SAMAR GHOSH VS JAYA GHOSH

 

SAMAR GHOSH VS JAYA GHOSH (2007) 4 SCC 511

JUDGES\BENCH:

1.      B.N. Agrawal

2.       P.P. Naolekar

3.      Dalveer Bhandari

INTRODUCTION:

The appellant and the respondent were married on 13.12.1984 at Calcutta under the Special marriage Act, 1954. Both were senior ‘IAS’ officials. The respondent was a divorcee and had a female child from her first marriage and the custody of the said child was given to her. Soon after the marriage, she had also unilaterally decided to not to give birth to a child for two years and did not allow the appellant to talk to her child. After one year of the marriage, the appellant suffered prolonged illness and the respondent left him alone and went to Bareilly where her brother was working. There was no one to look after him in Calcutta, their residential place. After two years appellant was transferred from Calcutta, so respondent alone was living over there. But, due to health conditions, the appellant was again transferred to Calcutta. Then they again started living together and the appellant tried to build good relations between them.

At their residential place in Calcutta, one servant cum cook was also lived with them, but when he left the place, the appellant had to take his meal from outside as the respondent used to come to the home and prepared food for her only. After that, there was one incident took place where the respondent shouted at the appellant in front of his servant and according to that, the appellant felt insulted and humiliated. From then, they have been living separately.

FACTS:

1.      Respondent’s refusal to cohabit with the appellant.

2.      Respondent’s unilateral decision not to have children after the marriage and she did not allow it to have any connection with daughter.

3.      Respondent’s act of humiliating the appellant and virtually turning him out of the Minto park Apartment. The appellant in fact had taken shelter with his friend and he stayed there till official accommodation was allotted to him.

4.      Respondent’s going to the flat and cooking only for herself and the appellant was forced to either eat out or cook his own meals.

5.      The respondent did not take care of the appellant during his prolonged illness in 1985 and never enquired about his health even when he underwent the bye-pass surgery in 1993.

6.      The respondent also humiliated and had driven out the loyal servant-cum-cook of the appellant, Prabir Malik.

ISSUES:

1.      Whether the Respondent guilty of cruelty as alleged?

2.      Whether the petitioner entitled to decree of divorced as claimed?

3.      Whether High Court justified in reversing decree of trial court?

JUDGEMENT:

On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments, the Supreme court of India came to the definite conclusion that –

No uniform standard can ever be laid down for determining mental cruelty

“There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in a matrimonial matter. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life happening in day to day life are not adequate for grant of divorce.”

However, The court has referred following instances as Mental Cruelty such as the unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for a considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty and the unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have a child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage

The court also observed that parties have admittedly lived separately for more than sixteen and half years, the irresistible conclusion would be that matrimonial bond has been ruptured beyond repair because of the mental cruelty caused by the respondent.

Further, the court has also added that the event where appellant was seriously ill and neither the respondent nor her father or any member of her family bothered to enquire about the health of the appellant even on the telephone. This instance is illustrative of the fact that now the parties have no emotions, sentiments or feelings for each other. This is a clear case of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. In the considered view of the court, it is impossible to preserve or save the marriage.

Conclusion:

In this case, the concept of mental cruelty has been deeply explained by the apex court through various precedents. It has been widely accepted by the court that mental cruelty can’t be defined as it has to be determined in the context of facts and circumstances. Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of others for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.

In addition to that, the court added certain instances which might amount to mental cruelty such as unilateral decision of spouse to not to have children and the unilateral decision to deny to have intercourse for considerable period.

Further, the court has established that “Parties living separately for a sufficient length of time and filing of the petition for divorce carries the presumption that marriage has broken down. There is clear irretrievable breakdown of marriage as observed by the court though there is no statutory law for recognizing irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce in India. But Supreme Court can invoke its inherent powers under Article 142 to grant a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Therefore, The court has rightly observed that “It is the well-recognized proposition that neither inclusive nor exclusive definition of Mental cruelty can be given, and even the courts have not attempted to do so, but generally content themselves with determining whether the facts in the particular case in question constitute cruelty or not”.