Latest News
Back
Document:
DASTANE v. DASTANE, 1975
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has recognized cruelty as the ground for divorce. Also, the wife getting divorced on the grounds of cruelty will get maintenance from her husband. However, before this case, under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cruelty was only ground for judicial separation and not a ground for divorce. Later on, this was upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Dastane v. Dastane in 1975. However, the amendment of cruelty as a ground of divorce was incorporated in the year 1976. The definition of cruelty also gets changed along with the change in the law.
Facts:
In this case, the appellant (Narayan Ganesh Dastane) and respondent (Sucheta Narayan) got married in April 1956, before the marriage, an incident happened where the Respondent suffered from a bad attack of sunstroke which affected her mental condition for some time. The couple had daughters, first Shubha born on March 1957 and second Vibha on March 21, 1959. On January 1961, Appellant brother’s marriage was in Poona so respondent went and in between marriage appellant took respondent to a psychiatrist. Respondent as how not cooperated to get her examined. Thereafter the respondent agreed to get checked with another doctor as she now believed that appellant was intending and concluding a case of unsound mind of the case against respondent. They both jointly lived until 1961. When the relationship between the couple strained respondent was three month’s pregnant with her husband. Appellant at the time living in Delhi filed a police report seeking protection against the respondent's parents and family members/relatives as he feared of life. On that particular time, they interacted with each other but they spewed more venom at each other after a meet as it was an opportunity to sort out everything but on subsequent day respondent renewed the police protection on his request. After then respondent filed a letter to the appellant complaining about the conduct and asking for maintenance for herself and her daughters. Respondent then wrote a letter to the secretary of the Ministry of Food and agriculture about noticing that appellant had deserted her and treated her with very cruelty. And seeking the government to separately provide maintenance for her along with her daughters. The statements were recorded by the Additional Superintendent of Police about the ill-treatment and desertion committed against the respondent. The cross complaints and the recorded statements amongst the parties were pointless and did not have any viewpoint. The third daughter Vibha was born on August 1961, to the family. The Appellant wrote a letter of regret for not being present after a proper invitation on the naming ceremony of his own child to the Respondent’s father and also wrote about the complaints of the Respondent’s conduct. The appellant informed the Respondent’s father about he moved to the court on December 15, 1961, for seeking separation from the Respondent.
Proceedings were instituted in the Trial Court on February 19, 1962, where the Appellant asked for the repealing of his marriage under Section 12 (1)(c), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that his consent was brought by fraud. The Appellant argued that the Respondent was treated at Mental Hospital for Schizophrenia as she had an incident before marriage and cause her bat attack of sunstroke and the Respondent’s father fraudulently represented the appellant that the state of respondents mental health is good to him to obtain his consent. Alternatively, he asked for divorce under Section 13 (1)(iii), Hindu Marriage Act,1955 on the ground that the Respondent was of unsound mind. Along with, the Appellant asked for judicial separation under Section 10(1)(b) on the ground that the Respondent had treated him with cruelty which created a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the appellant that his life is under threat if he afterwards lives with the respondent. Trial Court, in this case, held that the wife is guilty of cruelty but rejected the contentions concerning fraud and unsoundness of mind, and subsequently grant a decree for judicial separation. Both parties after then appealed to the District Court which allowed the respondent’s appeal and dismissed the appellant’s appeal. Thereafter, Appellant filed a Second Appeal in the Bombay High Court, and it was dismissed by the court, but granted a special leave to appeal to the appellant, strictly limited to the question of judicial separation on the ground of cruelty, not worried with that how the appellant’s consent to marriage was obtained or whether the respondent was of unsound mind for the period preceding the presentation of the petition. The Bombay High Court’s decision on the questions concerning consent to marriage and Respondent’s unsound mind were to be treated as final.
Issues Framed Before the Supreme Court:
- Whether the Burden of Proof of cruelty lies on the Petitioner or not?
- Whether the facts have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt in matrimonial matters?
- Whether the act of sexual intercourse amounts to condonation of cruelty?
Ratio Authored by Y.V.Chandrachaud:
Determining whether given conduct amounts to legal cruelty or not this tests will be laid down which is as follows:
- All the acts alleged constituting cruelty should be proved according to the law of evidence;
- Apprehension in the Petitioner’s mind of real injury or harm should be present of such conduct;
- The apprehension should be rational having regard to the condition of the parties;
- Advantage should not be taken of petitioner’s position;
- The Petitioner should not have condoned the acts of cruelty.
Conclusion/Verdict:
In the present case, the Appellant’s contention regarding his wife being of unsound mind was forged by him. The contention regarding the respondent conducting cruelty on the Appellant has been proved to exist, but the engaging of appellants in act of sexual intercourse with the Respondent amounts to condonation of cruelty and desertion in the eyes of law. After the acts of desertion and cruelty have been forgiven, for the Appellant’s claims regarding cruelty to have held ground, the Respondent’s subsequent conduct had to be as grave or to the degree of her previous acts of cruelty.
Even mental cruelty was accounted for as “cruelty”. The section now in the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, imposes no restrictions. This is in order to enable the courts to explain it in a wider sense. The basic requirement now is that there must be painful or harsh conduct of a certain amount and for a relatively lengthen the duration. In all cases of claimed cruelty that come before the courts, a common practise embrace by them is to adjudicate the matter based on all relevant circumstances, not just as a solitary incident.
Document:
