VIDHYA VISWANATHANversusKARTIK BALAKRISHNAN

                     [2014] 7 S.C.R. 1164

A                     VIDHYA VISWANATHAN
                                  v.
                     KARTIK BALAKRISHNAN
                  (Civil Appeal No. 9036 of 20~4)

B                     SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 ·
          [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
                 PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]

        Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - ss.13(1)(ia) and 25 - Divorce
C - On ground of cruelty - Mental cruelty - Divorce petition filed
  by respondent-husband dismissed by trial court - But allowed
  by High Court - Propriety - Held: Respondent-husband in his
  evidence narrated in detail, the incidents of alleged cruelty
  suffered by him - He was subjected to lengthy cross-
D examination but nothing came out which created doubt in his
  testimony - Appellant-wife denied allegations made by
  respondent-husband but in cross-examination she admitted
  that the marriage was not consummated - Not allowing a
  spouse for a Jong time, to have sexual intercourse by his or
E her psrtner, without sufficient reason, itself amounts to mental
  cruelty to such spouse - Illustrations of mental cruelty
  enumerated by Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh case, viz.
  illustrations No. (viii) and (xii), support the view taken by the
  High Court that respondent-wife treated her husband with
F mental cruelty - Divorce decree granted by High Court
  affirmed with further direction uls. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act
           4
  that the respondent shall pay to the appellant Rs.40 /akhs as
  a /umpsum amount of permanent alimony - Family Courts
  Act, 1986 - s.19.
G       Disposing of the appeal, the Court

         HELD:1. On going through the evidence on record,
    it is clear that the husband (petitioner before the trial
    court), in his evidence has narrated in detail, the incidents
H                                1164
  VIDHYA VISWANATHAN v. KARTIK BALAKRISHNAN               1165


of alleged cruelty suffered by him. P.W.1 (husband) was            A
subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing has
come out which creates doubt in his testimony. [Para 9]
[1168-H; 1169-A; 1171-G]

    2. The appellant had also filed her evidence before
                                                                   8
the trial court, in the form of affidavit, and she also got
herself cross-examined as D.W.1. She denied the
allegations ma~e by her husband but in cross-
examination she admits that the marriage was. not
consummated. [Para 1O] [1171-H; 1172-A-B]
                                                                   c
    3. Not allowing a spouse for a long time, to have
sexual intercourse by his or her partner, without sufficient
reason, itself amounts mental cruelty to such spouse. A
Bench of Three Judges of this Court in Samar Ghosh
case has enumerated some of the illustrations of mental            D
cruelty. The illustrations, No. (viii) .and (xii) given in Samar
Ghosh case, support the view taken by the High Court
in holding that in the present case the wife has treated
her husband with mental cruelty. [Para 12) [1173-C-D]
                                                                   E
     Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511: 2007
(4) SCR 428 and Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit (2006) 3
SCC 778: 2006 (3) SCR 116 ·relied on.

