Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511

1.Case title & citation 

   Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511

2.Court name &Bench

      Court: Supreme Court of India

      Bench: Justice B.N. Agrawal, P.P.                      

      Naolekar & Dalveer Bhandari

3.Date of Judgment:  26 March 2007

4. Parties

Appellant: Samar Ghosh (husband, retired IAS officer)

Respondent: Jaya Ghosh (wife, principal of a college and MLA)

5. Facts of case 

• The Appellant (Samar ghosh) was married to respondent (Jaya Ghosh).
• Both the parties are IAS officers. Jaya was a divorcee and had a daughter from first marriage. custody of that child was given by court to her.
• Just after the marriage Jaya decided unilaterally not to give birth to a child for 2 years after one year of marriage he suffered from prolonged illness.
• During this course of time Jaya left samar.
• She only cook meals for herself and appeal and forced to either eat out or cook his own meal.
• Once there was a time when one incident took place where appellant felt insulted they started living separately for more than 16 years.
• The husband filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

6. Procedural history. 

The trial court dismissed the husband’s petition.

The High Court (Calcutta) also dismissed the appeal.

   The husband approached the  Supreme Court .

7. Issue raised 

• Whether the conduct of the wife in refusing to have a child amounts to mental cruelty.
•  What is the proper scope and meaning of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

8. Argument of parties. 

    Contentions:

    Appellant (Husband)

• Wife’s refusal to have a child caused him immense mental agony.         
• Lack of marital obligations and companionship amounted to cruelty.

Respondent (Wife):

• Personal choice not to have a child cannot be equated with cruelty.
• Husband exaggerated the differences; incompatibility alone is not cruelty.
• She added that not cooking food for husband doesn’t amount to mental cruelty. 

Relevant Statutory Provisions

• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 13(1)(i-a): Divorce can be granted if one spouse has treated the other with cruelty (physical or mental).

Section 23(1)(a): Relief cannot be granted if the petitioner is taking advantage of his/her own wrong.

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 114: Courts may presume existence of certain facts based on human conduct.

Important Case Laws Referred

• Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558

Supreme Court held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage can be considered while granting divorce.

• V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337

Mental cruelty includes making reckless allegations of immorality or extramarital affairs.

• Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988) 1 SCC 105

Explained that cruelty can be physical or mental; depends on circumstances.

• Williams v. Williams (1963) 2 All ER 994 (English case)

Broad interpretation of cruelty in matrimonial law.

Court’s Observation

Cruelty has no straightjacket definition – it must be assessed from the spouse’s point of view.

Mental cruelty can include:

• Sustained abusive treatment, humiliation, or indifference.
• Denial of marital obligations (companionship, sex, children).
• Long separation that makes cohabitation impossible.
• The wife’s categorical refusal to have children struck at the root of marriage and amounted to mental cruelty.

9. Final decision 

Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted divorce to the husband.

The Court laid down illustrative guidelines of mental cruelty (non-exhaustive), including:

1. Indifference or neglect in fulfilling marital obligations.
2. Sustained abusive and humiliating conduct.
3. Unilateral refusal to have children.
4. False accusations (of unchastity, immorality, etc.).
5. Long separation and breakdown of marriage.

10. Ratio Decidendi 

• The Supreme Court considered that there was “ no uniform standard can ever lead to determine mental cruelty.” – further concluded that “ There is no straightjacket formula for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matter. 
• Mere quarrel , normal wear & tear of married  life happening in day to day life are not Adequate for grant divorce.
• Court considered that individual decision of refusal to cohabitation without any reasonable cause amount to mental cruelty. 
• The court additionally opined that unilateral decision of wife or husband for not having child after the marriage may also amount to mental cruelty. 

11. Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that the wife’s categorical refusal to have children amounted to mental cruelty, as it defeated the very essence of marriage and caused deep anguish to the husband. Divorce was granted, and the Court laid down illustrative guidelines on mental cruelty, making this case a landmark precedent in Indian matrimonial law.