Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.35 seconds)

Parveen Mehta vs Inderjit Mehta on 11 July, 2002

25. Mental cruelty has also been examined in Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta (2002) 5 SCC 706 wherein it has been observed that:­ 'Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13 (1)(ia) is to be taken as a behavior by one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental Cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behavior or behavioral pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 291 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Babita Rani And Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. Along With ... on 26 September, 2005

20. Pw13 is Dr. T.K. Prasad, Consultant ENT, Rao Tula Ram Hospital has stated that in January 2001, one patient Babita Rajesh Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) C.A.No.108/13 Page No. 23 of 35 came with complaint of swelling in neck and she was examined by him vide document Ex. Pw13/A and he correctly identified his signatures on the documents. In his cross­examination Pw13 has stated that no MLC of the patient was prepared. He stated the swelling was old one but exact duration cannot be explained. He has stated that patient had been asked to get Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology Test but patient did not come to him back with the said test report and no prescription was made by him at that time. He stated that no old record of the patient was produced. He admitted that he has not brought original record of the document Ex. Pw13/A. He denied the suggestion that he has not examined the patient.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 8 - V Sen - Full Document
1   2 Next