Dastane Vs Dastane AIR SC 1975 1534
Sub : Concept of cruelty in Divorce proceeding
Issue :
1. Can Divorce be granted on the ground of mental cruelty?
2. Can cruelty be condoned?
Decision :
1. It is in this landmark judgment that the Supreme Court of India for the first time recognized mental cruelty as a valid ground for divorce and also the theory of condonation of the same on the basis of Sec. 23 (1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
2. The SC held that the wife threatening to end her life, and verbally abusing the husband, among other acts, amounted to mental cruelty.
3. It observed that the inquiry 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 worry that it will be harmful to live with the respondent.
4. The Supreme Court of India held that the appellant’s contention regarding his wife being of unsound mind was fabricated by him. The contention regarding the respondent inflicting cruelty on the appellant has been proven to exist within the meaning of Section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but the appellant’s act of engaging in sexual intercourse with the respondent leads to condonation of cruelty in the eyes of law. The respondent was willing to return to the household shared by both parties as she realized her mistakes. The appellant condoned the respondent after which she did not act in the manner she did before the condonation. Hence, the respondent will not be held liable for cruelty and the divorce petition will not be granted.
Vishwanath Sitaram Agrawal V/S Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal AIR 2012 SC 2586
Sub : Allegations of complaint u/s 498-A of IPC and concept of cruelty
Issue :
Do allegation in complaint u/s 498 A IPC amount to cruelty?
Decision :
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sec. 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - Petition for divorce - Filed by husband - Wife used to hide his pressed clothes while he used to get ready for factory - Used for crumple ironed clothes and hide keys of motorcycle or close the main gate - Publication of notice by wife through her Advocate that appellant-husband was a womanizer and addicted to liquor - Allegation of illicit relationship in a written statement - Uncalled allegations bound to create mental agony and anguish in mind of husband - He was acquitted in the case under section 498-A of I.P.C. - No challenge to order - Such allegations creates mental trauma in mind of husband - Held, conduct and circumstances make it graphically clear that respondent-wife really humiliated him and caused mental cruelty. The cumulative effect of evidence brought establish sustained attitude causing humiliation and calculated torture on part of the wife to make the life of husband miserable. Husband felt humiliated both in private and public life. Indubitably, created a dent in his reputation which is not only the salt of life but also the purest treasure and most precious perfume of life, this mental pain, agony, and suffering, the husband cannot be asked to put up with the conduct of his wife and to continue to live with her. Entitled to the decree for divorce. 2009(1) Bom.C.R. 88(S.C.); 2006(4) Bom.C.R. 810(S.C.); 2007(6) Bom.C.R. 834(S.C.); A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1273 referred to. (Paras 34, 35, 40 & 42)
Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh – 2007 (6) Bom.C.R. 834- Supreme Court of India
Sub : Principal for determining cruelty in matrimonial matters
Issue :
What are the instances of human behavior relevant in dealing with cases of mental cruelty?
Decision :
In para 79, the court gives instances of human behavior relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'.
i) On consideration of the complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony, and suffering as would not make it possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that the situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with another party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of another for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode, or render the miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behavior of one spouse actually affecting the physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial, and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference, or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for a grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behavior of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for a considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have a child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.
K. Srinivas Rao vs D.A. Deepa – 2013 DGLS ( SC) 156
Sub : Irretrievable breakdown of marriage
Issue :
Is irretrievable breakdown of marriage ground for divorce?
Decision :
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But, where marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness created by the acts of the husband or the wife or of both, the courts have always taken irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a very weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of marital tie. A marriage that is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by the court’s verdict if the parties are not willing. This is because marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they are dried up there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by the court’s decree.
S.R.Batra & another Versus Taruna Batra - 2006 DGLS(SC) 1183
Sub : Right of daughter in law in the property of parents in law under Domestic Violence Act
Issue :
Is a daughter in law entitled to claim a right in the property of her parents in law under Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
Decision :
Matrimonial Law -- Claim of Property -- A daughter-in-law cannot claim a right on the self-acquired property of her Parents-in-law and can only claim property belongs to her husband -- Appeal allowed.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 -- Sections 2(s) and 17(1) -- Shared household -- Claim of woman Wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a shared household would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member -- Property in question in the present case neither belongs to husband nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband is a member -- It is the exclusive property of appellant No. 2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a "shared household -- Matrimonial Homes Act,1967- Appeal allowed.
