Pancho Vs Ram Prasad AIR 1956 All 41

Hon'ble High Court of India observed as
“Conception of legal cruelty undergoes changes according to the changes and advancement of social concept and standards of living. With the advancement of our social conceptions, this feature has obtained legislative recognition that a second marriage is a sufficient ground for separate residence and separate maintenance. Moreover, to establish legal cruelty, it is not necessary that physical violence should be used. Continuous ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference on the part of the husband, and an assertion on the part of the husband that the wife is unchaste are all factors which may undermine the health of a wife."

Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar Vs Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi (2002) 1 SCC 308

HMA-section 13- desertion- clause lays down the rule that desertion to amount to a matrimonial offence must be for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately proceeding the presentation of the petition. This clause has to be read with the Explanation. The Explanation has widened the definition of desertion to include 'willful neglect' of the petitioning spouse by the respondent. It status that to amount to a matrimonial offence desertion must be without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of the petitioner. From the Explanation it is abundantly clear that the legislature intended to give to the expression a wide import which includes willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage.

Savitri Pandey Va Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73

HMA- section -13 -"Desertion", for the purpose of seeking divorce under the Act, means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other's consent and without reasonable cause. In other words it is a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage. Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things. Desertion, therefore, means withdrawing from the matrimonial obligations, ie.., not permitting of allowing and facilitating the cohabitation between the parties.

Bipin Chander Vs Prabhawati AIR 1957 SC 176

HMA-section 13- divorce- ground of desertion - For the offence of desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there, namely (1) the factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned: (1) the absence of consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid. The petitioner for divorce bears the burden of proving those elements in the two spouses respectively....
Desertion is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case. The inference may be drawn from certain facts which may not in another case be capable of leading to the same inference; that is to say, the facts have to be viewed as to the purpose which is revealed by those acts or by conduct and expression of intention, both anterior and subsequent to the actual acts of separation. If, in fact, there has been a separation the essential question always is whether that act could be attributable to an animus deserendi. The offence of desertion commences when the fact of separation and the animus deserendi co-exist. But it is not necessary that they should commence at the same time. The de facto separation may have commenced without the necessary animus deserendi coincide in point of time..

Jaya Ghosh Vs Samar Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under

"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....Human mind is extremely complex and human behavior is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behavior 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. Apart from this, 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. There can never be any strait-jacket 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."

Dr Seema Vs Dr Aklesh decided by High court of Delhi

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed,
"counsel contended that even if any alleged act of cruelty was committed by the appellant prior to the said date, the same stood condoned by the passionate letters sent by the respondent to the appellant. The other limb of argument taken by the counsel for the appellant was that a child was born.
It is also a settled legal position that there cannot be condonation if the offending spouse continues to indulge in the commission of further acts of cruelty either physical or mental. Either a temporary stay or even resumption of conjugal rights though may be strong circumstances to infer condonation on the part of the offending spouse but the same by itself would not be sufficient to draw an inference of condonation unless such a stay and resumption of conjugal relationship is with an intent to restore back the marital relationship with a sense of forgiveness and consequently not to indulge in either repeating the previous acts or to inflict more cruelty.

The conception of the child is thus an unflinching proof of condonation of the acts of the offending spouse.
From her callousness and brutal remarks about the respondent and his family members, it is clear that her cruelty continued and the previous acts also stood revived in the face of such a conduct. Even though the respondent by resuming connubial relations and showing overtures of forbearance had explicitly condoned the acts of cruelty prior to August, 1995, but in the face of the subsequent conduct of the appellant, the acts of cruelty would stand revived and the respondent would be entitled to the decree of divorce."

Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs. Manju Sharma (2009) 6 SCC 379,

Supreme Court observed: “If we grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, then we shall by judicial verdict be adding a clause to Section 13 of the Act to the effect that irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is also a ground for divorce. In our opinion, this can only be done by the legislature and not by the Court. It is for the Parliament to enact or amend the law and not for the Courts.”