‘Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear not grounds for divorce’: Telangana High Court

The bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B R Madhusudhan Rao, in their judgment dated August 20, stated that mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The judgment affirmed the lower court’s finding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to dissolve his marriage.

The man claimed that his wife’s “abusive and sadistic behaviour”, including constant nagging about his income and professional status, constituted mental cruelty. He claimed that this distress led him to leave home in October 2019, six years after their love marriage. On the contrary, the wife refuted all allegations and contended that the husband’s actions were a pretext for an illicit relationship with a woman colleague.

The court discussed that cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It noted that cruelty is a matter to be determined in each case, having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case, and if it is a case of accusations and allegations, then the context in which they were made also has to be considered. It stated that matrimonial cases before the courts pose a different challenge, “quite unlike any other, as we are dealing with human relationships with its bundle of emotions, with all its faults and frailties. It is not possible in every case to pinpoint to an act of ‘cruelty’ or blameworthy conduct of the spouse.”

The judgment stated: “The Court should bear in mind the physical and mental condition of the parties as well as their social status and should consider the impact of the personality and conduct of one spouse on the mind of the other, weighing all incidents and quarrels between the spouses from that point of view.”

In its ruling, the bench emphasised that the burden of proof for mental cruelty rests with the petitioner. The court found that the appellant’s evidence, including his own testimony and that of his parents, did not credibly establish a level of cruelty that would make it impossible to live together. It was also noted that the man’s claims of verbal abuse were not included in his original petition.