NARENDRA versus K. MEENA
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 840, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 840 
NARENDRA 
v. 
K. MEENA 
(Civil Appeal No. 3253 of2008) 
OCTOBER 06, 2016 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.) 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s. 13(1){ia) - Divorce - Ground 
of cruelty - Husbands case that wife levied serious allegations 
against him regarding his character, extra-marital relation with a 
maid, her attempt to commit suicide and her persuasion for getting 
the husband separated from his family members and live separately 
- Grant of decree of divorce by family court, however, set aside by 
the High Court - On appeal, held: Family court rightly dissolved 
the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground in s.13{1){1a) of 
the Act - Threats and attempt to commit suicide constitutes mental 
crueliy and could not have been taken lightly by the High Court -
Persistent effort of the wife to constrain the husband to be separated 
from the family would be torturous f6r the husband and constitutes 
an act of 'cruelty' - There is no reliable evidence to show that the 
husband had an extra-marital affair with someone, except for the 
baseless and reckless allegations which can be a cause for mental 
cruelty - Thus, order passed by the High Court quashed and set 
aside - Decree of divorce passed by the Family court is restored. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 With regard to the allegations of cruelty levelled 
by the appellant, the findings of the trial court are concurred with. 
There was no fault on the part of
the appellant nor was there any 
reason for the respondent wife to make an attempt to commit 
suicide. No husband would ever be comfortable with or tolerate 
such an act by his wife and if the wife succeeds in committing 
suicide, then one can imagine how a poor husband would get 
entangled into the clutches of law, which would virtually ruin his 
sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his entire life. The 
mere idea with regard to facing legal consequences would put a 
husband under tremendous stress. The thought itself is 
distressing. Such a mental cruelty could not have been taken 
840
NARENDRA v. K. MEENA 
lightly by the High Court. Only this one event was sufficient for 
the appellant husband to get a decree of divorce on the ground of 
cruelty. Such threats or acts constitute cruelty. [Para 10) [846-C-
G) 
. 
1.2 In the instant case, upon appreciation of the evidence, 
the trial court came to the conclusion that merely for monetary 
considerations, the respondent wife wanted to get her husband 
separated from his family. The averment of the respondent was 
to the effect that the income of the appellant was also spent for 
maintaining his family. The said grieYance of the respondent is 
absolutely unjustified. A son maintaining his parents is absolutely 
normal in Indian culture and ethos. There is no other reason for 
which the respondent wanted the appellant to be separated from 
the family-the sole reason was to enjoy the income of the appellant. 
Unfortunately, the High Court considered this to be a justifiable 
reason. In the opinion of the High Court, the wife had a legitimate 
expectation to see that the income of her husband is used for her 
and not for the family members of the respondent husband. There 
is no reason to justify the said view of the High Court. In a Hindu 
society, it is a pious obligation of the son to maintain the parents. 
