CASE ANALYSIS
CASE:Narayan Ganesh Dastane vs.
Sucheta Narayan Dastane, AIR (1975) 1534
COURT:Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Chandrachaud, Y.V.
Goswami; P.K. Untwalia; N.L.
AUTHOR OF THE JUDGEMENT: Chandrachaud, Y.V.
DECIDED ON: 19-03-1975
COUNSEL OF PETITIONERS: V.M. Tarkunde; S.
Bhandare; P.H. Parekh; Manju Jaitley
COUNSEL OF RESPONDENTS: V.S. Desai; S.B. Wad;
Jayashree Wad
INTRODUCTION:
In a very simple language,
the term violence can be dened as any bodily or emotional pain inflicked
on a person. Violence by men against women is a longstanding and worldwide
problem. The term cruelty is a wider term and more appropriate term to
describe cases of violence against women in any domestic relationship by her
husband or family members is domestic violence. Cruelty has always been assumed
as matrimonial cruelty as it was dened like that under various women protection
laws.
Under the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 cruelty is a ground for divorce as well as judicial separation.
However, the term ‘cruelty’ is not dened under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is
through decided cases that the term ‘cruelty’ has been understood as act of
physical as well as mental cruelty.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. The Appellant is Dr.
Narayan Ganesh Dastane - passed his M.Sc. in Agriculture from the Poona
University - worked on various projects on national and international level.
2. The Respondent is Sucheta -
passed her B.Sc. from the Delhi University - obtained Master’s Degree in Social
Work. Her father works as an Under Secretary in the Commerce of Ministry of the
Government of India.
3. The Respondent’s parents -
arranged her marriage with the Appellant in April, 1956 - before finalising the
marriage proposal, the Respondent’s father, B. R. Abhyankar, sent letters to
the Appellant informing - incident occurred where the Respondent suffered from
a ‘bad attack of sunstroke’ which affected her mental condition for some time -
recovered and mentioned ‘cerebral malaria’ as another reason for the brief
decline of her mental health.
4. Further stated that after a
course of treatment, she was cured at the Yeravada Mental Hospital
5. The marriage ceremony -
performed on May 13, 1956. On March, 1957, a daughter - born to the couple
named Shubha - on March 21, 1959, a second daughter was born named Vibha.
6. Respondent in 1961 went to
Poona to attend the Appellant's brother's marriage ceremony and about 14 days
after that, the Appellant got the Respondent checked by a psychiatrist Dr. Seth
at Yervada Hospital.
7. Lived together until
February 1961, and on the day of parting, she was three months pregnant.
8. During the Appellant’s stay
in Delhi - wrote a letter to the Police asking for protection as he feared his
life was in danger from the Respondent’s parents and relatives.
9. On the 19th - interacted
with each other which were another opportunity where the parties spewed more
venom at each other, and on a subsequent day, Respondent renewed his request
for Police protection.
10. On March 23, 1961 -
Respondent addressed a letter to the Appellant complaining against his conduct
and asking for maintenance of herself and the daughters. Respondent – an
application to the Secretary, Ministry of Food and Agriculture of India - stating - Appellant had deserted her and
treated her with extreme cruelty - asking the Government - make separate
provision for her maintenance. Respondent’s statement regarding the Appellant’s
ill-treatment and desertion - recorded by an Assistant Superintendent of
Police.
11. On August 1961 - third
daughter named Pratibha - born to the family. Appellant wrote a letter - father of Respondent complaining -
Respondent’s conduct and expressed regret - not being given a proper invitation
for the naming ceremony of his own child.
12. On December 15, 1961 -
Appellant informed the Respondent’s father -decided to move to the Court for
seeking separation from the Respondent.
13. On February 19, 1962 -
proceedings were instituted - Trial Court - Appellant asked for the annulment
of his marriage - under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
ground - consent for the marriage was obtained by fraud.
14. Appellant - alleged that
the Respondent was treated at Yeravada Hospital for Schizophrenia and the
Respondent’s father fraudulently depicted the state of her mental health to him
to obtain his consent to the marriage.
15. Asked for divorce under
Section13 (1)(iii), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Alternatively - asked for
judicial separation under Section 10(1)(b) – ground - Respondent had treated
him with cruelty.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
- Whether the Burden of Proof
of cruelty lies on the Petitioner or not?
- Whether the facts have to be
established beyond a reasonable doubt in matrimonial matters?
- Whether the act of sexual
intercourse amounts to condonation of cruelty?
HELD/JUDGEMENT:
TRIAL COURT –
· Cruelty was done on the part of
the Respondent to the Appellant.
· Rejected the claims of fraud by
the Respondent regarding the marriage and the unsoundness of mind.
· Court subsequently ordered for
the judicial separation of the couple.
DISTRICT COURT –
· Respondent's appeal was
favoured, and the Appellant's appeal was rejected.
HIGH COURT –
·
Declined by a single judge bench.
·
Granted a special leave petition of appeal to the Respondent -
which contained the query concerning the Judicial Separation only based on
cruelty and not on ground of unsoundness of mind or the consent for marriage
obtained by fraud.
·
On the Respondent's part, the presumption of proof was made -
judgment was in favour of the Respondent.
·
Appellant then appealed to the Indian Supreme Court U/A 136 of the
Indian Constitution.
SUPREME COURT –
· Held
that the appellant’s contention regarding his wife being of unsound mind was
fabricated by him.
· Appellant’s
act of engaging in sexual intercourse with the respondent leads to ‘condonation
of cruelty’ in the eyes of law.
· Appellant
condoned the respondent after which she did
not act in the manner as she did before the condonation.
· Respondent
will not be held liable for cruelty and the divorce petition will not be
granted.
CONCLUSION:
It is true that
cruelty is one of the grounds of Divorce and Judicial Separation. As the word,
‘cruelty’ has not been defined in the Act. Thus, it has to be determined in the
context of the facts and circumstances of the case. Mental cruelty is a state
of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, frustration and disappointment in one
spouse caused by the conduct of others for a long time way lead to mental cruelty.
Therefore, the
court of law has observed that “It is a well-recognized proposition that
neither exclusive nor inclusive definition of mental cruelty can be given, and
even the courts have not attempted to do so, yet generally content themselves
with determining whether the facts in the particular case in question
constitute cruelty or not.”
REFERENCES:
https://jurisedge.com/case-brief-narayan-ganesh-dastane-v-sucheta-narayan-dastane-
1975-air-1534/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62494/
0 Comments