Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.60 seconds)Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007
In case of Samar Ghosh (supra) the Court held that
it was a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, one
of parties refused to sever the ties despite the breakdown
of marriage. The Court noticed a long period of
continuous separation, to hold that it can be concluded
fairly that the matrimonial bond was beyond repairs. The
marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal
tie. By refusing to sever the tie, the law in such case
would not serve the sanctity of the marriage, on the
contrary it shows scant regard for the feeling and
emotions of the parties and that would also lead to mental
cruelty. The Court endorsed the order of Trial Court
which concluded that the various instances in the
Page 33 of 46
Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 20:50:20 IST 2022
C/FA/994/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2022
matrimonial life had led to grave mental cruelty to the
appellant-husband. The Court also gave instances of
mental cruelty to hold that there are certain illustrative
instances though they are not exhaustive of the conduct
that may amount to mental cruelty in matrimonial
context. It would be appropriate to refer to the relevant
findings and observations of the Apex Court in this
connection, which read as follow:-
A. Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur on 2 December, 2004
In A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur the Court observed
as under: (SCC pp. 29-30,paras 10 & 12-13)
"10. The expression "cruelty" has not been defined
in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental.
Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of
Page 37 of 46
Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 20:50:20 IST 2022
C/FA/994/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2022
marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable
conduct of such character as to cause danger to
life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give
rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a
danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be
considered in the light of the norms of marital ties
of the particular society to which the parties
belong, their social values, status, environment in
which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes
mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a
matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If
from the conduct of the spouse, same is
established and/or an inference can be legitimately
drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that
it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other
spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this
conduct amounts to cruelty. In a delicate human
relationship like matrimony, one has to see the
probabilities of the case. The concept proof beyond
the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal
trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to
matters of such delicate personal relationship as
those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to
see what are the probabilities in a case and legal
cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter
of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the
complainant spouse because of the acts or
omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or
corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty,
there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in
the case of mental cruelty there may not at the
Page 38 of 46
Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 20:50:20 IST 2022
C/FA/994/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2022
same time be direct evidence. In cases where there
is no direct evidence, Courts are required to probe
into the mental process and mental effect of
incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in
this view that one has to consider the evidence in
matrimonial disputes.
Section 10 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Parveen Mehta vs Inderjit Mehta on 11 July, 2002
52. The mental cruelty has also been examined by this
Court in Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta SCC at
pp.716-17 para 21 which reads as under:
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993
In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, a two-Judge Bench
referred to the amendment that had taken place
in Sections 10 and 13(1)(ia) after the (Hindu) Marriage
Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 and proceeded to hold
Page 25 of 46
Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 20:50:20 IST 2022
C/FA/994/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2022
that the earlier requirement that such cruelty has
caused a reasonable apprehension in the mind of a
spouse that it would be harmful or injurious for him/her
to live with the other one is no longer the requirement.
Thereafter, this Court proceeded to deal with what
constitutes mental cruelty as contemplated in Section
13(1)(ia) and observed that mental cruelty in the said
provision can broadly be defined as that conduct which
inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and
suffering as would make it not possible for that party to
live with the other. To put it differently, the mental
cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot
reasonably be expected to live together. The situation
must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably
be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to
live with the other party. It was further observed, while
arriving at such conclusion, that regard must be had to
the social status, educational level of the parties, the
society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the
parties ever living together in case they are already
living apart and all other relevant facts and
circumstances. What is cruelty in one case may not
amount to cruelty in another case and it has to be
determined in each case keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of that case. That apart, the accusations
and allegations have to be scrutinized in the context in
which they are made. Be it noted, in the said case, this
Court quoted extensively from the allegations made in
the written statement and the evidence brought on
record and came to hold that the said allegations and
Page 26 of 46
Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 20:50:20 IST 2022
C/FA/994/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2022
counter allegations were not in the realm of ordinary
plea of defence and did amount to mental cruelty.
Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate vs Neela Vijaykumar Bhate on 4 October, 2000
In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela
Vijaykumar Bhate, it has been opined that a conscious
and deliberate statement levelled with pungency and
that too placed on record, through the written
statement, cannot be so lightly ignored or brushed
aside.
Vinita Saxena vs Pankaj Pandit on 21 March, 2006
In Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit, it has been ruled
that as to what constitutes mental cruelty for the
purposes of Section 13(1)(ia) will not depend upon the
numerical count of such incident or only on the
continuous course of such conduct but one has to really
go by the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of it
when meted out even once and the deleterious effect of
it on the mental attitude necessary for maintaining a
conducive matrimonial home.