Spouse Alleging Mental Cruelty Not Required To Explain Reasons Behind Conduct Of Other Party: Bombay High Court

The Court allowed an appeal filed by a husband challenging the dismissal of his divorce petition by the Family Court, which had refused to grant a decree on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Jawalkar and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande observed: “The spouse who approaches the Court on the grounds of mental cruelty is not required to justify or show reasons for the mental cruelty being practised on him or her.”

Senior Advocate F. T. Mirza, with Advocates J. B. Gandhi, Preeti Gwalani & Rozat Akolawale represented the appellant, while Advocate V. H. Goenka appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Background

The parties, both medical professionals, were married in March 2019. The husband alleged that shortly after marriage, the wife displayed erratic, abusive, and impulsive behaviour, including public altercations, threats of self-harm, and repeated verbal abuse.

It was further alleged that the wife had undergone psychiatric consultations and had exhibited unpredictable behaviour during cohabitation, which persisted despite counselling efforts. The husband eventually left the matrimonial home and sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty and unsoundness of mind.

The wife denied the allegations, contending that the husband was domineering and had subjected her to pressure, including forcing her to undergo psychiatric consultations. She further alleged that the husband had circulated defamatory material and initiated proceedings with mala fide intent.

During the course of proceedings, the husband chose not to press the ground of unsoundness of mind and confined his case to cruelty. The Family Court, however, dismissed the petition, holding that cruelty was not established.

Court’s Observation

The High Court found that the Family Court had misdirected itself in law by insisting that the husband must explain the reasons behind the wife’s conduct. It held that such reasoning was legally unsustainable and observed that if such a requirement were accepted, “the entire edifice of the law on mental cruelty would crumble.”

The Court placed significant reliance on WhatsApp messages exchanged between the parties, which were admitted by the wife in her cross-examination. It rejected the finding of the Family Court that such messages were fabricated, holding that once the sender admits having sent the messages, “an admission by the party herself constitutes the best evidence in law.”

The Court further clarified that technical objections regarding admissibility under Section 65B of the Evidence Act were inapplicable in family proceedings, in view of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act.

Rejecting the contention that the ground of cruelty was inseparable from the ground of mental disorder, the Court held that both grounds were distinct and independently maintainable. It observed that the petition contained specific allegations of cruelty, including physical aggression, abusive conduct, and emotional distress, which did not depend upon proof of mental illness.

The Court also rejected the plea of condonation, holding that the parties had been living separately and that subsequent conduct, including apology messages, indicated continuation rather than forgiveness of alleged acts.

Relying on precedents including Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) and Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006), the Court reiterated that mental cruelty must be assessed cumulatively and not by isolating individual incidents. It held that the overall conduct, including abusive behaviour, public altercations, emotional distress, and continued litigation, established mental cruelty.

The Court noted that the wife had not sought restitution of conjugal rights and had initiated multiple proceedings against the husband, which, when viewed cumulatively, indicated a lack of intent to resume cohabitation. It was observed that such conduct, coupled with prolonged separation, reinforced the conclusion that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.

“In the present case, the trial Court fell into precisely this error by requiring corroborative witnesses for incidents of cruelty occurring within the four walls of a matrimonial home. It further erred in demanding that the husband show reasons for the wife's abnormal behaviour and in rejecting admitted WhatsApp messages on technical metadata grounds, all of which constitute an approach that is contrary to the settled position of law”, the Bench concluded.

Conclusion

The High Court held that the findings of the Family Court were legally unsustainable and based on an incorrect appreciation of evidence and settled legal principles.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Family Court, and granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Cause Title: AMB v. SB (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:5200-DB)

Click here to read/download Judgment