PTI

New Delhi, Mar 22: The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that indifference and frigidity towards wife and sexual abstinence constitute mental cruelty and could be valid grounds for divorce.

"The general rule in all questions of cruelty is that the whole matrimonial relations must be considered. That rule is of special value when the cruelty consists of not violent acts but of injurious reproaches, complains, accusations or taunts,” the court said.

"The cruelty may be mental in nature such as indifference and frigidity towards wife, denial of a company to her, hatred and abhorrence for wife or physical, like acts of violence and abstinence from sexual intercourse without reasonable cause," a Bench of Justice Ruma Pal and Justice A R Lakshmanan said.

The verdict came on a petition by a woman seeking divorce on grounds of mental and physical cruelty and insanity.

Among the grounds, it was contended that non-consummation of the marriage itself would constitute mental cruelty to a married woman.

"Where the parties are young and the mental disorder is of such a type that sexual act and procreation of children is not possible, it may furnish a good ground for nullifying the marriage because to beget children from a Hindu wedlock is one of the principal aims of a Hindu marriage where sanskar of marriage is advised for progeny and offspring," Justice AR Lashmanan, writing the judgement for the bench, said.

The woman, who was married in 1993, had sought divorce a year after her wedding alleging that her husband was suffering from schizophrenia and was incapable of performing his matrimonial obligations.

She had submitted that her marriage lasted only for five months and that from the first day itself, her mother-in-law treated her cruelly, both mentally and physically, because of her husband's mental disorder.

The lower court and Delhi High Court had dismissed her petition holding that her husband was not suffering from schizophrenia and that there was insufficient material on record to establish the cause of cruelty. The courts had held that the incidents of cruelty were not as grave so as to be included within the scope of concept of cruelty.

Setting aside the verdict of trial court and High Court, the Bench said "the trial court failed to appreciate the uncontroverted evidence of the appellant (woman) who had proved the case on every count.

"It has been established beyond doubt by the doctors who had deposed as witnesses and brought original medical record of the respondent (husband) that he is suffering from mental disorder."

Holding that grant of divorce on the plea of mental insanity and mental disorder is different than cruelty, the Bench said "the appellant (woman), in our view, had proved beyond doubt that the respondent (husband) suffered from mental disorder and that the appellant suffered cruelty by and at the behest of the husband".