Cruelty - Ground for Divorce

Cruelty - Ground for Divorce

1. Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce UNDER HINDU LAW KASHYAP THAKKAR FAMILY LAW - I SEM - V

2. GROUNDS OF DIVORCE Some of the grounds available under the Hindu Marriage Act can be said to be: Adultery Cruelty Desertion Conversion Insanity Renunciation

3. CRUELTY The concept of cruelty is a changing concept. The modern concept of cruelty includes both mental and physical cruelty. Acts of cruelty are behavioural manifestations stimulated by different factors in the life of spouses. While physical cruelty is easy to determine, it is difficult to say what mental cruelty consists of. In Pravin Mehta v. Inderjeet Mehta, the court has defined mental cruelty as ‘the state of mind.’

4. CRUELTY Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cruelty was not a ground for divorce but only for judicial separation. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Narayan Ganesh Dastane v Sucheta Narayan Dastane in 1975. However the amendment of the act in 1976, incorporated cruelty as a ground for divorce.

5. CRUELTY false accusations of adultery demand of dowry refusal to have marital intercourse/children impotency birth of child drunkenness threat to commit suicide wife’s writing false complaints to employer of the husband Some Instances of Cruelty are as follows:

6. CRUELTY ordinary wear & tear of married life wife’s refusal to resign her job desertion per se. The following do not amount to cruelty:

7. CASE LAWS

8. Narayan G. Dastane v. Sucheta N. Dastane (1975) Five Tests laid down by the Supreme Court to identify Cruelty

9. FACTS The appellant is Narayan Ganesh Dastane, a well-educated and qualified man The Respondent is Sucheta who is a well-educated woman whose father works in the Ministry of the Government of India. The Respondent’s father sent letters to the Appellant before finalising the marriage informing him regarding an incident where the Respondent suffered from a bad attack of sunstroke which affected her mental condition for some time which she recovered from and cited cerebral malaria as another reason for the brief decline of her mental health.

10. FACTS He did not make any further inquiries at the Yeravada Mental Hospital. The had two daughters until 1959. They lived together until February 1961, but the Respondent was three month’s pregnant when her relationship with her husband was strained. The Respondent addressed a letter to the Appellant complaining against his conduct and asking for maintenance for herself and her daughters. The Respondent wrote a letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, stating that the Appellant had deserted her, treated her with extreme cruelty, and asked the Government to separately provide for her maintenance.

11. FACTS The Appellant expressed regret for not being extended a proper invitation for the naming ceremony of his own child. On December 15, 1961, the Appellant informed the Respondent’s father that he has moved the Court for seeking separation from the Respondent. On February 19, 1962, proceedings were instituted in the Trial Court where the Appellant asked for the annulment of his marriage under S.12 (1)(c), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) on the ground that his consent was obtained by fraud.

12. FACTS Alternatively, the Appellant asked for judicial separation under S.10(1)(b) on the ground that the Respondent had treated him with a cruelty which created a reasonable apprehension in his mind that his life is under threat if he lives with her.

13. Trial Court The Trial Court held the wife guilty of cruelty but rejected the contentions regarding fraud and unsoundness of mind, and subsequently passed a decree for judicial separation.

14. TESTS LAID DOWN BY SC The alleged acts constituting cruelty should be proved according to the law of evidence; There should be an apprehension in the Petitioner’s mind of real injury or harm from such conduct; The apprehension should be reasonable having regard to the condition of the parties; The Petitioner should not have taken advantage of his position; The Petitioner should not have condoned the acts of cruelty.

15. VERDICT The contention regarding the Respondent inflicting cruelty on the Appellant has been proven to exist. But the Appellant’s act of engaging in sexual intercourse with the Respondent amounts to condonation of cruelty in the eyes of law. The Respondent was willing to make amends and return to the household shared by both parties and she realised her mistakes. The Appellant condoned the Respondent after which she did not act in the manner she did before the condonation. The Respondent will not be held liable for cruelty.

16. THANK YOU