If a wife makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice 
and normal custom of the society, she must have some justifiable 
reason for that and in this case, there is no justifiable reason, 
except
monetary consideration of the respondent wife. Normally, 
no husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be 
separated from his old parents and other family members, who 
are also dependent upon his income. The persistent effort of the 
respondent wife to constrain the appellant to be separated from 
the family would be torturous for the husband and the trial court 
was right when it came to the conclusion that this constitutes an 
act of 'cruelty'. [Para 11) [847-D-H; 848-A) 
1.3 With regard to the allegations about an extra-marital 
affair with maid named K, the re-appreciation of the evidence by 
the High Court does not appear to be correct. There is sufficient 
evidence to the effect that there was no maid named K working 
at the residence of the appellant. Some averment with regard to 
some relative has been relied upon by the High Court to come to 
a conclusion that there was a lady but the High Court ignored the 
841 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
842 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
fact that the respondent wife had levelled allegations with regard 
to an extra-marital affair of the appellant with the maid and not 
with someone else. Even if there was some relative named K, 
who might have visited the appellant, there is nothing to 
substantiate the allegations levelled by the respondent with 
regard to an extra-marital affair. True, it is very difficult to establish 
such allegations but at the same time, it is equally true that to 
suffer an allegation pertaining to one's character of having an 
extra-marital affair is quite torturous for any person-be it a 
husband or a wife. No reliable evidence could be found to show 
that the appellant had an extra-marital affair with someone. Except 
for the baseless and reckless allegations, there is not even the 
slightest evidence that would suggest that there was something 
like an affair of the appellant with the maid named by the 
respondent. Levelling of absolutely false allegations and that too, 
with regard to an extra-marital life to be quite serious and that 
can surely be a cause for mental cruelty. [Para 12) [848-B-E] 
1.4 The unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the 
respondent wife and the threats and attempt to commit suicide 
by her amounted to mental cruelty and therefore, the marriage 
deserves to be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground 
stated in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. [Para 14) [849-D-E] 
1.5 Taking an
overall view of the entire evidence and the 
judgment delivered by the trial court, there was no need to take 
a different view than the one taken by the trial court. The 
behaviour of the respondent wife appears to be terrifying and 
horrible. One would find it difficult to live with such a person with 
tranquility and peace of mind. Such torture would adversely affect 
the life of the husband. It is also not in dispute that the respondent 
wife had left the matrimonial house more than 20 year~Fback. 
Though not on record, the counsel submitted that till today, the 
· respondent wife is not staying with the appellant; the daughter of 
the appellant and respondent has also grown up and is working 
in an IT company. There is no reason to disbelieve the facts 
because with the passage of time, the daughter must have grown 
up and the separation of the appellant and the wife must have 
also become normal for her and therefore, at this juncture it would 
not be proper to bring them together, especially when the
NARENDRA v. K. MEENA 
843 
appellant husband was treated so cruelly by the respondent wife. 
A 
Thus, the judgment by the High Court is quashed and set aside. 
The decree of divorce passed by the Fa.mily Court is restored. 
[Paras 15, 16] [849-E-H; 850-A] 
Pankaj Mahajan v. Dimple @ Kaja/ 2011 (14) SCR 
945 : (2011) 12 SCC 1; Vljaykumar Ramchandra Bhate 
B 
v. Nee/a Vijaykumar Bhate 2003 (3) SCR 607 : 2003 
(6) sec 334 - referred to. 
· -Case Law Reference 
2011 (14) SCR 945 
2003 (3) SCR 607 
referred to 
referred to 
Para 10 
Para 13 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3253 of 
2008. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.03 .2006 of the High Court 
c 
of Karnataka at Bangalore in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 171 of 
D 
2002(FC). 
S. R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Anilendra Kant Srivastava, Anurag Tomar, 
B. V. Bhandarkar, R. S. Mishra, (For V. N. Raghupathy), Advs. for the 
Appellant. 
Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Adv. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ANILR. DAVE,J. !. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant 
husband, whose decree for divorce passed by the trial Court has been 
set aside by the impugned judgment dated 8th March, 2006 passed by 
the High Court ofKarnataka at Bangalore in Miscellaneous First Appeal 
No.171 of2002(FC). 
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nutshell, are as 
under: 
The Respondent wife filed Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section 
28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred
to .as "the 
Act") before the High Court as she was aggrieved by the judgment and 
decree dated 17th November, 200 I, passed by the Principal Judge, Family 
Court, Bangalore in M.C. No.603of1995 under Section 13(1 )(ia) of the 
Act filed by the Appellant husband seeking divorce. 
E 
F 
G 
H
844 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 5 S.C.R. 