Held, Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batra stated that the definition of shared household includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship, He contended that since admittedly the respondent had lived in the property in question in the past, hence the said property is her shared household. We cannot agree with this submission. If the aforesaid submission is accepted, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past that property becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with the husband's father, husband's paternal grandparents, his maternal parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, etc. If the interpretation canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted, all these houses of the husband's relatives will be shared households and the wife can well insist on living in all these houses of her husband's relatives merely because she had stayed with her husband for some time in those houses in the past. Such a view would lead to chaos and would be absurd.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 -- Sections 19(1)(f) -- Alternative accommodation -- Claim of a wife -- Claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against his parents or other relatives.
Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli – 2006 AIR ( SC) 1675
Sub : irretrievable breakdown of marriage
Issue :
Is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage grounds for divorce?
Decision :
Lalitha v. Manickswamy, I (2001) DMC 679 SC that the had cautioned in that case that unusual step of granting the divorce was being taken only to clear up the insoluble mess when the Court finds it in the interests of both the parties.
Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Because of the change of circumstances and for covering a large number of cases where the marriages are virtually dead and unless this concept is pressed into services, the divorce cannot be granted. Ultimately, it is for the Legislature whether to include irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground of divorce or not but in our considered opinion the Legislature must consider the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for grant of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The 71st Report of the Law Commission of India briefly dealt with the concept of an Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. This report was submitted to the Government on 7th April 1978. We deem it appropriate to recapitulate the recommendation extensively. In this report, it is mentioned that during the last 20 years or so, and now it would around 50 years, a very important question has engaged the attention of lawyers, social scientists, and men of affairs, namely, should the grant of divorce be based on the fault of the party, or should it be based on the breakdown of the marriage? The former is known as the matrimonial offense theory or fault theory. The latter has come to be known as the breakdown theory.
In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (supra), this Court while allowing the marriage to dissolve on the ground of mental cruelty and in view of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the peculiar circumstances of the case, held that the allegations of adultery against the wife were not proved thereby vindicating her honor and character. This Court while exploring the other alternative observed that the divorce petition has been pending for more than 8 years and a good part of the lives of both the parties has been consumed in this litigation and yet, the end is not in sight and that the allegations made against each other in the petition and the counter by the parties will go to show that living together is out of question and rapprochement is not in the realm of possibility. This Court also observed in the concluding part of the judgment that:
"Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to append a clarification. Merely because there are allegations and counter-allegations, a decree of divorce cannot follow. Nor is a mere delay in disposal of the divorce proceedings by itself aground. There must be really some extra-ordinary features to warrant a grant of divorce on the basis of pleading (and other admitted material) without a full trial. Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is not a ground by itself.
Y.Narasimha Versus Y.Venkatalakshmi 1991 DGLS(SC) 289
Sub : Judgment and Decree of foreign court in matrimonial matters :
Issue :
Is the decree of the American court of dissolution of marriage binding on the parties married according to Hindu law in India?
Decision :
Evidence Act,1872 -- Section 41 and 42--Competent court--Judgment in rem--Binding affect--The judgment must be delivered by the court of competent jurisdiction and must not be vitiated by fraud or collusion.
Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act provides, to the extent material, that a final judgment of the competent court in the exercise of matrimonial jurisdiction is conclusive proof that the legal character which it confers or takes away accrued or ceased at the time declared in the judgment for that purpose. But the judgment has to be of a competent Court? that is, a court having jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Even a judgment in rem is, therefore, open to attack on the ground that the court which gave it had no jurisdiction to do so.
In fact, Section 44 of the Evidence Act gives to any party to a suit or proceeding the right to show that the judgment which is relevant under Section 41 was delivered by a court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion?. It is therefore wrong to think that judgments in rem are inviolable. Fraud, in any case bearing on jurisdictional facts, vitiates all judicial acts whether in rem or in personam.
Code of Civil Procedure,1908 -- Section 13 -- Foreign judgement in divorce proceedings -- Validity of foreign judgement rendered in a civil proceeding must be determined in India on the terms of Section 13 CPC -- If the judgement falls under any of the clauses of Section 13 it will cease to be conclusive as to any matter thereby adjudicated upon and will be open to collateral attack in the grounds mentioned in Section 13 -- A decree of divorce obtained by husband from the Nevada State Court in the U.S.A. in Absentum of the wife without her submitting to its jurisdiction will not be valid and binding on a criminal court in proceedings for maintenance under Section 488 Cr. P.C. (Old) found from the fact on record that the decree of divorce obtained by fraud -- Decree being open to a collateral attack on the jurisdictional fact, the recital in the judgement of Nevada Court that respondent was bona fide resident and domiciled in Nevada held not conclusive.
Sondur Gopal and Another Versus Sondur Rajini and Others 2013 DGLS(SC) 550
Sub : Relevance of domicile and stay outside India in matrimonial matters
Issue :
How is domicile determined in matrimonial matters ?