     4. In the case at hand, there is no ground to interfere
with the decree of divorce passed by the High Court on F
the ground of cruelty. However, the appellant, as stated
by her, was doing a job before her marriage, and she has
stated as D.W.1 that at present she is not doing any work.
As such it is just and proper to direct the respondent to
pay to the appellant (wife) one time lump sum amount of G
alimony. In the facts and circumstances of the case
keeping in mind the economic status of the parties, a
direction to the respondent to pay Rs.40 lakhs (Rupees
forty lakhs only) as one time alimony to the appellant,
would meet the ends of justice. [Para 14) [1176-D-F]         H
    1166    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A      5. Tile decree of divorce granted by the High Court
  dissolvilng the marriage between the parties is
  accordi!1gly affirmed, with further direction under Section
  25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that the respondent
  shall pay to the appellant Rs.40 lakhs (Rupees forty lakhs
8 only) as a lump sum amount of permanent alimony. [Para
  15] [1176-F -G]
                         Case Law Reference:
        2007 (4) SCR 428          Relied on             Para 12
c       2006 (3) SCR 116          Relied on·            Para 13
         CIVIL APP ELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9036
    of 2014
      From the Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2012 of the.
D High Court Of Judicature at Madras in CMA No.2862 of 2011.
         R. Balasubramanian, B. Karunakaran, S.Usha Reddy for
    the Appellant.
      Ranjit Kumar, S.G., Zoheb Hossain, Rauf Rahim for the
E Respondent.
        The Judgment of the_Court was delivered by
        PRAFULLA C.PA~T, J. 1. Leave granted.
         2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
-   dated 13.2.2012 passed in CMA No.2862 of 2011 by the High
    Court of Judicature at Madras whereby the said Court has
    allowed the appeal filed by the husband ynder Section 19 of
    Family Courts Act, 1986, and dissolved the marriage between
    the parties.
        3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Vidhya
    Viswanathan got married to the respondent, Karthik
    Balakrishnan on 6.4.2005 in Chennai following the Hindu rites.
    After the marriage, the couple went to London where the
    respondent (husband) was working, and they lived there for some
    VIDHYA VISWANATHAN v. KARTIK BALAKRISHNAN                1167
              ·[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]
 eight months .. In December, 2005, the appellant and the A
 respondent came back to India. However, the appellant went back
 to England all alone, and his wife did not go there though her
 husband had purchased a return ticket for her. On 13.9.2008,
 the husband filed a petition under-Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu
 Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage. It is pleaded by B
.the"respondent (husband) that while the appellant was with him
 in London, she used to insult him. It is alleged by him that at times
 she used to get violent and hysterical. Th·e husband further
 pleaded that even after his best efforts, the appell~rnf did not
 allow him to consummate the marriage. It i~ further statta that in .C
 November, 2005 i.e. about seven months after the marriage the
 wife ( the present appellant) fell sick, and she was talten to a
 Medical Specialist who diagnosed that she was suffering from
 tuberculosis. According to the husband, he provided the best
 possible treatment to his wife. After the couple came back to India D
 in December, 2005, the wife stayed back in Chennai and
 continued her treatment. It is alleged by the present respondent
 (husband) that his wife used to send him e-mails which were
 derogatory and in bad taste. It is also alleged by the respondent .
 that his wife refused to join his company even after his best efforts:
 With the above pleadings, the present respondent filed a petition E
 for divorce before the Family Court, Chennai on the ground of
 cruelty.
         4. The appellant contested the divorce p~tition, and filed her
  written statement. She denied the allegations made against her. F
  She stated that she went with her husband to London with great
  expectations. She alleged that her husband and his mother did
  not treat her well. She admitted that she came back with her
. husband to India in December, 2005. She further pleaded that
  though the respondent purchased the return ticket for her but he
  himself instructed not to return to England without his permission. G
  It is also stated by her that marriage could not be consummated
  for the reason that her husband wanted to have children after one
  or two years of marriage. She did not deny having sent e-mails
  but stated that she only responded to the respondent as he
                                                                     H
    1168      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A wanted divorce decree based on her consent. She admitted that
  she received legal notice from her husband but stated that the
  allegations therein are false. She prayed for. counter-claim
  directing the respondent to restore the conjugal rights between
  the parties.
B      5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court
    framed the following issues:
         11
          (1) Whether the petitioner/husband is entitled for divorce
         on the ground of cruelty?
C        (2) Whether the respondent/ wife is entitled for conjugal
         rights as prayed for in the counter claim? 11
       6. The parties led their oral and documentary evid.ence
  before the trial court. The First Additional Family Court at
  Chennai, after hearing the parties vide its judgment and ord.:ir
D dated 11.8.2011, dismissed the petition for divorce, and allowed
  the counter-claim of the wife. Aggrieved by said judgment and
  order the husband (Karthik Balakrishnan) filed an appeal (CMA
  No.2862 of 2011 with M.P.No.1of2011) before the High Court.
  The High Court after hearing the parties allowed the appeal, and
E set aside the judgment and order dated 11.8.2011 passed by
  the trial court. The High Court allowed the divorce petition, and
  dissolved the marriage between the parties. Hence, this appeal
  with special leave petition before this Court.
F       7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and
    perused the papers on record.
       8. Admittedly, the appellant got married to respondent on
  6.4.2005. It is also admitted that there is no issue born out of the
  wedlock. This Court has now to examine whetper the High Court
G has rightly come to the conclusion or not that the husband was
  treated with cruelty by the wife, if so, is he entitled to decree of
  divorce.
        9. On going through the evidence on record, we find that the
    husband (petitioner before the lrial court), in his evidence has
H
   VIDHYA VISWANATHAN v. KARTIK BALAKRISHNAN                   1169
              [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

narrated in detail, the incidents of alleged cruelty suffered by him.   A
The relevant paragraphs from the statement of the husband are
being reproduced below:
      "(7) ...... the marriage was solemnized on April 6th 2005,
      as stated above. But quite surprisingly, the respondent was
      very moc.dy did not speak at all throughout the wedding day. B
      The respon~ent was not even interested to pose for
    . photographs, along with me. What more worried me was
      that even for wedding lunch, the respondent had to be
      convinced to sit next to me to have lunch. Initially thought that
      this was because she was put in a new atmosphere. C
      However, I could not realize that the respondent was not
      interested either in my self or the marriage itself.
     )()(           xx              xx                 xx
     (8) ...... inspite of the above odd things, I was able to get a 0
     visa to UK for the respondent. I further submit that I had
     made extensive arrangements for the Honey moon to
     Scotland. Even during the Honeymoon, the respondent was
     very moody, emotionless and abnormally quiet. I was at loss
     to understand as to what was hovering around in her mind. E
     However, I was very patiently waiting on the fond hope that
     things would become normal in due course. However, all my
     dreams to lead a very happy married life with the respondent ·
     were shattered by the intolerable behaviour of the
     respondent. I further submit that after returning from Scotland F
     to London, I took the respondent to various places so as to
     make her to becbme a normal woman, but was taken aback
     by her sarcastic rerriarks about the London city itself. The
     respondent was very lethargic, disinterested and showering
     tack of interest in any of the events. Only thereafter, I stared
     thinking that the respondent was not interested in G
     solemnizing t.he marriage itself.
                                    xx                 xx
     (9) ........ bet\'veen April, 2005 to December 2005, I could
                                                                        H
    1170    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014) 7 S.C.R.

A      infer that the respondent was always moody, throwing
       tantrums, showing faces openly, showing anger and hatred
       insulting me when my self and the respondent were alone
       and in front others. The respondent reacted violently by
       getting aggressive and making sarcast remarks or locking
B      herself in the room and stopped talking for days together
       without any reason. When I questioned about the same, the
       respondent used to get even more aggressive and shout
       hysterically and thereafter would start crying. This behaviour
       became more and more frequent over the time and made
c      it impossible to handle the respondent during such violent
       outbursts of anger and hatred. The respondent was totally
       unapproachable and this left me with a deep sense of
       anguish and material agony. The attitude of the respondent
       was becoming worse day by day, resulted in pulling of the
       days with the respondent became a nightmare.
D
       xx            xx               xx                xx
       (10) .............. the respondent did not show any intention at
       all in consummating the marriage. The respondent evinced
       no interest in having physical contact with me. A times, I
E      myself had tried to have sexual relationship with the
       respondent as a normal husband would do. However, since
       the respondent showed no intention, I convinced myself that
       she would mend her ways. However, there was no attitudinal
       changes in her life.
F
       xx            xx               xx                xx
       (13) ............ the respondent deliberately used to wake me
       up rudely sometimes by even kicking me when I was asleep
       and used to ask me to talk to her saying that she was getting
G      bored. Without minding the respondent's abominable
       attitude, I would try to encourage the respondent as possible
       as I could. Further, the respondent used to bang her head
       against the walls of the bedroom for no reason and when I
       asked the reason the respondent would deliberately remain
H      silent, having me spending sleepless nights. T~is has
  VIDHYA VISWANATHAN v. KARTIK BALAKRISHNAN 1171
             [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

   .caused great mental agony and torture to me when there A
   was no fault on me.
   )0(           xx             )0(              )0(

