Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)Dr.(Mrs.) Malathi Ravi, M.D vs Dr. B.V . Ravi M.D on 30 June, 2014
This judgment was approvingly
cited and applied in the decision reported in (2014) 7 SCC 640 (Malathi Ravi
v. B.V. Ravi). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the latter decision observed
that mental cruelty and its effect cannot be stated with arithmetical
exactitude. It varies from individual to individual, from society to society
and also depends on the status of the persons. What would be a mental cruelty
in the life of two individuals belonging to particular strata of the society
may not amount to mental cruelty in respect of another couple belonging to a
different stratum of society. The concept of cruelty is one and the same in
all cases. But, when it is applied, there cannot be a singular yardstick.
Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors on 7 May, 2014
13.A concluding thought. There is an underlying arrogance in this
complaint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2014) 7
SCC 547 (Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors) referred to
Article 51 A (g) of the Constitution of India which cast a fundamental duty
on every citizen to have compassion for living creatures. All living
creatures have inherent dignity. Human life, we often say, is not like
animal existence. This view has anthropocentric bias. We forget the fact
that animals have also got intrinsic worth and value. Now there is a slow but
observable shift from the anthropocentric approach to a more nature?s right
centric approach in International Environmental Law and Animal Welfare Laws.
In recent multinational instruments the intrinsic value of nature is asserted
and there is a shift to non-anthropocentric human- independent terminology.
Rights of animals have been recognized in various countries. Protection of
animals has been guaranteed. The German Constitution talks of ?Animal
Dignity?. Thus, the dignity of the animals is constitutionally recognised in
that country. The Animal Welfare Act of Norway affirms that animals have an
intrinsic value which is irrespective of the usable value they may have for
man. Our Hon'ble Supreme Court announced in ringing terms that animals also
have honour and dignity.
Article 51 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 46 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Vinita Saxena vs Pankaj Pandit on 21 March, 2006
6.In the decision reported in (2006) 6 SCC 778 (Vinita Saxena vs Pankaj
Pandit) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the concept of cruelty has
varied from time to time, from place to place and from individual to
individual in its application according to social status of the persons
involved and their economic conditions and other matters. The question
whether the act complained of was a cruel act is to be determined from the
whole facts and the matrimonial relations between the parties. In this
connection, the culture, temperament and status in life and many other things
are the factors which have to be considered.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1