Do parties resuming cohabitation after a legal notice condone the acts of cruelty alleged before it?

Paragraph 9The husband, however, has neither pleaded nor proved any specific acts of cruelty committed by the wife during the said period. On the contrary, he sought to attribute the matrimonial discord to the injuries sustained by the wife prior to the marriage and made unfounded allegation that she was suffering from mental depression. As already discussed, those allegations remain wholly unsubstantiated. Mere allegations, however serious, cannot take the place of proof. It is well settled principle that the matrimonial relief on mental cruelty must depend upon the cumulative effect of the conduct and the surrounding circumstances of married life of each case. 9.1. The Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Paramjit Kaur Panesar, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 790 has held as follows: It is well-accepted proposition that “cruelty” is a course or conduct of one party which adversely affects the other. The “cruelty” may be mental or physical, intentional, or unintentional....... 11. The crux of the various decisions of this Court on the interpretation of the word “cruelty” is that it has to be construed and interpreted considering the type of life the parties are accustomed to; or their economic and social conditions and their culture and human values to which they attach importance. Each case has to be decided on its own merits. 9.2. The Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22 has held as follows: Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. . First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or 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 admitted. 9.3. The Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 778 has held as follows: ...it must be proved that one partner in the marriage however mindless of the consequences has behaved in a way which the other spouse could not in the circumstances be called upon to endure, and that misconduct has caused injury to health or a reasonable apprehension of such injury. There are two sides to be considered in case of cruelty. From the appellant's side, ought this appellant to be called on to endure the conduct? From the respondent's side, was this conduct excusable? The court has then to decide whether the sum total of the reprehensible conduct was cruel. That depends on whether the cumulative conduct was sufficiently serious to say that from a reasonable person's point of view after a consideration of any excuse which the respondent might have in the circumstances, the conduct is such that the petitioner ought not be called upon to endure. 9.4. The Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 98 has held as follows: On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments of this Court and other courts, we have come to the definite conclusion that there cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of “mental cruelty” within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. No court in our considered view should even attempt to give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty. 99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. 100.... There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration. 101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for 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: (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. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the 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. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (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. (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 other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of 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 and dissatisfaction and emotional 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 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 an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live 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 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 incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty. 9.5. Applying the above principles governing mental cruelty laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court finds no material whatsoever to infer that the wife treated the husband with such cruelty as would entitle him to a decree of divorce. Further more, in this case, the husband did not make any pleading about her conduct that could have caused him either physical cruelty or mental cruelty and there is total lacking of oral or documentary evidentiary proof . This court also does not find any material circumstances either to presume physical cruelty or mental cruelty to grant divorce under Section 13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the available records. 9.6. Even from the documentary evidence on record, it is evident that the first legal notice was issued by the husband on 21.01.2013. Significantly, notwithstanding the issuance of the said notice, the wife resumed and continued her matrimonial life in the matrimonial home along with the husband and his parents. Therefore, once the parties resumed cohabitation and matrimonial life after the issuance of the notice dated 21.01.2013, all the alleged incidents that had occurred prior thereto stood condoned in the eye of matrimonial law. The doctrine of condonation is well settled. As per the reiterated the principle of The Hon'ble supreme court in Ravi Kumar v. Julmi Devi reported in [(2010) 2 SCC 289] and Dastane v. Dastane reported in (AIR 1975 SC 1534) Condonation implies forgiveness of a matrimonial offence, reinstating the offending spouse to the original marital status. When there is satisfactory evidence of reinstatement and normal conjugal relations resumes, the condonation is held to be proved as per the various precedents and thereafter the earlier acts cannot ordinarily be relied upon as independent grounds for dissolution of marriage unless there is a subsequent repetition by fresh acts of cruelty. 9.7. In the present case, the only subsequent incident relied upon by the parties pertains to 25.08.2013. The parties have also relied upon an incident dated 25.08.2013, regarding which two rival versions have been projected. According to the wife, she contacted the police by calling the emergency number complaining harassment meted out to her by the husband and his family members. According to the husband, he himself lodged the complaint against the wife. Except for the rival allegations concerning that incident and the wife's assertion that she was subjected to harassment by her parents-in-law, there are no pleadings or evidence disclosing any subsequent acts of cruelty committed by the wife. No material has been placed before this Court to establish that, after the alleged condonation, the wife committed any conduct amounting to mental cruelty. Irrespective of these rival versions, this Court is of the view that the incident appears to be the outcome of ordinary squabble in matrimonial life, aggravated by interference from family members, Which does not amount to legal cruelty. 