* Does a wife's not attending on or enquiring over telephone, about the well-being of her husband who has undergone byepass surgery - tantamounts to mental cruelty? Does it entitle an aggrieved husband for a divorce?
* Wife cooking separately for herself and going to Office, compelling the husband to dine in a hotel.
* Does the social status of a witness matter? Can a court treat the deposition of a servant as unreliable because of his low social status?
STATUTE
* Special Marriage Act 1954.
* Section 13 (1) and (1-a) of Hindu Marriage Act.
American Jurisprudence
The term "mental cruelty" has been defined as under:
"Mental Cruelty as a course of unprovoked
conduct toward one's spouse which causes
embarrassment, humiliation, and anguish so
as to render the spouse's life miserable and
unendurable. The plaintiff must show a
course of conduct on the part of the defendant
which so endangers the physical or mental
health of the plaintiff as to render continued
cohabitation unsafe or improper, although the
plaintiff need not establish actual instances of
physical abuse."
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 151 of 2004
PETITIONER: Samar Ghosh
RESPONDENT: Jaya Ghosh
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/03/2007
BENCH: B.N. Agrawal, P.P. Naolekar & Dalveer Bhandari
To see the full text of this judgement, please visit: http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp.
BRIEF OUTLINE OF EVENTS/FACTS
* 1984 - One female divorced I.A.S. Officer (divorced from her I.A.S. husband) and another I.A.S. Officer marry.
* Wife had a daughter from her first relationship. Her daughter lives with her.
* Wife took a unilateral decision not to conceive any child for two years from her second relationship.
* Rationing of love and affection administered to the second husband.
* Wife cooked food only for herself and went to office. Husband had to dine in a hotel.
* Husband felt like a stranger in his own family.
* Husband and wife virtually lived separately from 1985. Admitted separate living 1990.
* Wife told her daughter that her (second) husband was not her father and not to call him father.
* Wife told the second husband not to speak to her daughter.
* Wife told her daughter that she (wife) was divorcing her second husband.
* 1990: Wife literally asked the second husband and his domestic servant to get out of her flat. Wife said that her second husband had no self respect.
* 1996: Trial Court divorce.
* 2003: High Court reversed.
* 2004: Second husband appealed to Supreme Court.
* 2007: Supreme Court restored the trial court's judgement (divorce allowed).
IMPORTANT
Judgements of different courts vary, depending on the circumstances of each case. Case law precedents will, therefore, only be indicative of how things are likely to be where similar facts/events recur.
SOME OBSERVATIONS of the Supreme Court
there cannot be any comprehensive
definition of the concept of 'mental cruelty' within which
all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. No
court in our considered view should even attempt to give
a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty.
The credibility of the witness does not depend upon his financial.
standing or social status only. A witness which is natural and truthful should be
accepted irrespective of his/her financial standing or social status.
BLOGGER'S VIEWS
* I.A.S. Officers are also ordinary citizens in the eyes of law.
* The judgement contains a comparative discussion of the Fault theory and the Breakdown theory. This case is worth reading for aggrieve spouses and their lawyers.
CASES OF RELEVANCE
* N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane reported in (1975) 2 SCC 326 at page 337, para
30 observed as under :-
"The enquiry therefore has to be whether
the conduct charges 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."
* Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105.
* Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa reported in (2002) 2 SCC 619
* Janmohamadkhan v. Haizunnisa Yasinkhan, (1981) 4 SCC 250.
* Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta reported in (2002) 5 SCC 706
* A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22
* Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit reported in (2006) 3 SCC 778
* American Case: Jem v. Jem [(1937) 34 Haw. 312
* American case: Fleck v. Fleck 79 N.D. 561
* American case: Donaldson v. Donaldson [(1917) 31 Idaho 180,
170 P. 94]
* Canadian case: Chouinard v. Chouinard 10 D.L.R. (3d) 263].
* Canadian case: Knoll v. Knoll 10 D.L.R. (3d) 199, the Ontario
Court of Appeal
* Canadian case: Luther v. Luther [(1978) 5 R.F.L. (2d) 285, 26
N.S.R. (2d) 232, 40 A.P.R. 232], the Supreme Court of
Nova Scotia.
* Canadian case: Zalesky v. Zalesky 1 D.L.R. (3d)
471, the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench.
* Australian case: Dunkley v. Dunkley (1938) SASR 325.
* Australian case: La Rovere v. La Rovere [4 FLR 1], the Supreme
Court of Tasmania.
No comments:
Post a Comment