respondent that they should have a child only after two years. Thus it appears that this explanation of the respondent for non consummation of the marriage is only an afterthought. Even assuming for a moment that the appellant wanted to have a child only after two years that does not mean that the appellant and the respondent cannot and should not have sexual intercourse. Admittedly, both of them are well educated and there are so many contraceptives available and they could have used such contraceptives and avoided pregnancy if they had wanted.”
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
This judgment from a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Dalveer Bhandari has enumerated some of the illustrations of mental cruelty citing Judgments of England, America, Canada and Australia.
Intro
The appellant and the respondent are senior officials of the Indian Administrative Service, The respondent was a divorcee and had a female child from her first marriage. The custody of the said child was given to her by the District Court of Patna where the respondent had obtained a decree of divorce against her first husband, Debashish Gupta, who was also an I.A.S. officer. The respondent’s first husband, Debashish Gupta filed a belated appeal against the decree of divorce obtained by her from the District Court of Patna. Therefore, during the pendency of the appeal, she literally persuaded the appellant to agree to the marriage immediately so that the appeal of Debashish Gupta may become infructuous.
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.12.1984.
… In these circumstances, the appellant has prayed that it would not be possible to continue the marriage with the respondent and he eventually filed a suit for the grant of divorce. In the suit for divorce filed by the appellant in Alipur, Calcutta, the respondent filed her written statement and denied the averments. The learned Additional District Judge came to the finding that the appellant has succeeded in proving the case of mental cruelty against the respondent, therefore, the decree was granted by the order dated 19.12.1996 and the marriage between the parties was dissolved.
The Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment dated 20.5.2003 reversed the judgment of the Additional District Judge on the ground that the appellant has not been able to prove the allegation of mental cruelty.
Key Points
Such a vital decision cannot be taken unilaterally after marriage by the respondent and if taken unilaterally, it may amount to mental cruelty to the appellant.
The finding of the High Court that the appellant started living with the respondent amounted to condonation of the act of cruelty is unsustainable in law.
The finding of the High Court that the respondent’s refusal to cook food for the appellant could not amount to mental cruelty as she had to go to office, is not sustainable….. The question was not of cooking food, but wife’s cooking food only for herself and not for the husband would be a clear instance of causing annoyance which may lead to mental cruelty.
The High Court’s finding that the husband and wife might be sleeping in separate rooms did not lead to a conclusion that they did not cohabit and to justify this by saying that the respondent was highly educated and holding a high post was entirely unsustainable. Once the respondent accepted to become the wife of the appellant, she had to respect the marital bond and discharge obligations of marital life.
During illness, particularly in a nuclear family, the husband normally looks after and supports his wife and similarly, he would expect the same from her. The respondent’s total indifference and neglect of the appellant during his illness would certainly lead to great annoyance leading to mental cruelty.
The credibility of the witness does not depend upon his financial standing or social status only. A witness which is natural and truthful should be accepted irrespective of his/her financial standing or social status.
… the appellant and the respondent have been living separately for more than sixteen and half years (since 27.8.1990). The entire substratum of the marriage has already disappeared. During this long period, the parties did not spend a single minute together. The appellant had undergone bye-pass surgery even then the respondent did not bother to enquire about his health even on telephone. Now the parties have no feelings and emotions towards each other.
Mental Cruelty Guidelines
No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour 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 behaviour 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 behaviour 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.
Citations : [2007 SCC 4 511], [2007 SUPREME 3 26], [2007 JT 5 569], [2007 CTC 3 464], [2007 BLJR 2 1047], [2007 RCR CIVIL 2 595], [2007 RAJ 2 177], [2007 ALD SC 4 11], [2007 ALL SCR 0 881], [2007 SCALE 5 1], [2007 SCC 4 411], [2007 SLJ SC 2 705], [2007 ALT 3 62], [2007 DMC 1 597], [2007 SCJ 3 253], [2007 WBLR 3 525], [2007 GHJ 16 204], [2007 KERLT 2 55], [2007 RAJLW 2 1357], [2007 AWC 5 4820], [2007 CLT 2 72], [2007 JCIVC 2 1028], [2007 SLT 4 76], [2007 AIOL 339], [2007 BOMCR SC 6 834], [2007 SCR 4 428], [2007 GUJ LR 2 1520], [2007 MADLJ 2 1185]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/766894/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae45e4b01497114135d2
The index page is here.
Read this judgment from Supreme Court of India which is important in more than one ways.
Lower Courts are impleaded as respondents:
It is not proper or even justified on the part of the appellant to implead the courts as respondents and respondents 1 and 2 are, therefore, struck off from the record of this appeal.
It does appear to us from the affidavit of the husband that it conceals more than what it tells of his income and other assets. Attempt has been made to conceal his true income and that leads us to draw an adverse inference against the husband about his income that it is much more than what is being disclosed to us.
Considering the diverse claims made by the parties one inflating the income and the other suppressing an element of conjecture and guess work does enter for arriving at the income of the husband. It cannot be done by any mathematical precision.
Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and those; he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. Amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate.
Date from which Interim maintenance can be claimed:
If wife has no source of income it is the obligation of the husband to maintain her and also children of the marriage on the basis of the provision contained in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Her right to claim maintenance fructifies on the date of the filing of the petition for divorce under the Act.The court has discretion in the matter as to from which date maintenance under Section 24 of the Act should be granted.