9.8.On the contrary, the evidence probabilises the wife's consistent stand that she discharged her matrimonial obligations as a dutiful spouse and continued to lead the matrimonial life despite the hip injury sustained in the earlier accident. There is nothing on record to disbelieve or discard her evidence. Despite the allegation affecting her personal dignity, the wife neither initiated any offending proceedings nor persisted with those allegations. She made genuine and sincere desire to restore the matrimonial relationship. In the said circumstances, the plea of the husband that the marriage become deadwood and he is entitled to get decree for divorce on the ground of the break down of the marriage irretrievably is misconceived. At this juncture, it is apposite to reiterate the settled legal position that the doctrine of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” is not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The power to dissolve a marriage on this ground is vested exclusively with the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and that too in exceptional circumstances and the issue with regard to irretrievable breakdown of marriage and passing of decree of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution has been adumbrated by the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of supreme court in the case of Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan reported in (2023) 14 SCC 231 and the same has been followed and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Paramjit Kaur Panesar, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 790 in which divorce was declined on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and relevant paragraphs are as follows: 18. ......In view of the aforestated decision [Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 14 SCC 231] of the Constitution Bench, there remains no shadow of doubt that this Court can depart from the procedure as well as the substantive laws, and exercise its discretion under Article 142 for dissolving the marriage between the parties by balancing out the equities between the conflicting claims of the parties, however, such discretion should be exercised with great care and caution. It has also laid down that this discretionary power could be exercised for dissolving the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown to do “complete justice”, though one of the spouses opposes the prayer for dissolution of marriage. 9.9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that marriage is not a relationship that can be dissolved at the instance of either spouse merely because incompatibility has arisen out of petty issues in matrimonial life. Minor misunderstandings, differences of opinion, and the spousal bickering in married life do not, by themselves, constitute legal cruelty warranting dissolution of marriage. The allegation made by the husband looking from any angle is in the nature of usual trivial issues occurring in marital life. In this aspect , it is relevant to extract the following paragraph of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 759 where it is observed as follows: “Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in the heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A very technical and hyper sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage” 9.10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further emphasized that children are not chattels or property to be treated as incidental casualties of matrimonial disputes. They are the most affected victims of a broken marriage. Therefore, while considering a petition for divorce, the Court is required to bear in mind not only the rights of the spouses but also the welfare and future of the child. Unless there is cogent and convincing evidence establishing grave and sustained mental cruelty or any other statutory ground for divorce, the Court cannot dissolve a marriage merely because one of the spouses seeks such dissolution. 9.11.This Court is also bound to consider the welfare of the child and may decline to grant a decree of divorce where the disputes between the spouses are neither serious nor grave. In the present case, this Court finds that the disputes between the spouses are not of such an irreconcilable nature but appear to have arisen out of intolerance on the part of husband. The parties have also been blessed with a beautiful child from the wedlock, whose welfare remains a paramount consideration. In this context, it is appropriate to extract the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 759 has reads as follows: “In matrimonial disputes the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned.” Therefore, in the interest of institution of marriage, and for the welfare of child this court is declined to grant divorce. 9.12.This Court in C.M.A.(MD).No.291 of 2024 one of us (K.K.Ramakrishnan.J,) observed as follows: 19. “The marriage is a heavenly union of two souls, two families and sometimes two diverse cultures. There would be some couple, meeting each other before their marriage and sort out all their major issues that loomed large and would make the marriage proposal work. Then they enter into a blissful marriage. They are also blessed with a child. Now their marriage is on the rocks, not because of any major issues, or astronomical issues, but of the trivial issues. Instead of sitting together and clearing the air, they are not only spoiling their life, but the life of innocent lamb, the divine gift namely the child. In marriage, often you have to lose an argument in order to win your spouse. The worst pain in life is when some one "you know" turns into some one "you knew". The couple should think twice before parting, for the sake of their child. If the child is deprived of the love of a parent, there is always a danger of the child drifting away from the mainstream. The child needs not only feeding, but a decent standard of living and it has to be protected in every way. The couple should consider to save the marriage and not to break the marriage for the future of their child. They should burry the hatchet and start a new life, otherwise the Court has to find out a way and pass an order to protect the child. How many childless couples are longing to beget a child. The fighting couple should rise above hate and come to terms.” 9.13. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds no circumstance warranting the grant of a decree of divorce in favour of the husband. Hence, this Court finds that none of the allegations levelled by the husband constitute legally sustainable grounds for dissolution of marriage and this Court holds that the petitioner has failed to establish any ground recognized in law for the grant of a decree of divorce. The petitioner has failed to establish mental cruelty by cogent and convincing evidence. The petition for divorce, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. The divorce petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.