Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007
was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Samar
Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007)4 SCC 511. Their Lordships
enumerated following category of cases which are
considered relevant while examining the question as to
whether the facts alleged in the matter and proved
constitute "mental cruelty". Paragraph 101 of the said
judgment is being reproduced below :-
Parveen Mehta vs Inderjit Mehta on 11 July, 2002
In Praveen Mehta vs. Inderjeet Mehta, (2002) 5 SCC
706, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that cruelty for
the purpose of Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act, 1955 is to
be taken as a behaviour 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.
Dr.(Mrs.) Malathi Ravi, M.D vs Dr. B.V . Ravi M.D on 30 June, 2014
In Dr. (Mrs.) Malathi Ravi vs. Dr. B. V. Ravi M.D.,
(2014) 7 SCC 640, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh,
(2007) 4 SCC 511. What amounts to "mental cruelty"
V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993
In V. Bhagat vs. Mrs. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the concept of
"mental cruelty" in the context of Section 13 (1) (ia) of
the Act, 1955. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that
it can be defined as conduct which inflicts upon the other
party such mental pain and suffering as would make it
not possible for that party to live with other. In other
words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the
parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together.
A. Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur on 2 December, 2004
In A. Jayachandra Vs. Aneel Kaur, (2005)2 SCC 22,
it was held that 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.
Vinita Saxena vs Pankaj Pandit on 21 March, 2006
In Vinita Saxena Vs. Pankaj Pandit, (2006)3 SCC
778, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed, "31.It is
settled by a catena of decisions that mental cruelty can
cause even more serious injury than the physical harm
and create in the mind of the injured appellant such
apprehension as is contemplated in the section. It is to be
determined on whole facts of the case and the
matrimonial relations between the spouses. To amount to
cruelty, there must be such willful treatment of the party
which caused suffering in body or mind either as an
actual fact or by way of apprehension in such a manner
as to render the continued living together of spouses
harmful or injurious having regard to the circumstances
of the case.