What is the main legal point in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli?

The case clarifies mental cruelty under Section 13 HMA. Conduct must be grave and weighty so a spouse cannot reasonably be expected to continue the marriage.

Did the Supreme Court grant divorce?

Yes. The Court restored the divorce, finding the marriage beyond repair and the High Court’s reversal unsustainable on the evidence.

How is mental cruelty assessed?

Courts look at the nature of conduct and its impact on the spouse’s mind, considering background and circumstances. Ordinary wear and tear is not enough.

What about irretrievable breakdown of marriage?

The Court recommended adding it as a statutory ground. If parties live apart long and the bond is dead, the law should not force continuation.

Which precedent was relied on for cruelty?

The Court cited Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, explaining cruelty may be physical or mental, intentional or unintentional.

Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 3 SCC 491

Mental Cruelty Section 13 HMA Divorce Ground Irretrievable Breakdown (rec.)

Supreme Court of India 2006 Division Bench (2006) 3 SCC 491 Family Law ~7 min

By Gulzar Hashmi India Published: 31 Oct 2025

Quick Summary

This case sets a practical test for mental cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The conduct must be so grave and weighty that a reasonable spouse cannot be expected to continue the marriage.

On facts, long conflict, allegations, and multiple proceedings showed a dead marriage. The Supreme Court restored the divorce and recommended adding irretrievable breakdown as a statutory ground.

```

Issues

Do abusive conduct, repeated accusations, and multiple cases amount to mental cruelty?
Does the conduct meet Section 13(1)(i)(a) threshold for divorce?

Rules

Cruelty must be serious—beyond normal marital friction. Courts assess conduct and its impact on the spouse’s mind, considering the couple’s background. Ordinary wear and tear is not cruelty.

Facts (Timeline)

View image

Timeline visual for the facts of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli

1975: Marriage; three sons born. Husband builds three factories (one for each son) and a family bungalow.

Schooling: Sons admitted to a public school in Nainital.

1994 (May): Marital discord peaks; husband shifts to rented premises.

1994 (Bombay visit): Husband alleges indecent conduct and a compromising situation; separates from wife thereafter.

Post-separation: Allegations of fund withdrawals; multiple civil/criminal cases including a disputed FIR.

Petition: Husband seeks divorce under Section 13(1)(i)(a) HMA (cruelty).

Family Court: Grants divorce with ₹5,00,000 allowance to wife.

High Court: Division Bench reverses; husband appeals to Supreme Court.

Arguments

Appellant (Husband)

Wife’s conduct: abuses, false accusations, repeated litigation.
Severe mental stress; marriage unworkable.
Seeks decree under Section 13(1)(i)(a) HMA.

Respondent (Wife)

Denies cruelty; disputes husband’s allegations.
Asserts actions justified; challenges credibility of claims.
Supports High Court’s reversal of divorce.

Judgment

View image

The Supreme Court restored the divorce. It found the High Court’s view unsustainable, noting persistent conflict and mental agony proved cruelty.

The Court also urged the legislature to add irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce to reflect real-life dead marriages.

Ratio (Core Principle)

Mental cruelty exists when conduct, viewed in the couple’s context, is so serious that a reasonable spouse cannot be asked to continue the relationship. Ordinary quarrels do not qualify.

Why It Matters

Gives a workable yardstick for mental cruelty claims.
Recognizes that keeping a dead marriage alive causes more harm.
Influenced policy debate on irretrievable breakdown as a ground.

Key Takeaways

Threshold: “Grave and weighty,” not routine friction.
Focus: Impact on the spouse’s mind and health.
Evidence: Pattern of conduct matters, not just one event.
Policy: Supports adding irretrievable breakdown to statute.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “CRY-TEST” — Conduct, Reasonable spouse, Yardstick (grave & weighty).

Spot: Is conduct beyond ordinary wear and tear?
Assess: Would a reasonable spouse endure it?
Apply: Section 13(1)(i)(a) if threshold is met.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Whether the respondent’s conduct amounts to mental cruelty warranting divorce under Section 13(1)(i)(a) HMA.
Rule	Conduct must be grave and weighty; ordinary quarrels do not suffice. Evaluate context and mental impact.
Application	Long-standing hostility, accusations, and litigation caused mental pain; marriage had collapsed beyond repair.
Conclusion	Divorce restored by Supreme Court; High Court reversal set aside. Recommendation to consider irretrievable breakdown.

Glossary

Mental Cruelty: Serious conduct causing deep mental pain so that living together becomes unreasonable.
Irretrievable Breakdown: Marriage has collapsed beyond repair; parties have lived apart long with no chance of reunion.
Section 13(1)(i)(a) HMA: Provision allowing divorce on the ground of cruelty in a Hindu marriage.