Unsubstantiated allegations of an illicit relationship made to Army superiors constitute mental cruelty.

The parties married on 23.04.2002 and had two children. The husband filed a petition under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging that the wife subjected him and his family to cruelty, lodged false complaints and criminal proceedings, insisted on separate residence, and deserted him.

The wife denied the allegations and alleged that the husband had avoided cohabitation and had otherwise treated her cruelly.

The Family Court allowed the petition and dissolved the marriage on the ground of cruelty.

During the appeal, mediation failed.

The High Court found that the allegations of quarrelling, abuse, and false criminal complaints were not sufficiently proved; however, the wife admitted lodging complaints with the husband’s Army superiors alleging that he had an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law, and those allegations remained unsubstantiated.

Whether the wife’s unsubstantiated allegations of an illicit relationship against the husband, communicated to his Army superiors, constituted mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Whether the husband had established desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Whether the appellant’s application for enhancement and realization of maintenance was maintainable before the High Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court applied Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, under which treatment with cruelty constitutes a ground for divorce, and Section 13(1)(i-b), which requires desertion for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding presentation of the divorce petition.

Mental cruelty is conduct causing such mental pain and suffering that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together, assessed in the circumstances of each case: V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat, AIR 1994 SC 710; G.V.N. Kameswara Rao v. G. Jabilli, AIR 2002 SC 576; and Maya Devi v. Jagdish Prasad, AIR 2007 SC 1426.

Unfounded defamatory allegations, including allegations of adultery or illicit relationships made in complaints or pleadings, may constitute mental cruelty: K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226; Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742; and Narendra v. K. Meena, 2016 (4) Civil Court Cases 414 (SC).

Admissions are substantive evidence and may shift the evidentiary burden: Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi, AIR 1966 SC 405, and Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam, (1974) 1 SCC 242.

Mere registration of criminal complaints does not, by itself, constitute cruelty unless falsity, malice, or lack of justification is established.

Alteration or enhancement of maintenance is ordinarily to be sought under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the court of first instance, and Section 151 CPC cannot be used to bypass that statutory remedy.

The Court held that the husband failed to prove, through specific and corroborated evidence, the allegations that the wife habitually quarrelled, abused him, or lodged false criminal cases; the evidence of his supporting witness did not corroborate those allegations.

Nevertheless, the wife admitted lodging complaints with the husband’s Army superiors, and her brother also confirmed that the complaints alleged an illicit relationship between the husband and his sister-in-law.

Since the wife did not substantiate these serious allegations, which directly attacked the husband’s character, marital fidelity, professional reputation, and standing in the armed forces, the Court treated them as grave mental cruelty under the principles in Joydeep Majumdar, Narendra, and K. Srinivas Rao.

The desertion ground, however, was not made out because the parties allegedly last lived together in July 2011, whereas the divorce petition was filed on 21.05.2013; the statutory two-year period had therefore not elapsed.

The maintenance application was not maintainable directly before the High Court because the statutory remedy under Section 127 CrPC had not first been pursued before the Family Court; alternatively, any application under Section 24 HMA had become infructuous upon disposal of the appeal.

It held that the wife’s unsubstantiated allegations of an illicit relationship, communicated to the husband’s Army superiors, constituted grave mental cruelty.

The husband’s plea of desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b) was held unavailable for want of the requisite two-year period.

The application for enhancement and realization of maintenance was disposed of as not maintainable before the High Court, or alternatively infructuous in view of the disposal of the main appeal.