Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.39 seconds)The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Narayan Ganesh Dastane vs Sucheta Narayan Dastane on 19 March, 1975
27. There is yet one more reason why this contention cannot be accepted. The Legislature was fully aware of the interpretation of cruelty as made in the Special Marriage Act under section 27. It was also aware of the decision of the Supreme Court holding that the character and standard of proof required under section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act was less stringent from that required under the English law as laid down by the judicial decisions. The Legislature intended that cruelty must be of such a kind as to cause danger to life, limb of health of reasonable apprehension thereto, nothing would have prevented it from saying so in those words in section 13(1)(ia) instead of leaving it vague and open to speculation to do so. That would be consistent more with the object of liberalisation further than of making it difficult.
The Special Marriage Act, 1954
Section 27 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Dr. N.G. Dastane vs Mrs. S. Dastane on 19 March, 1975
19. On behalf of the petitioner-appellant, it was contended, that in consequence of the amendment, the petitioner in this case has to prove only the fact the respondent acted towards her in a cruel manner or perpetrated cruelty upon her. It was not necessary after the amendment to prove either that there was reasonable apprehension as contemplated under old section 10 of it ''being harmful or injurious to live with the other spouse''. If the conduct of the respondent towards the petitioner was proved by the evidence put forth before the Court to be of cruelty, then it is urged that the petitioner was entitled to a divorce or judicial separation. In the context of the contentions and the amendment, it was not required by the petitioner to prove either physical torture or harm to the life and its reasonable apprehension. It was also not necessary for her to prove that it was harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the husband. Reliance in this behalf was placed for the petitioner on the decision reported in Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, and Smt. Kaushalya Devi v. Masat Ram, . It was contended that the allegation of infidelity on the part of the wife by the husband if proceeded over a period of years, and it is not established as a fact or even founded upon reasonable suspicion, that itself was an act of cruelty. Cruelty need not, and is not physical but also can be and is mental also being legal cruelty. Where a person is subject to a behaviour and way of life founded on continuous suspicion then the person is living, as in the present case under the constant surveillance and suspiciously watched by the seeing and unseeing eyes of the respondent husband, anxiety of possibility of quarrels in the family leading to the bickerings and tension being always present at the back would make life miserable. It was, therefore, urged that the petitioner having in this case successfully established, that the respondent unsuccessfully and without reasonable justification suspected the petitioner's morality and faithfulness and subjected her to treatment based on suspicion must be held to have treated her in a cruel inhuman manner.
Anandji Haridas & Co. (P.) Ltd vs S. P. Kushare, S. T. O. Nagpur & Ors on 28 September, 1967
Reliance was also placed in this behalf on another decision reported in P. v. P., , where the learned Judge though found that the behaviour of the respondent was tantamount to cruelty in the legal sense of the term, yet held there was no evidence ''of any danger to the life of the petitioner'' or any ''reasonable apprehension of such danger''. It was on that account pointed out that the suit was dismissed and cruelty was found not proved. It was, therefore, urged that the consequence of the amendment was that the law became more stringent with certain emphasis on the physical aspect of the import.
Madanlal Sharma vs Santosh Sharma on 28 November, 1979
In holding so in Madanlal Sharma's case, 1980 Mh.L.J. 391 the learned Judge has referred to a number of decisions rendered under the Special Marriage Act, section 27(1)(b) which are a ground for divorce. In several decisions referred to in that case and in Dastane's judgment which went to the Supreme Court this concept of English divorce law as to cruelty was referred and adopted.
Smt. Kaushalya Devi vs Masat Ram on 26 March, 1981
19. On behalf of the petitioner-appellant, it was contended, that in consequence of the amendment, the petitioner in this case has to prove only the fact the respondent acted towards her in a cruel manner or perpetrated cruelty upon her. It was not necessary after the amendment to prove either that there was reasonable apprehension as contemplated under old section 10 of it ''being harmful or injurious to live with the other spouse''. If the conduct of the respondent towards the petitioner was proved by the evidence put forth before the Court to be of cruelty, then it is urged that the petitioner was entitled to a divorce or judicial separation. In the context of the contentions and the amendment, it was not required by the petitioner to prove either physical torture or harm to the life and its reasonable apprehension. It was also not necessary for her to prove that it was harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the husband. Reliance in this behalf was placed for the petitioner on the decision reported in Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, and Smt. Kaushalya Devi v. Masat Ram, . It was contended that the allegation of infidelity on the part of the wife by the husband if proceeded over a period of years, and it is not established as a fact or even founded upon reasonable suspicion, that itself was an act of cruelty. Cruelty need not, and is not physical but also can be and is mental also being legal cruelty. Where a person is subject to a behaviour and way of life founded on continuous suspicion then the person is living, as in the present case under the constant surveillance and suspiciously watched by the seeing and unseeing eyes of the respondent husband, anxiety of possibility of quarrels in the family leading to the bickerings and tension being always present at the back would make life miserable. It was, therefore, urged that the petitioner having in this case successfully established, that the respondent unsuccessfully and without reasonable justification suspected the petitioner's morality and faithfulness and subjected her to treatment based on suspicion must be held to have treated her in a cruel inhuman manner.
1