3. The Appellant husband had married the Respondent wife on 
26'h February, 1992. Out of the wedlock, a female child named Ranjitha 
was born on l 3'h November, 1993. The case of the Appellant was that 
the Respondent did not live happily with the Appellant even for a month 
after the marriage. The reason for filing the divorce petition was that the 
Respondent wife had become cruel because of her highly suspicious 
nature and she used to level absolutely frivolous but serious allegations 
against him regarding his character and more particularly about his extra-
marital relationship. Behaviour of the Respondent wife made life of the 
Appellant husband miserable and it became impossible for the Appellant 
to stay with the Respondent for the aforestated reasons. Moreover, the 
Respondent wanted the Appellant to leave his parents and other family 
members and to get separated from them so that the Respondent can 
live independently; and in that event it would become more torturous for 
the Appellant to stay only with the Respondent wife with her such nature 
and behaviour. The main ground was cruelty, as serious allegations were 
levelled about the moral character of the Appellant to the effect that he 
was having an extra-marital affair with a maid, named Kamla. Another 
important allegation was that the Respondent would very often threaten 
the Appellant that she would commit suicide. In fact, on 2•h July,
1995, 
she picked up a quarrel with the Appellant, went to the bathroom, locked 
the door from inside and poured kerosene on her body and attempted to 
commit suicide. On getting smell of kerosene coming from the bathroom, 
the Appellant, his elder brother and some of the neighbours broke open 
the door of the bathroom and prevented the Respondent wife from 
committing suicide. The aforestated facts were found to be sufficient by 
the learned Family Court for granting the Appellant a decree of divorce 
dated I 71h November, f 00 I, after considering the evidence adduced by 
both the parties. 
~ 
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce dated 
J 71h November, 200 I, the Respondent wife had filed Miscellaneous First 
Appeal No.171 of2002 (FC), which has been allowed by the High Court 
on 8'h March, 2006, whereby the decree of divorce dated J 71h November, 
2001 has been set aside. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order 
passed by the High Court, the Appellant has filed this appeal. 
5. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent was not 
present when the appeal was called out for hearing. The matter was 
kept back but for the whole day, the learned counsel for the Respondent
NARENDRA v. K. MEENA [ANIL R. DAVE, J.] 
did not appear. Even on an earlier occasion on 31" March, 2016, when 
the appeal was called out, the learned counsel appearing for the 
~Respondent wife was not present and therefore, the Court had heard 
the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. 
6. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that 
the High Court had committed a grave error in the process of re-
appreciating the evidence and by setting aside the decree of divorce 
granted in favour of the Appellant. He submitted that there was no reason 
to believe that there was no cruelty on the part of the Respondent wife. 
He highlighted the observations made bythe Family Court and took us 
through the evidence, which was recorded before the Family Court. He 
drew our attention to the depositions made by independent witnesses, 
neighbours of the Appellant, who had rescued the Respondent wife from 
committing suicide by breaking open the door of the bathroom when the 
Respondent was on the verge of committing suicide by pouring kerosene 
on herself and by lighting a match stick. Our attention was also drawn to 
the fact that serious allegations levelled against the character of the 
Appellant in relation to an extra-marital affair with a maid were absolutely 
baseless as no maid named Kamla had ever worked in the house of the 
Appellant. It was also stated that the Respondent wife was insisting the 
Appellant to get separated from his family members and on
12th July, 
1995 i.e. the date of the attempt to commit suicide, the Respondent wife 
deserted the Appellant husband. According to the learned counsel, the 
facts recorded by the learned Family Court after appreciating the 
evidence were sufficient to show that the Appellant was entitled to a 
decree of divorce as per the provisions of Section 13( 1 )(ia) of the Act. 
7. We have carefully gone through the evidence adduced by the 
parties before the trial Court and we tried to find out as to why the 
appellate Court had taken a different view than the one taken by the 
Family Court i.e. the trial Court. 
8. The High Court came to the conclusion that there was no cruelty 
meted out to the Appellant, which would enable him to get a decree of 
divorce, as per the provisions of the Act. The allegations with regard to 
the character of the Appellant and the extra-marital affair with a maid 
were taken very seriously by the Family Court, but the High Court did 
not give much importance to the false allegations made. The constant 
persuasion by the Respondent for getting separated from the family 
members of the Appellant and constraining theAppellantto live separately 
845 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
846 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
and only with her was also not considered to be of any importance by 
the High Court. No importance was given to the incident with regard to 
an attempt to commit suicide made by the Respondent wife. On the 
contrary, it appears that the High Court found some justification in the 
request made by the Respondent t" live separately from the family of 
the Appellant husband. According to the High Court, the trial Court did 
not appreciate the evidence properly. For the aforestated reasons, the 
High Court reversed the findings arrived at by the learned Family Court 
and set aside the decree of divorce. 
9. We do not agree with the manner in which the High Court has 
re-appreciated the evidence and has come to a different conclusion. 
10. With regard to the allegations ofcruelty levelled by the Appellant, 
we are in agreement with the findings of the trial Court. First of all, let us 
look at the incident with regard to an attempt to commit suicide by the 
Respondent. Upon perusal of the evidence of the witnesses, the findings 
arrived at by the trial Court to the effect that the Respondent wife had 
locked herself in the bathroom and had poured kerosene on herself so as 
to commit suicide, are not in dispute. Fortunately for the Appellant, 
because of the noise and disturbance, even the neighbours of the 
Appellant rushed to help and the door of the bathroom was broken open 
and the Respondent was saved. Had
she been successful in her attempt 
to commit suicide, then one can foresee the consequences and the plight 
of the Appellant because in that event the Appellant would have been 
put to immense difficulties because of the legal provisions. We feel that 
there was no fault on the part of the Appellant nor was there any reason 
for the Respondent wife to make an attempt to commit suicide. No 
husband would ever be comfortable with or tolerate such an act by his 
wife and ifthe wife succeeds in committing suicide, then one can imagine 
how a poor husband would get entangled into the clutches oflaw, which 
would virtually ruin his sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his 
entire life. The mere idea with regard to facing legal consequences would 
put a husband under tremendous stress. The thought itself is distressing. 
Such a mental cruelty could not have been taken lightly by the High 
Court. In our opinion, only this one event was sufficient for the Appellant 
husband to get a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is needless 
to add that such threats or acts constitute cruelty. Our aforesaid view is 
fo1iified by a decision of this Court in the case of Pankaj Mahajan v. 
Dimple@Kajal (2011) 12 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that giving 
repeated threats to commit suicide amounts to cruelty.
, ·. 
NARENDRA v. K. MEENA [ANIL R. DAVE, J.] 
11. The Respondent wife wanted the Appellant to get separated 
from his family. The evidence shows that the family was virtually 
maintained from the income of the Appellant husband. It is not a common 
practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated 
from the parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife, 
especially when the son is the only earning member in the family. A son, 
brought up and given education by his parents, has a moral and legal 
obligation to take care and maintain the parents, when they become old 
and when they have either no income or have a meagre income. In 
India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where, 
upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from 
the family. In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the 
family of the husband after the marriage. She becomes integral to and 
forms part of the family of the husband and normally without any 
justifiable strong reason, she would never insist that her husband should 
get separated from the family and live only with her. In the instant case, 
upon appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion 
that merely for monetary considerations, the Respondent wife wanted 
to get her husband separated from his family. The averment of the 
Res'pondent was to the effect that the income of the Appellant was also 
spent for maintaining his family. The
said grievance of the Respondent 
is absolutely unjustified. A son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal 
in Indian culture and ethos. There is no other reason for which the 
Respondent wanted the Appellant to be separated from the family - the 
sole reason was to enjoy the income of the Appellant. Unfortunately, the 
High Court considered this to be a justifiable reason. In the opinion of 
the High Court, the wife had a legitimate expectation to see that the 
income of her husband is used for her and not for the family members of 
the Respondent husband. We do not see any reason to justify the said 
view of the High Court. As stated hereinabove, in a Hindu society, it is a 
pious obligation of the son to maintain the parents. If a wife makes an 
attempt to deviate from the normal practice and normal custom of the 
society, she must have some justifiable reason for that and in this case, 
we do not find any justifiable reason, except monetary consideration of 
the Respondent wife. In our opinion, normally, no husband would tolerate 
this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other 
family members, who are also dependent upon his income. The persistent 
effort of the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be separated 
from the family would be torturous for the husband and in our opinion, 
847 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
848 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
the trial Court was right when it came to the conclusion that this constitutes 
an act of' cruelty'. 
