Mental cruelty in marriage can arise from defamatory allegations and vexatious proceedings, justifying divorce after prolonged separation.

False, indecent or defamatory allegations in complaints and pleadings, together with repeated vexatious proceedings that cause humiliation and serious mental pain, can amount to mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent-wife's conduct, including scurrilous allegations against the husband and efforts affecting his employment, was held to have widened the rift and made cohabitation harmful, so the High Court's contrary view was unsustainable. Long and complete separation for more than ten years, with deep acrimony and no realistic prospect of reunion, was a weighty circumstance supporting dissolution once cruelty was established. The marriage was dissolved, and permanent alimony was directed in favour of the wife.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent-wife's conduct, including filing complaints and making defamatory allegations, amounted to mental cruelty justifying dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. (ii) Whether the long and complete separation between the parties, coupled with the bitterness created by their conduct, justified grant of divorce and ancillary reliefs.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent-wife's conduct, including filing complaints and making defamatory allegations, amounted to mental cruelty justifying dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Analysis: Mental cruelty under section 13(1)(i-a) includes conduct that causes deep anguish, humiliation, and a reasonable apprehension that living together would be harmful or injurious. False, indecent, and defamatory allegations made in complaints or pleadings, as well as repeated proceedings that adversely affect the spouse's life and reputation, can constitute mental cruelty even if the parties have not lived together for long. The respondent-wife's complaint containing scurrilous allegations against the appellant-husband's family, followed by repeated criminal proceedings and efforts to affect his employment, were found to have widened the rift and caused serious mental pain and humiliation.

Conclusion: The respondent-wife's conduct amounted to mental cruelty, and the finding of the High Court to the contrary was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the long and complete separation between the parties, coupled with the bitterness created by their conduct, justified grant of divorce and ancillary reliefs.

Analysis: Continuous separation for more than ten years, together with the nature and extent of the acrimony, showed that the matrimonial bond had broken beyond repair. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not an independent ground under the statute, but it is a weighty circumstance while determining relief in a case where cruelty is established. In the facts of the case, reunion was no longer realistic, and dissolution of the marriage was considered necessary to relieve both parties from continuing pain and anguish. Permanent alimony was also directed to secure the respondent-wife's future.

Conclusion: Divorce was warranted on the facts, and permanent alimony was directed in favour of the respondent-wife.

Final Conclusion: The marriage was dissolved, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellant-husband was directed to pay permanent alimony to the respondent-wife.

Ratio Decidendi: False, indecent, or defamatory allegations and repeated vexatious proceedings by one spouse against the other can amount to mental cruelty; prolonged separation and complete breakdown of the matrimonial relationship may justify dissolution once cruelty is established.

---