New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that non-consummation itself would constitute mental and physical cruelty to a married woman and would be a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) 1955. Granting divorce to a woman, a Bench consisting of Justices Ruma Pal and A.R. Lakshmanan said: ``Spouses owe rights and duties to each other and in their relationship they must act reasonably."

Writing the judgment, Mr. Justice Lakshmanan said mental cruelty could cause even more serious injury than physical harm to the married woman.

The Bench said: ``Under Section 13 (1) (iii) mental disorder as a ground for divorce is only where it is of such a kind and degree that the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. Where the parties are young and the mental disorder is of such a type that sexual act and procreation are not possible, it may furnish a good ground for nullifying the marriage because begetting children is one of the principal aims of Hindu marriage where "sanskar" is advised for progeny and offspring.''

The Bench said: ``The general rule in all questions of cruelty is that the whole matrimonial relations must be considered, that rule is of a special value when cruelty consists of not violent acts but of injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts. It may be mental such as indifference and frigidity towards wife, denial of company and abhorrence, or physical, like acts of violence and abstinence from sexual intercourse without reasonable cause.''

Vinita Saxena was married to Pankaj Pandit in keeping with Hindu rites and customs in February 1993. She found that her husband was suffering from schizophrenia and the marriage was not consummated. He was not in a position to perform his matrimonial obligations. According to her, her mother-in-law drove her out after five months and she was not permitted to return again.

Ms. Saxena filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 (1)(1-a) and (iii) of the HMA on the ground of cruelty as well mental disorder. Both the trial court and the Delhi High Court rejected her plea.

Miscarriage of justice

Allowing her appeal, the Supreme Court held that their orders resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice to the woman, who had been constrained to live with a dead relationship for over 13 years. This was a fit case for freeing her from the shackles of the respondent-husband and let her live her own life as a human being.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail