Gracykutty vs Joseph

Fathima Beevi, J.—Decree for judicial separation in favour of the husband granted on the ground of cruelty, is attacked by the wife in this appeal. The parties are governed by the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.

The Appellant was married to the Respondent on 10th May 1976. The couple has no issues. The husband moved the Court in 1978 for divorce alleging that the wife was insane at the time of marriage. That application was dismissed in 1981. In the present petition u/s 22 of the Act cruelty is alleged. Allegation is denied by the Respondent. The Court below found that the Petitioner''s case of cruelty is established by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 who were examined. According to the Appellant the various acts alleged are not proved by independent evidence and even if the act alleged is assumed to be true, such conduct of the Appellant would not amount to legal cruelty.

The law is well settled that cruelty as a matrimonial offence has to be determined by taking into account the particular individuals concerned and the particular circumstances of the case rather than by an unalterable standard. Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact. If the, cumulative conduct of the wife towards the husband is such that the husband ought not to be called upon to endure it, the husband is justified in seeking relief on the ground of cruelty. Therefore, in a case where the wife, by reprehensible conduct causes mental stress and tension to husband and frustrates his life, the conduct of the wife amounts to cruelty. An intention by the wife to injure the husband is not necessary. Where the behaviour causes serious and deep impact and injury, to the health and mind leading the husband to desparation, the latter is entitled to approach the Court. Therefore, when it is established that the wife had been using foul And abusive language to the husband, making false and disgusting accusation of Immorality disturbing his mental peace by persistent reprehensible conduct cruelty entitling the husband to seek the relief is clearly made put Vide Gollins v. Gollins 1963 (2) A.E.R. 966 ; Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane, , Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi, and Jyotish Chandra Guha Vs. Sm. Meera Guha, .

In the present case, it has been found that the Appellant had, on several occasions accused the Respondent of having incestuous intimacy with his own sisters, particularly with an unmarried elder sister, that the Appellant had openly made the accusation even in the social circle, made baseless complaints to the vicar, picked up quarrels with the Respondent''s sisters and frequently made imputations of sexual relationship with other ladies, threatened the Respondent and even attempted to use force and ultimately left the matrimonial home. The testimony of P.W. 1 regarding the details of these incidents has found ample corroboration in the testimony of P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5. P.Ws. 4 and 5 are the Respondent''s sisters. P.W. 2 is a priest and P.W. 3 is a near relation of the Respondent. These persons are competent witnesses to speak about what had transpired in the family circle and the course of conduct of the Appellant over the years. Evidence of P.W. 2 the priest who has apparently no axe to grind against the Respondent that the Appellant in the company of her mother did make imputations of immorality on the part of her husband and that she complained about the alleged intimacy of the Respondent with his own sister cannot be brushed aside as biased or self-serving. The evidence is firm that these allegations are false. The very nature of the allegations would suggest that there can be little truth when the wife is persistent in making the accusation that the husband had an affair with any woman he meets whether it be his sister, niece, maid servant or milk vendor. The complaint itself is in very bad taste. When such allegations are made against the person who has six sisters of whom three are nuns, it can naturally cause great mental agony, besides embarrassment and emotional stress in moving about within the family circle. It is conceded that the Appellant had same mental derangement and she had undergone treatment. The abnormal conduct on the part of the Appellant in thus nagging the husband and making wild allegations cannot, however, be explained as innocent and not intended to cause harm or injury to the husband.

The pattern of behaviour generally adopted has its impact on the husband and the injury caused whether physical or mental is the matter for concern. When that conduct is a menace to the peace and welbeing of the household the outrageous accusation persistently made could create an unwholesome atmosphere in the matrimonial home. The husband cannot be called upon to endure the same. We are, therefore, of the view that the behaviour and conduct of the Appellant had been proved to be such that the Respondent could not endure it any longer and such conduct amounted to cruelty enabling the Respondent to seek a decree of judicial separation. The learned Judge was right in having accepted the case of the Respondent and passing a decree in his favour.

The appeal, therefore, fails. It is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.