| CITATION | AIR 1975 SC 1534 |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | 19-03-1975 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | V.M. Tarkunde S. Bhandare P.H. Parekh Manju Jaitley |
| RESPONDENT | V.S. Desai S.B. Wad Jayashree Wad |
| BENCH | Hon’ble Justice Chandrachud;Hon’ble justice Y.V. Goswami;Hon’ble Justice P.K. Untwalia. |
INTRODUCTION-
For Hindus, 1955 is the most important year. Prior to 1955, Hindu Law was considered to be uncodified. The Parliament passed four Acts for the Hindu because it was necessary at the time. One of the primary examples is the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. Inter-caste marriage, marriages to widows, and remarriages are no longer prohibited under the Act as they were before 1955. The Hindu Marriage Act put an end to the patriarchal society. Both partners are now eligible for divorce. But for the courts, cruelty has always been a new and troubling issue. Cruelty is now a recognized grounds for divorce according to the Supreme Court. The two types of cruelty grounds for divorce are physical cruelty and mental cruelty. Physical cruelty is simpler to prove because it can be supported by witnesses, medical records, and other direct evidence. What about mental cruelty, though? How fear, depression, frustration, and other emotions brought on by the other spouse can be measured or observed. Although the spouse appears to be in good physical health to those around them, the truth is harsh.
FACTS OF THE CASE-
- • The parents of the respondent, Sucheta, made a marriage proposal to the appellant in April 1956.
- The respondent holds a Master’s degree in social work and a B.Sc. in science from Delhi University.
- Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane, the appellant, was an M.Sc. in Agriculture graduate. Prior to finalizing the marriage proposal, the respondent’s father wrote to the appellant to let him know that the respondent had recently recovered from a “severe attack of sunstroke” that had temporarily impaired her mental state.
- Additionally, the respondent’s father asserted that she received treatment at Yeravada Mental Hospital. After discussing the incident with the doctor, the appellant made no further inquiries.
- On May 13, 1956, they performed the marriage. The two daughters were born through this union. In 1961, the appellant called for police protection, claiming that the respondent was a danger to his life.
- In a letter to the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, the respondent requested maintenance for herself as well as for her two daughters and detailed the appellant’s cruel behavior.
- Invoking section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, the appellant moved the court to revoke the marriage on the grounds that his consent had been obtained fraudulently.
- Additionally, he asked the court to grant a divorce in accordance with section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955.
- On the other hand, he also sought judicial separation in accordance with HMA, 1955, section 10(1)(b).
ISSUES RAISED-
- Whether the facts in the matrimonial disputes proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
- Whether engaging in sexual activity constitutes cruelty?
- Who has the onus of proving cruelty, the appellant or the respondent?
ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE PARTIES:
By Husband (Dr.Dastane):
“The respondent used to refer to the appellant’s mother as an obnoxious woman; on the day of “Paksha” (the day on which oblations are offered to the ancestors); she beat her daughter Shubha while she was running on a high temperature of 104 degrees; and one night she began acting as if she were “possessed’. She once tore off the Mangal-Sutra and vowed never to wear it again. She also used to turn on the light at midnight and sit by her husband’s bedside, nagging him all through the night. As a result, he frequently literally prostrated himself before her.
By Wife (Sucheta):
- My husband gave me specific instructions:
- After waking up in the morning, to look after the child;
- Never overfill a tea or milk container.
- 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.
- To regularly apply her “Kajal” and to give him tomato juice.
- Don’t talk.
JUDGEMENT (DECISION) -:
The Supreme Court of India found the appellant’s claim that his wife had a mental illness to be untrue. According to Section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, it has been established that the respondent did, in fact, treat the appellant cruelly, but The act of the appellant having sex with the respondent is considered “condonation of cruelty” in the eyes of the law. After realizing her errors, the respondent was ready to move back into the joint residence. The appellant’s explanation of the respondent’s actions made it clear that she had changed from her earlier behaviour. Therefore, the petition for divorce will not be granted and the respondent won’t be held accountable for cruelty.
CONCLUSION:
Cruelty is one of the grounds for Divorce and Judicial Separation. The word ‘cruelty’ is not defined in the Act. As a result, it must be determined in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case. Mental cruelty is a state of mind. For a long time, one spouse’s deep anguish, frustration, and disappointment caused by the behavior of others led to mental cruelty. In the Dastane v. Dastane case, cruelty was established as a basis for divorce, and a suffering wife was granted the right to maintenance from her husband. Even mental suffering is considered cruelty.
REFERENCES-
This Article is written by Aastha Srivastava, a 3rd Year LL.B student of DES Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College, Pune; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