   (17) ..._,, .....during November 2005, the respondent fell sick
   with high fever. Despite the adamancy, not to take treatment, 8
   I took the respondent to a leading specialist who diagnosed
   that the respondent suffered from Tuberculosis and got-
   months antibiotic course started in London ....... .
        .,
   lOC .•        xx             )0(               )0(


   (1 B): ..•.•.•••. In December 2005, I came down to Chennai
                                                                c
   with the respondent, took her to my family doctor, who
   referred the respondent to a top TB specialist. The doctor
   at Chennai also opined the same as that of the doctor in
   London and advised the respondent to continue with the
   antibiotic prescribed by the doctor in London.             D
   )0(             xx           )0(               )0(


    (19) ................. 1 came back to London, after buying a
    return flight ticket to the respondent from .Chennai to . E
    London for July 2006, presuming that the TB treatment at -
    Chennai for the respondent would be completed by this
    time.

    )0(            xx           )0(               )0(
                                                                  F
    (20) ............ even though, I was in London, I used to get
    in touch with the respondent and used to send emails on
    the fond hope that my unconditional love would make the
    respondent change her mind and behaviour and make her
    correct herself. However, the respondent continued to act G
    irritationally and showed anger in all the telephone calls by
    slamming down the receiver''.
     P.W.1 Karthik Balakrishnan (husband) who made above
statement, was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but
                                                                 H
    1172        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A nothing has come out which creates doubt in his testimony.
       10. The appellant Vidhya Viswanathan had also filed her
  evidence before the trial court, in the form of affidavit, and she
  also got herself cross-examined as D.W.1. She denied the
  allegations made by her husband but incross-examination she
8 admits that the marriage was not consummated. The relevant
  portion from her cross-examination is being reproduced below:
           " ...... It is wrong to state that normally I used to hit the
           petitioner by my legs and wake him up and that I used to
           throw the objects on the petitioner and that through this I had
c          harassed the petitioner physically and mentally. If it is asked
           that whether the marriage was consummated, no it is not.
           The petitioner said that we can beget the child after one or
           two years. I and the petitioner were close. As the petitioner
           joined the new job he was under stress and tension. The
D          petitioner had thyroid infection frequently. The· petitioner
           said that the starting of the matrimonial life shall be post-
           poned. It was not taken as· an issue. After 8 months of the
            marriage, I became ill. Hence, I came to Chennai. It is wrong
           to state that there is no connection between thyroid infection,
E           and the physical relationship and that I am adducing falsely.
           xx    xx                          xx    xx
           My passport is lying with me. It is correct to state that in the
           passport, a seal is made for visa. If it is asked when my U.K.
F          visa would expire, it is for 5 years.
           xx    xx                        xx                  xx
           Before my husband could file this case, I did not ftle any case
           for the restitution of conjugal rights. It is wrong to state that
G          as I had no intention to live together, I did not file such a case.
           "
         11.The High Court while rejecting the explanation given by
    the wife as to why the marriage was not consummated observed
    as under:
H
  VIDHYAVISWANATHAN v. KARTIK BALAKRISHNAN                  1173
            [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

