Do a Wife’s Taunts About Her Husband’s Unemployment Amount to Mental Cruelty?

The concept of mental cruelty in matrimonial disputes under Indian law has been evolving through judicial pronouncements. While physical cruelty is easier to prove, mental cruelty—often inflicted through words, conduct, or attitude—remains complex. A pertinent question arises: Can a wife’s taunts about her husband’s unemployment amount to mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 

The Chhattisgarh High Court, in Anil Kumar Sonmani v. Smt. Shradha Tiwari (2025), dealt directly with this issue. The Court dissolved the marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion, holding that persistent taunts, humiliation, and desertion constituted sufficient grounds for divorce. This article critically examines the case, the applicable legal principles, and their wider implications.

Background of the Case

Facts in Brief

• The marriage between Anil Kumar Sonmani (husband) and Shradha Tiwari (wife) was solemnised on 26 December 1996 according to Hindu customs. They had two children—a daughter (Phalguni) and a son (Aniket).
• The wife, with the husband’s assistance, obtained a Ph.D. and became Principal at a private school. The husband, an advocate, faced financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic when courts were closed.
• During this period, the wife allegedly began taunting him as “unemployed,” making unreasonable demands, and verbally abusing him. These remarks, according to the husband, deeply humiliated him during an already vulnerable time.
• On 02 August 2020, the wife left the matrimonial home with her daughter and shifted to her sister’s house. She later returned briefly but again left on 16 September 2020, leaving a letter declaring that she was severing ties with her husband and their son. Since then, she continued to live separately without any attempt at reconciliation.
• The Family Court dismissed the husband’s petition for divorce, holding that cruelty was not established. On appeal, the High Court reversed the order and granted a divorce.

Legal Issues Before the Court

The High Court framed two central questions:

1. Whether the conduct of the wife—particularly the taunts about the husband’s unemployment during the pandemic—amounted to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act?
2. Whether the wife’s departure from the matrimonial home without reasonable cause amounted to desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b)?

Legal Framework

Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion

The relevant provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are:

• Section 13(1)(i-a): A party may seek divorce on the ground that the other has treated them with cruelty.
• Section 13(1)(i-b): Divorce may also be granted if one party deserts the other for a continuous period of at least two years prior to filing the petition.

Cruelty is not defined in the statute, but judicial interpretations cover both physical and mental cruelty. Mental cruelty includes verbal insults, humiliation, indifference, false accusations, or conduct that makes cohabitation impossible.

Judicial Interpretation of Mental Cruelty

1. V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337 – Mental cruelty is conduct causing such pain and suffering that living together becomes impossible.
2. Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 – Laid down broad guidelines, including instances where continued insults, neglect, or indifference amount to cruelty.
3. K. Srinivasa Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226 – Recognised that long separation leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriage also contributes to mental cruelty.

The Chhattisgarh High Court relied on these precedents in assessing whether repeated taunts about unemployment amounted to cruelty.

Court’s Analysis

Evidence Led by the Husband

• The husband produced his own affidavit and corroborative testimony of a witness (PW-2).

Documentary evidence included:

• The wife’s letter dated 16 September 2020, explicitly stating she was leaving of her own will and severing ties.
• A letter to the Women’s Cell confirming her decision to live separately.
• No rebuttal evidence was filed by the wife, who chose to remain ex parte.

Findings on Cruelty

The Court held:

• The wife’s persistent taunts during the pandemic, calling the husband “unemployed” and humiliating him despite his professional background, constituted mental cruelty.
• Her conduct was not limited to one instance but formed a pattern of disrespect, unreasonable demands, and alienation of children against the father.
• Such behaviour, particularly at a time when the husband was financially vulnerable, inflicted mental pain making it impossible for him to continue the marriage.

Findings on Desertion

• The wife left the matrimonial home voluntarily, as evidenced by her letter, which mentioned no allegations against the husband.
• Her continued absence since September 2020 satisfied the statutory requirement of two years’ desertion.
• Despite the husband’s repeated efforts, she showed no intention to return, establishing animus deserendi.

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

The Court noted that the parties had lived apart for nearly five years. Reunion was impossible, and the marriage had broken down irretrievably. While not an independent statutory ground, irretrievable breakdown was considered a weighty circumstance in granting a divorce.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Family Court’s decree and dissolved the marriage.

Comparative Case Law

1. Smt. Vijaya Laxmi Soni v. Raj Kumar Soni (2009 CGLJ 72 DB): Held that when reunion becomes impossible, dissolution of marriage is the only remedy.
2. Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati (AIR 1957 SC 176): Defined desertion as requiring both factum of separation and animus deserendi.
3. Debananda Tamuli v. Kakumoni Kataky (2022) 5 SCC 459: Reiterated that desertion means permanent abandonment without consent or reasonable cause.

The present case falls squarely within these principles.

Key Highlights of the Decision

Rajani Dubey and Amitendra Kishore Prasad stated: 

“Since the parties have been residing separately and there is no possibility of their reunion, this Court is of the view that there has been an irretrievable break-down of the marriage, beyond any scope of repair. Taking these facts into consideration, the present appeal is hereby allowed and a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant/husband is granted, while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Third Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg District Durg (C.G.) in H.M.A. No. 905/2022.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the marriage solemnized between the parties is hereby dissolved.”

Implications for Matrimonial Law

• Precedent for Similar Cases: This ruling sets a precedent that repeated taunts, especially concerning unemployment or financial incapacity, may amount to mental cruelty.
• Guidance for Family Courts: Family Courts must carefully evaluate evidence of verbal abuse and not dismiss it as trivial.
• Awareness Among Spouses: The case underscores the importance of mutual respect in marriage. Verbal humiliation can have serious legal consequences.

Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal, dissolved the marriage, and held:

• Persistent taunts by a wife regarding her husband’s unemployment amount to mental cruelty, especially when made during a financially difficult time.
• Voluntarily leaving the matrimonial home and declaring intent to sever ties amounts to desertion.
• The Family Court erred in ignoring uncontroverted evidence, while the wife’s absence in proceedings further reinforced the husband’s case

Conclusion

The Chhattisgarh High Court’s ruling in Anil Kumar Sonmani v. Smt. Shradha Tiwari reinforces that words can wound as deeply as physical acts. A wife’s repeated taunts about her husband’s unemployment, particularly when made during a crisis, amount to mental cruelty. Combined with desertion, they justified the dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

This judgment not only provides clarity on what constitutes mental cruelty but also reflects a progressive, gender-neutral application of matrimonial law. It emphasises that marriage rests on respect and empathy, and when those values collapse, the law must step in to protect the dignity of individuals.