Unfounded allegations of infidelity and character assassination constitute mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The respondent-wife sought divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging that the appellant-husband had abused her, suspected her of infidelity because she worked with male colleagues, assaulted her, exploited her financially and neglected her during illness

The husband denied the allegations but admitted the marriage and their prior relationship.

The wife and her mother testified at trial; the husband adduced no evidence. The trial court granted a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia). The husband appealed under Section 28 of the Act.

Whether the wife proved that the husband had treated her with cruelty so as to warrant divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Whether the trial court’s decree of divorce disclosed any error warranting appellate interference

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 permits divorce where a spouse has treated the petitioner with cruelty; cruelty may be physical or mental.

In matrimonial proceedings, the petitioner must establish the allegations on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

The respondent cited Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326, and other authorities; the judgment’s stated reasoning applies the statutory test and the preponderance-of-probability standard.

The High Court found that the wife’s testimony about the husband’s suspicion of her character and his relationship with another woman remained unshaken in cross-examination.

It considered that allegations of cruelty within the matrimonial home did not necessarily require corroboration by an independent witness and found no basis to discard her testimony merely because documentary evidence was lacking.

The court also considered the cumulative circumstances, including character assassination, alleged economic exploitation, neglect during illness and the husband’s relationship with another woman, and concluded that the evidence established mental cruelty on the required standard.

The parties’ prolonged separation and absence of prospects for reconciliation were also noted.

It dismissed the appeal, vacated the stay of the divorce decree, and directed the parties to bear their own costs.