Failure to prove allegation that mother-in-law is mentally ill will not amount to mental cruelty: Calcutta High Court [Read Judgment]

Calcutta: The Calcutta High Court recently reiterated that an allegation of mental illness of a spouse’s mother per se would not constitute an act of mental cruelty.

Relying on the Supreme Court decision Ramchander vs Ananta, the Court observed that,

“We take judicial notice of the fact that family members of a large number of people suffering with mental illness are averse to accept the existence of mental illness, nurturing a baseless fear of social stigma. Such misplaced common notions cannot be accepted by the Court to hold that an allegation of mental illness of the petitioner/ appellant’s mother per se would constitute an act of mental cruelty. Mere failure to prove the allegation of mental illness, cannot be considered as an act of mental cruelty, as has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Ramchander vs. Ananta reported in (2015) 11 SCC 539.”

With this, the Court added that,

“In so far as the element of mental cruelty, the petitioner/ appellant has alleged the same as a consequence of the averments made by the respondent in her response regarding the petitioner/ appellant’s mother suffering with mental illness. The issue of mental illness has not been established or proved with any material in the trial. Such allegation, per se cannot be viewed to constitute an act of mental cruelty.”

The petitioner husband had alleged that the wife had committed acts of 'mental cruelty' by alleging that the petitioner's mother had a mental illness, misbehaving with her in-laws. It was further contended that the deserted the petitioner by taking away their daughter and leaving the matrimonial home.

The petitioner contended that the respondent had started misbehaving against him and his parents within days of their marriage and had often left the marital residence without consent. It was argued that she refused to change her methods, often used derogatory language, and ignored the petitioner's parents when he was gone. 

On the other hand, the respondent contended that there wasn't enough space in the married residence. She stated that she stayed at her father's house to better care for her little daughter and to make it easier for her to attend to her work as a teacher. It was stated that once the daughter turned two years, she went back to her husband's home. However, because of more problems, she continued to live with her parents and only visited her married home on holidays or special occasions.

With regard to physical cruelty based on allegations of use of abusive language and assault upon the petitioner, and his parents, the Court already recorded a finding that in absence of any corroborative material, it can’t be accepted. 

With regard to the allegation of dissertation, the Court noted that there was no material to prove that the petitioner had objected to the respondent residing with her parents, and so, a case for desertion was not made out.

The Court then set aside that portion of the Trial Court which granted the husband a decree of judicial separation instead of divorce.

[Read Judgment]