Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.60 seconds)Dr. N.G. Dastane vs Mrs. S. Dastane on 19 March, 1975
14.The change of law brought about by the Hindu Marriage
Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 deserves notice. Prior to the
said Amendment Act, cruelty was not a ground for claiming
divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. It was a ground only
for claiming judicial separation under Section 10. By the
said Amendment Act, cruelty was made a ground for divorce as
well evidently in recognition of the changing mores of the
society. While doing so, it is significant, the words "as
to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the
petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the
petitioner to live with the other party," qualifying the
expression "cruelty" in Section 10(1)(b), were omitted by
Parliament. It is, therefore, not necessary for the party
claiming divorce to prove that the cruel treatment is of
such a nature as to cause an apprehension a reasonable
apprehension in his/her mind that it will be harmful or
injurious for him/her to live with the other party. Now
what does this change mean? Surely, the deletion of the
said words could not have been without a purpose. The
cruelty of the nature described in Section 10(1)(b) has been
explained in this Court's decision in N.G. Dastane v. S.
Dastane3. Chandrachud, J. speaking for the Bench, held that
where an allegation of cruelty is made, the enquiry has to
be
"... whether the conduct charged as cruelty is
of such a character as to cause in the mind of
the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that
it will be harmful or injurious for him to
live with the respondent".
Chanderkala Trivedi (Smt) vs Dr. S.P. Trivedi on 24 August, 1993
18.In Chanderkala Trivedi v. Dr S.P. Trivedi6 the husband
sued for divorce on the ground of cruelty by wife. The wife
filed a written statement wherein she attributed adultery to
the husband. In reply thereto the husband put forward
another allegation against the wife that she was having
undesirable association with young boys. Considering the
mutual allegations, R.M. Sahai, J. speaking for Division
Bench, observed: (SCC
p. 233, para 2)
"Whether the allegation of the husband that
she was in the habit of associating with young
boys and the findings recorded by the three
courts are correct or not but what is certain
is that once such allegations are made by the
husband and wife as have, been made in this
case then it is obvious that the marriage of
the two cannot in any circumstance be
continued any further. The marriage appears
to be practically dead as from cruelty alleged
by the husband it has turned out to be at
least intimacy of the husband with a lady
doctor and unbecoming conduct of a Hindu
wife."
Section 10 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
1