12. With regard to the allegations about an extra-marital affair 
with maid named Kamla, the re-appreciation of the evidence by the 
High Court does not appear to be correct. There is sufficient evidence 
to the effect that there was no maid named Kamla working at the 
residence of the Appellant. Some averment with regard to some relative 
has been relied upon by the High Court to come to a conclusion that 
there was a lady named Kamla but the High Court has ignored the fact 
that the Respondent wife had levelled allegations with regard to an extra-
marital affair of the Appellant with the maid and not with someone else. 
Even ifthere was some relative named Kamla, who might have visited 
the Appellant, there is nothing to substantiate the allegations levelled by 
the Respondent with regard to an extra-marital affair. True, it is very 
difficult to establish such allegations but at the same time, it is equally 
true that to suffer an allegation pertaining to one's character of having 
an extra-marital affair is quite torturous for any person - be it a husband 
or a wife. We have carefully gone through the evidence but we could 
not find any reliable evidence to show that the Appellant had an extra-
marital affair with someone. Except for the baseless and reckfoss 
allegations, there is not even the
slightest evidence that would suggest 
that there was something like an affair of the Appellant with the maid 
named by the Respondent. We consider levelling of absolutely false 
allegations and that too, with regard to an extra-marital life to be quite 
serious and that can surely be a cause for metal cruelty. 
13. This Court, in the case of Vijaykumar Ramclmndra Bltate 
v. Nee/a Vijaykumar Bhate, 2003 (6) SCC 334 has held as• under:-
"7. The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether 
the averments, accusations and character assassination of the 
wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes 
mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 
13(1 )(i-a) of the Act. The position oflaw in this regard has come 
to be well settled and declared that levelling disgusting accusations 
of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock 
and allegations of extramarital relationship is a grave assault on 
the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of 
the wife. Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, 
viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by 
-··
NARENDRA v. K. MEENA [ANIL R. DAVE, J.] 
Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of 
insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, 
warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such 
allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course 
of examination and by way of cross-examination satisfy the 
requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this 
Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, 
we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded 
by the Family Court as well as the High Court. We find that they 
are of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental 
pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated concept 
of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption 
and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend 
that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was 
taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial 
home impossible." 
14. Applying the said ratio to the facts of this case, we are i119lined 
to hold that the unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the Respondent 
wife and the threats and attempt to commit suicide·by her amounted to 
mental cruelty and therefore, the marriage deserves to be dissolved by a 
decree of divorce on the ground stated in Section 13(1 )(ia) of the Act. 
15. Taking an overall view of the entire evidence and the judgment 
delivered
by the trial Court, we firmly believe that there was no need to 
take a different view than the one taken by the trial Court. The behaviour 
of the Respondent wife appears to be terrifying and horrible. One would 
find it difficult to live with such a person with tranquility and peace of 
mind. Such torture would adversely affect the life of the husband. It is 
also not in dispute that the Respondent wife had left the matrimonial 
house on J2•h July, 1995 i.e. more than 20 ye11rs back. Though not on 
record, the learned counsel submitted that till today, the Respondent wife 
is not staying with the Appellant. The daughter of the Appellant and 
Respondent has also grown up and according to the learned counsel, 
she is working in an IT company. We have no reason to disbelieve the 
aforestated facts because with the passage of time, the daughter must 
have grown up and the separation of the Appellant and the wife must 
have also become normal for her and therefore, at th is juncture it would 
not be proper to bring them together, especially when the Appellant 
hushand was treated so cruelly by the Respondent wife. 
849 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
850 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
16. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned judgment 
delivered by the High Court. The decree of divorce dated l 7'h November, 
2001 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in M.C. 
No.603of1995 is hereby restored. 
1 7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with no order as to costs. 
B . Nidhi Jain 
Appeal allowed.