    " 44. It has to be further pointed out that while P .W.1 was A
    cross examined by the respondent, it has not been
    suggested to P.W.1 that he suggested to the respondent
    that they should have a child only after two years. Thus it
    appears that this explanation of the respondent for non
    consummation of the marriage is only ~n afterthought. Even 8
    assumi~g for a moment that the appellant wanted to have a
    child only after two years that does not mean that the
    appellant and the respondent cannot and should not have
    sexual intercourse. Admittedly, both of theni are well
     educated and there are so many contraceptives available          c
     and they could have used such contraceptives and avoided,
     pregnancy if they had wanted. Xx xx."
     12. Undoubtedly, not allowing a spouse for a long time, to
have sexual intercourse by his or her partner, without sufficient
reason, itself amounts mental cruelty to such spouse. A Bench         D
of Three Judges of this Court in Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh
(2007) 4 sec    511 has enumerated some of the illustrations of
mental cruelty. Paragraph 101 of the said case is being
reproduced below:
    "101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for               E
    guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some
    instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in
    dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty". The instances
    indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative
    and not exhaustive:                                               F
     (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the
     parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not
     make possible for the parties to live with each other could
     come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
                                                                      G
     (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial
     life oflhe parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation
     is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked
     to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other
     party.                                                           H
    1174    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A      (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to
       cruelty, frequent rudeness of tanguage, petulance of
       manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree
       that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely
       intolerable.
B
       (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep
       anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused
       by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental
       cruelty.
c      (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment
       calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life
       of the spouse.
       (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one
       spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the
D      other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant
       danger or apprehension must be very grave, su_bstantial
       and weighty.
       (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect,
       indifference or total departure from the normal standard of
E      conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving
       sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
       (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy,
       selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness
F      and dissatisfaction and emotion~! upset may not be a
       ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
       (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear
       of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would
       not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental
G      cruelty.
      (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a
      few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount
      to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly
      lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to
H     an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a
   VIDHYAVISWANATHAN v. KARTIK BALAKRISHNAN 1175
             [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]
     spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live A
     with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
     (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of
     sterilisation without medical reasons and without the
     consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife
     undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason 8
     or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such
     an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
     (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for
     considerable period without there being any physical C
     incapacity or valid reason niay amount to mental cruelty.
     (xiii) Unilateral deci~ion of either husband or wife after
     marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount
     tci cruelty.
     xx            xx              xx                xx               D
      The above mentioned illustrations, No. (viii) and (xii)'given
 in Samar Ghosh case (supra), support the view taken by the High
 Court in holding that in the present case the wife has treated her
1
 husband with mental cruelty.                        ,
                                                                      E
     13. In Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit (2006), 3 SCC 778
regarding legal proposition on aspect of cruelty has made the
following observations:
     "31. It is settled by a catena otde~ions that mental cruelty
     can cause even more serious injury,than the physical harm F·
     and create in the mind of the inju'ie'd appellant such
     apprehension as is contemplated in the section. It is to be
     determined on whole facts of the case and the matrimonial
     relations between the spouses. To amount to cruelty, there
     must be such wilful treatment of the party which caused G
     suffering in body or mind either as an actual fact or by way
     of apprehension in such a manner as to ~ender the continued
     living together of spouses harmful or injurious having regard
     to the circumstances of the case.
     32. The word "cruelty" h~s not been defined.and it has been Ji
    1176    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A
       used in relation to human conduct or human be~aviour. It is
       the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties
       and obligations. It is a course of conduct and one which is
       adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or
       physical, intentional or unintentional. There may be cases
B      where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and
       per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the _injurious
       effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or
       considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if
       the conduct itself is proved or adm.itted."
c       14. In view of the above principle of law laid down by this
  Court, and having considered the submissions of parties, and
 .the evidence on record, we do not find any ground to interfere
  with the decree of divorce passed by the High Court on the ground
  of cruelty. However, we are conscious of the fact that the
D appellant as stated by her, was doing a job before her marriage,
  and she (Vidhya Vishwanathan) has stated as D.W.1 that at
  present she is not doing any work. As such we think it just and
  proper to direct the respondent to pay to the appellant (wife) one
  time lump sum amount of alimony. We are of the view that in the
E facts and circumstances of the case keeping in mind the
  economic status of the parties, a direction to the respondent to
  pay Rs.40 lakhs (Rupees forty lakhs only) as one time alimony
  to the appellant, would meet the ends of justice, to which learned
  counsel for the respondent during the arguments stated that the
F respondent is ready to pay the same.
       15. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal affirming the
  decree of divorce granted by the High Court dissolving the
  marriage between the parties namely Karthik Balakrishnan and
  Vidhya Vishwanathan, with further direction under Section 25 of
G the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that the respondent shall pay to
  the appellant Rs.40 lakhs (Rupees forty lakhs only) as a lump sum
  amount of permanent alimony, within a period of three months
  from the (late of this judgment. No order as to costs.
H Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                             Appeal Disposed of.