Decision :
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Secs. 10 & 1(2) - Domiciled of Sweden - Couple married in India - Maintainability of matrimonial petition in India - Civil application opposing maintainability of matrimonial petition - Couple obtained domicile and citizenship of Sweden after marriage in India - Wife filed matrimonial petition in Family Court Bandra at place of her residence then - Matrimonial Court admitted petition but dismissed for want of jurisdiction on appeal - High Court allowed application - Hence this appeal contending that they are domiciled in Sweden have obtained citizenship - Wife has come to India on tourist visa - Jurisdiction of Court i.e. barred under section 1(2) of Act - Marriage is registered in India - According to husband he has no intention to give up - Domicile of choice in Australia now being citizen of Sweden - Per contra wife contended that domicile of origin is India that was never given up or abandoned though they obtained citizenship of Sweden - Domicile of Sweden was abandoned when they shifted to Australia - Both of them are domiciled in India - Family Court in Mumbai has jurisdiction - Held, right to change domicile of birth is available to any person not legally dependant. It is done by residing in the country of choice with an intention to continue to reside. Husband s residential tenancy agreement is only for 18 months which cannot be turned as long period. Admittedly they have not acquired citizenship of Australia. Husband has visa not domicile of Australia, there is no whisper of husband having abandoned domicile of India. The wife of the husband shall follow the domicile of the husband is only academic. Hence they are covered by Hindu Marriage Act as we have found that both are domiciled in India. The act will apply to them. No merit in the appeal. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 28, 29 & 30)
Arvnima Naveen Takiar Vs Naveen Takiar 2019 (3) Mh.L.J. pg. 885
Sub : Anti suit injunction under Hindu Marriage Act involving Foreign Party
Issue :
Can an anti-suit injunction be issued under Hindu Marriage Act involving a foreign party?
Decision :
Anti-suit injunction- Grant of – Plaintiff- wife, and defendant- husband being Hindu were married in Mumbai as per Hindu rites and ceremonies- Merely because defendant- husband is having domicile of U.K., would be of no significance and would not divest jurisdiction of Court provided under section 19 for purpose of filing proceedings under provisions of Hindu Marriage Act.
Applicability of 1955 Act- Parties having been married in Mumbai under provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, that law governs marriage of a party. [ Arunima Naveen Takiar Vs Naveen Taklar]
Munish Kakkar Vs Nidhi Kakkar – 2019 DGLS ( SC) 1660
Sub : Irretrievable breakdown of marriage
Issue :
Is irretrievable breakdown of marriage ground for divorce?
Decision :
Divorce granted on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage under Art 142 of the Constitution of India.
Satya Versus Teja Singh 1974 DGLS(SC) 294 -
Sub : Judgment and Decree of foreign court in matrimonial matters
Issue :
Is the decree of the American court of dissolution of marriage binding on the parties married according to Hindu law in India?
Decision :
Evidence Act,1872 -- Section 41 and 42--Competent court--Judgment in rem--Binding affect--The judgment must be delivered by the court of competent jurisdiction and must not be vitiated by fraud or collusion.
Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act provides, to the extent material, that a final judgment of the competent court in the exercise of matrimonial jurisdiction is conclusive proof that the legal character which it confers or takes away accrued or ceased at the time declared in the judgment for that purpose. But the judgment has to be of a competent Court?,
that is, a court having jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Even a judgment in rem is, therefore, open to attack on the ground that the court which gave it had no jurisdiction to do so.
In fact, Section 44 of the Evidence Act gives to any party to a suit or proceeding the right to show that the judgment which is relevant under Section 41 was delivered by a court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion?. It is therefore wrong to think that judgments in rem are inviolable. Fraud, in any case bearing on jurisdictional facts, vitiates all judicial acts whether in rem or in personam.
Code of Civil Procedure,1908 -- Section 13 -- Foreign judgment in divorce proceedings -- Validity of foreign judgment rendered in a civil proceeding must be determined in India on the terms of Section 13 CPC -- If the judgment falls under any of the clauses of Section 13 it will cease to be conclusive as to any matter thereby adjudicated upon and will be open to collateral attack in the grounds mentioned in Section 13 -- A decree of divorce obtained by husband from the Nevada State Court in the U.S.A. in Absentum of the wife without her submitting to its jurisdiction will not be valid and binding on a criminal court in proceedings for maintenance under Section 488 Cr. P.C. (Old) found from the fact on record that the decree of divorce obtained by fraud -- Decree being open to a collateral attack on the jurisdictional fact, the recital in the judgment of Nevada Court that respondent was bona fide resident and domiciled in Nevada held not conclusive.