PARTIES INVOLVED
PETITIONER Narayan Ganesh Dastane
RESPONDENT Sucheta Narayan Dastane
COURT
Supreme Court of India.
CITATION
AIR 1975 SC 1534
DATE OF JUDGEMENT
19th March 1975
BENCH
Hon’ble Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Justice P.K. Goswami and Hon’ble Justice N.L. Untwalia
INTRODUCTION
NG Dastane vs. S Dastane (1975) is a landmark case. On the basis of cruelty, deception, and insanity, the appellant in this case, Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane, requested a judicial separation from his wife, Sucheta Dastane. Under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, the case addressed the legal doctrines of cruelty, burden of proof, and condonation in matrimonial disputes.
Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane, the appellant, obtained an M.Sc. in agriculture before studying for a PhD in irrigation research in Australia as part of the Colombo Plan. After his return to India in 1955, he served at the Pusa Institute in Delhi as an Agricultural Research Officer and then as an Assistant Professor of Agronomy.
Sucheta, on the other hand, was born in Nagpur and raised in Delhi. After earning a B.Sc., she went on to earn a Social Work degree. Before getting married, she worked for the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
FACTS
The Appellant & Respondent are from well-respected households and have advanced degrees. Prior to the marriage, the wife’s father disclosed that she had been treated for cerebral malaria and sunstroke.The respondent’s father claimed that Yeravada Mental Hospital was where she received therapy. The appellant did not follow up with any questions after speaking with the doctor about the occurrence. Later, the husband claimed that the woman had schizophrenia.
Together, the couple had three kids. After leaving the marital residence, one of the girls was born. Throughout the marriage, the wife displayed signs of being restless and lacking self-control. In addition, the pair split up in February 1961. According to Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, the husband (appellant) went to court and requested a decree of nullity. The appellant contends that deceit was used to get his approval of the marriage. Alternatively, claiming that the respondent was mentally incompetent, the appellant requested a divorce remedy under Section 13(1)(iii). Under Section 10(1)(b), the appellant invoked cruelty as justification for pursuing judicial separation as an additional alternative remedy. The appellant demanded police protection in 1961, stating that the respondent posed a threat to his life. In a letter to the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, the respondent described the appellant’s cruel actions and asked for support for both herself and her two daughters.
ISSUES
- Whether the facts established beyond reasonable doubt in the matrimonial disputes?
- Whether the act of sexual intercourse amounts to cruelty?
- Whether the burden of proof of cruelty lies upon the Appellant or on the Respondent?
ARGUMENTS
By Petitioner (Narayan Ganesh Dastane)
Dastane argued that Sucheta had treated him with cruelty, both physical and mental, and that he had reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful to him to live with her. Contended that Sucheta had threatened to commit suicide and had even attempted to burn herself, which caused him mental agony and cruelty. She had been violent towards him and had even attacked him with a knife, which caused him physical harm and cruelty. During the day of “Paksha,” when oblations are made to the ancestors, the respondent used to call the appellant’s mother a troublesome woman. She abused her daughter Shubha while she was suffering from a fever of 104 degrees, and one evening she started acting as though she was “possessed.” She once declared she would never wear the Mangal-Sutra again after tearing it off. In addition, she would sit by her husband’s bedside and pester him through the night after turning on the light at midnight. The marriage had broken down irretrievably and that it was impossible for him to live with Sucheta.
By Respondent (Sucheta Narayan Dastane)
The Respondent argued that Petitioner gave her specific instructions to follow and she has to follow all this whether she either wants or not. The instructions was about the household chores after waking up in the morning, to look after the child; it goes on continues in like to never overfill a tea or milk container or never serve food on brass plates, cups, or containers; Instead of repeatedly asking “What do you want?” after the first course is served, inquire about the price and the course(s) at the beginning of the meal, Avoid using just one hand for any task. Forcing respondent to regularly apply her “Kajal” and to give him tomato juice. Sometimes instructs to don’t talk. Respondent denied that she had treated petitioner with cruelty and argued that he had fabricated the allegations to get a divorce. Dastane was mentally unstable and that his allegations of cruelty were a result of his own mental health issues.
RELEVANT PRECEDENTS
Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah vs. Prabhavati (1957): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the test of cruelty is whether the conduct of one spouse has caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of the other spouse that it would be harmful to live with the former.
Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani vs. Meena (1964): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a relevant factor in determining whether a divorce should be granted.
JUDGEMENT
The Trial Court, after a thorough evaluation of the evidence presented by both parties, held that the respondent had indeed committed acts of cruelty against the appellant, as defined under Section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court rejected the respondent’s counter-allegations which included accusations of fraud in securing the marriage and claims regarding the appellant’s mental instability. According to the Trial Court, these assertions lacked sufficient evidence and were made primarily to dilute the allegations of cruelty made by the appellant. In light of this, the court ordered a judicial separation between the two parties, believing that the matrimonial bond had deteriorated beyond repair due to the consistent acts of cruelty inflicted upon the appellant. This judicial separation was granted solely on the basis of cruelty and not on the grounds of fraud or unsoundness of mind, which the court found unsubstantiated.
However, the matter did not end there. On appeal, the District Court gave a decision in favour of the respondent, effectively overturning the earlier decision. It rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and endorsed the respondent’s argument. The matter was further escalated to the High Court where a single judge bench considered the case. However, the High Court too did not rule in the appellant’s favour, choosing instead to uphold the lower appellate court’s findings. The respondent, thereafter, was granted a Special Leave Petition (SLP) to appeal, which was specifically concerned with the question of whether judicial separation could be awarded solely on the basis of cruelty, in the absence of any finding on the grounds of mental unsoundness or fraud in obtaining marital consent. The presumption of proof was, at this stage, placed in favour of the respondent, and the High Court’s judgment stood uncontested.
Eventually, the case reached the Supreme Court of India under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, where the appellant challenged the lower courts’ decisions. The Supreme Court, however, found fault with the High Court’s approach, stating that the evidence regarding cruelty had not been given adequate consideration. The apex court observed that despite the prolonged legal proceedings, a proper judicial assessment had not been conducted by the subordinate courts. After a thorough re-examination of the case, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s reasoning was legally unsound and did not reflect a proper understanding of the law concerning cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. However, in spite of acknowledging that there was evidence showing consistent cruelty on part of the respondent, the court noted that the appellant had condoned this behaviour. Therefore, it ruled that the appellant’s later claims of abandonment or cruelty could not stand in the face of earlier condonation. This ultimately led the Supreme Court to deny the appellant’s plea, while maintaining the respondent’s legal standing.
REFERENCES
- https://jurisedge.com/case-brief-narayan-ganesh-dastane-v-sucheta-narayan-dastane- 1975-air-1534/
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62494/
- https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-14766-cruelty-a-comprehensive-analysis-of-dastan-v-s-dastan-and-the-evolution-of-hindu-marriage-law-1955-now-.html
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
0 Comments