The Court primarily relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v Jaya Ghosh which elaborately discussed the nature and scope of mental cruelty as a ground of divorce.
The top court had also observed that the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static.
“It is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa,” the Court stated.
In the instant, the Court noted that even the daughters of the couple had testified in support of the allegations of cruelty made by the husband.
Further, a psychiatrist that the wife had consulted also testified that she suffered from an impulse control disorder but that the appellant had not completed her treatment.
Therefore, the Court held that while one may suffer from mental stress or strain due to very many reasons, not taking treatment for the same in order to bring out a peaceful and harmonious family atmosphere, also may have to be counted as cruelty.