The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a divorce petition filed by a constable, commending his wife for her remarkable conduct. Abandoned by her husband since 2006, she continued to live with and care for her in-laws, embodying the &ldquo;Hindu ideal of the woman as Shakti, not weak, but powerful in her endurance and grace.&rdquo; The Bench Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi also emphasised marriage as a sanskara, and praised her commitment to marital symbols like mangalsutra and sindoor. With the couple sharing a now-grown son, her actions were deemed rooted in dharma, not cruelty, and the divorce plea was dismissed.
<h3 dir="ltr">Legal Framework: Section 13(1)(ia) and "Cruelty"</h3>
<h4 dir="ltr">What It States</h4>
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for divorce if one spouse treats the other with cruelty, a term not explicitly defined and evolving through judicial interpretation.
<h4 dir="ltr">What Courts Have Held</h4>
<ul>
<li dir="ltr" style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;" aria-level="1">
Cumulative conduct matters: Not isolated irritations but a repeated pattern and total circumstances determine mental cruelty.
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;" aria-level="1">
Mental cruelty recognised by the Supreme Court: Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) listed examples like sustained neglect, denial of conjugal rights without reason, repeated humiliations, and verbal abuse, but clarified that this list isn&rsquo;t exhaustive.
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;" aria-level="1">
Cruelty need not be intentional: Dastane v. Dastane (1975) emphasised that cruelty may occur without intent, and what matters is whether the conduct causes a reasonable apprehension of harm.
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;" aria-level="1">
Mental cruelty includes psychological harm: In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994), the Supreme Court held that the test is whether the conduct causes mental pain so grave that continuing the marriage is intolerable.
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;" aria-level="1">
Contextual and liberal application for wives: The Supreme Court noted that cruelty can differ by scenario, requiring a more flexible approach, especially for women petitioners.
</li>
</ul>
<h4 dir="ltr">Recent High Court Rulings</h4>
<ul>
<li dir="ltr" style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;" aria-level="1">
Baseless allegations as cruelty: The Chhattisgarh HC found unproven adultery claims by a husband amounted to mental cruelty.
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;" aria-level="1">
Mocking disability = mental cruelty: Orissa HC upheld divorce because a wife made repeated derogatory remarks about her husband&rsquo;s physical condition.
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;" aria-level="1">
Long-term separation deemed cruelty: Rajasthan HC ruled that forcing spouses to remain married after a 17-year separation can constitute cruelty on both, justifying divorce.
</li>
</ul>
<h3 dir="ltr">Why the Husband&rsquo;s Petition Was Rejected</h3>
Putting the above legal standards into context here:
<div dir="ltr" align="left">
<table><colgroup><col width="174"><col width="440"></colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
Legal Requirement
</td>
<td>
Court&rsquo;s Findings
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Evidence of cruelty
</td>
<td>
Allegations of lack of intimacy, suspicion of an affair, and drinking were deemed shallow and unsupported.
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Cumulative behavior
</td>
<td>
No pattern of abusive or neglectful behaviour from the wife; instead, evidence of steadfast marital commitment.
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Mental cruelty standard
</td>
<td>
Husband&rsquo;s claims did not inflict intolerable mental agony.
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Cultural and marital symbolism
</td>
<td>
Wife maintained marital symbols and duties, reinforcing commitment.
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Intent or severity
</td>
<td>
Her concerns were private, out of frustration, not intentionally cruel or damaging.
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Overall jurisprudence
</td>
<td>
Aligns with the legal standards requiring substantial, serious conduct causing harm, not rumours or isolated irritations.
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3 dir="ltr">Final Verdict</h3>
Under Section 13(1)(ia), cruelty must be grave, repeated, and impactful. Here, the court found no substantial cruelty, only a wife faithfully honouring her marital obligations. Her example as Shakti culturally and legally earned the court&rsquo;s praise, and rightly so under Indian matrimonial jurisprudence.
&nbsp;

Court rules minor quarrels not 'cruelty' under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act

MP HC Rejects Husband’s Divorce Claim

Court rules minor quarrels not 'cruelty' under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act

August 9, 2025 | 01:30 IST