Here is the landmark Supreme Court judgement reiterating that ‘Decisions of Civil Courts are binding on the Criminal Courts‘
UPDATE 1:
https://www.livelaw.in/breaking-sc-modifies-the-earlier-directions-issued-to-prevent-misuse-of-498a-ipc-says-no-to-welfare-committees/
UPDATE 2:
Few directions given in this judgment are held to be erroneous. Here is the new article.
https://www.livelaw.in/sec-498a-ipc-only-hc-can-quash-cases-on-settlement-a-third-agency-created-by-courts-cant-exercise-statutory-functionssc/
UPDATE 3:
In Shivangi Bansal Vs Sahib Bansal on 22 Jul 2025, Division Bench of Apex Court restored the Family Welfare Committees.
The detailed order is available here.
Guidelines issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court:
Part 5.
In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine;
Citations: [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 821], [2017 AIR SC 3869], [2017 AJR 4 408], [2017 ALLMR CRI 3526], [2017 ALLCC 100 927], [2017 ACR 2 2225], [2017 ALT CRL AP 2 393], [2017 ALD CRL SC 2 568], [2017 BOMCR CRI 3 677], [2017 CGLJ 3 573], [2017 CCR SC 3 211], [2017 CTC 4 667], [2017 DMCSC 2 747], [2017 GLH 2 818], [2017 GLR 3 2430], [2017 ILR KER 3 425], [2017 JLJR 3 180], [2017 JCC 3 1919], [2017 KHC 4 163], [2017 KLJ 3 861], [2017 MLJ CRL 3 602], [2017 PLJR 3 240], [2017 RLW SC 3 2266], [2017 RCR CRIMINAL 3 836], [2017 SCALE 8 313], [2017 SCJ 7 94], [2017 UC 3 1601], [2017 WLN SC 3 81], [2018 SCC 10 472], [2019 SCC CRI 1 3012017 SCR 9 529], [2017 GUJ LR 3 2430], [2017 GUJ LH 2 818], [2017 AIC 177 224], [2017 CRIMES 3 268], [2017 ECRN 3 381], [2018 CRI LJ 3593
News Article:
http://www.livelaw.in/breaking-misuse-of-s-498a-sc-directs-to-form-family-welfare-committees-to-examine-each-cases-no-arrests-before-committees-report-read-new-guidelines/
Another SC Judgment discharging the accused u/s 227 of Cr.P.C, as there is no ground to proceed to Trial under IPC 498A.
But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. We are under heavy pressure of work-load. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or ship the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself.
Similar situation arise under Section 239 of the Code (which deals with trial of warrant cases on police report). In that situation the Magistrate has to afford the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard besides considering the police report and the documents sent therewith. At these two State the Code enjoins on the Court to give audience to the accused for deciding whether it is necessary to proceed to the next State. It is a matter of exercise of judicial mind. There is nothing in the code which shrinks the scope of such audience to oral arguments. If the accused succeeds in producing any reliable material at that stage which might fatally affect even the very sustainability of the case, it is unjust to suggest that no such material shall be looked into by the Court at that stage. Here the “ground” may be any valid ground including insufficiency of evidence to prove charge.
Citations: [1
Other Source links:
Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Landmark Judgment on application of the Inherent powers of High Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C to Quash a proceeding as there is inadequate material to sustain the charge of prosecution.
There is no material on the record on which any tribunal could reasonably convict them for any offence connected with the assault on the complainant. This is one of these cases in which a charge of conspiracy is hit upon for the mere reason that evidence of direct involvement of the accused is lacking.
The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a Salutary public purpose which is that a Court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice.
Citations: [AIR 1977 SC 1489], [1977 Cri LJ 1125 (SC)], [(1977) 2 SCC 699], [1977 KARLJ 2 483], [1977 SCC 2 699], [1977 SCR 3 113], [1977 CAR 143], [1977 CRLR 188], [1977 MLJ CRI 1 428], [1977 SCC CR 0 404], [1977 CRILR 0 188], [1977 AIR SC 1498], [1978 CLR 0 39], [1977 SCC CRI 0 404]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/548497/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abc9e4b014971140d547
Here is a list of the Judgments where the accused prayed for discharge u/s 227 Cr.P.C
Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 239 are here. Index of Quash judgments u/s 482 are here.
MASTER SITEMAP here.
Section 227 CrPC allows a court to discharge an accused person if, after examining the case records and hearing both sides, it finds no sufficient ground to proceed with the trial. In such cases, the judge must record reasons and release the accused from the proceedings.
Discharge under Section 227 occurs before the framing of charges in sessions cases. If the court finds that the prosecution materials do not establish a prima facie case, the accused may be discharged instead of being subjected to a full criminal trial.
Courts generally evaluate:
If the material on record does not show sufficient grounds for trial, discharge may be granted.
No. Discharge does not amount to a finding of innocence. It simply means that the court found insufficient material to proceed with the trial at that stage. A final determination of guilt or innocence happens only after a full trial leading to acquittal or conviction.
The key differences are:
An acquittal is a final judgment, whereas discharge only terminates proceedings at a preliminary stage.
No. At the discharge stage, courts only conduct a prima facie assessment of the material on record. They do not undertake a detailed examination of evidence or determine guilt. If there is sufficient suspicion or material supporting the offence, the case proceeds to trial.
The accused person in a criminal case may file a discharge application through counsel. The court then considers the application after hearing both the prosecution and the defence.
If the court finds sufficient grounds to proceed, it will reject the discharge application and move to the next stage of the criminal process—framing of charges under Section 228 CrPC.
Yes. Both the accused and the prosecution can challenge discharge orders before a higher court through revision or appeal, depending on the circumstances and applicable provisions.
The primary objective of Section 227 is to prevent unnecessary criminal trials where the evidence is insufficient. It acts as an important safeguard to protect individuals from frivolous or baseless prosecutions and ensures fairness in criminal proceedings.
Bad Behavior has blocked 1162 access attempts in the last 7 days.
