Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In the landmark judgment of N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326, the Supreme Court held condonation of cruelty under Section 23(1), Hindu Marriage Act and the corresponding provisions of the Special Marriage Act, a mitigating factor in grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
“The conduct of the wife by concealing the material fact about her age and her conviction of life in a murder case, before contracting marriage, has caused mental agony to the husband to such an extent that it is almost impossible for them to live together.”
“Such intimidation and infliction of emotional and psychological distress using wife’s past history to blackmail itself constitutes mental cruelty.”
The Court remarked that when the other party opposes the prayer for divorce despite their being no possibility of them living together, such conduct of party deriving pleasure from difficulties and tension of the other party also amounts to cruelty.
“The husband married the wife of his own volition through social media, and if household habits or lifestyle preferences were material factors to him, they could have been ascertained before marriage.”
“Protecting octogenarian women who have lived entire lifetimes within oppressive domestic environments is not merely an act of legal redress, but a reaffirmation of the constitutional promise of dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
“The continued mistrust of the husband creates an atmosphere of humiliation, fear and emotional suffering and such conduct makes it unreasonable to expect the wife to continue living with him and the wife is entitled to live with dignity and freedom through the remedy of divorce.”
“Beyond the immediate family, such acts corrode social conscience, and strike at the hope of a society to be free from discrimination. If such practices are allowed to continue, it would send a message that human life has little value.”
“If the wife ill-treated the children, it would certainly cause an apprehension in the husband’s mind that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with her where the expression ‘harmful or injurious’ was not confined to physical acts alone, but extended to mental torture as well.”
“This dreadful act is sufficient to hold that she has committed mental cruelty with the husband and the Trial Court erred in not appreciating the facts evident on the record and even more so in replacing them with its own perceived notions.”
“Her behaviour, including instigating the daughter against the father, making unfounded demands during a financially unstable period, and leaving the home with the daughter while abandoning the son, demonstrated a pattern of mental harassment and disregard for the matrimonial bond.”
Marriage entails mutual respect and adjustment. Some parties take less time to adjust while the other takes longer time, but it is expected of both the parties to show due respect to each other. The foundation of a sound and healthy marriage is tolerance, adjustment and mutual respect.
Wife’s behaviour of using derogatory terms for husband’s physical disability discloses her thought and respect to her husband.
“Persistent neglect, lack of affection and denial of conjugal rights without valid reasons cause severe mental trauma to the spouse and we find no reason to disbelieve the version of the wife that she was subjected to severe mental trauma.”
“No husband will tolerate that his wife is in undignified or indecent conversation through mobile by way of vulgar chatting.”
“Forcing wife to live with a person who is neither educated nor eager to improve himself certainly amounts to mental cruelty.”
“Differences of perception towards life may give rise to different behaviours by individuals. Such a difference of perception and behaviour may be described as cruel by others by observing the behaviour of another. At the same time, such perceptions are neither absolute nor such as may themselves give rise to allegations of cruelty unless observed and proven facts are such as may be recognized in law to be acts of cruelty.”
The wife was appointed as Assistant Manager in LIC Housing Finance Ltd., and at time the respondent was doing nothing, this was the reason why husband compelled the appellant to leave the job and stay with him.
“The marriage between the parties becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties”
To apply Section 3061 of the Penal Code, 1860, it is expected of prosecution to demonstrate that there is live link/active role played by appellant in instigating the suicide.