Even though the Supreme Court today concluded that there cannot be a comprehensive definition of “mental cruelty” and courts should not even attempt to give one, it also held “unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have a child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.”

The three-judge Bench headed by Justice B N Agrawal said one-sided decision of refusal to have intercourse for a considerable period without there being any physical incapacity may also amount to mental cruelty. While giving an indicative list of instances where certain acts could be construed as mental cruelty and become a ground enough for divorce, the Bench, however, acknowledged that concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and several other factors. It also agreed that the concept “cannot remain static, it is bound to change with passage of time.”

While strongly holding that there “cannot be a straightjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters,” the Apex Court laid down “some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with cases of mental cruelty.”

It held “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 other spouse absolutely intolerable,” will surely come into category of cruelty.

As the Bench, also comprising Justices P P Naolekar and Dalveer Bhandari, set aside an earlier decision of the High Court in the present case, it observed: “This is a clear case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In our considered view, it is impossible to preserve or save the marriage. Any further, effort to keep it alive would prove to be totally counter-productive.” The decision terminates the 22-year-old matrimonial bond between two IAS officers of the West Bengal cadre who had been living separately for over 16 years.

... contd.