Section 13 (1), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Mental Cruelty (N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane)

The appellant, Dr Narayan Ganesh Dastane, passed his M.Sc. in Agriculture from the Poona University and doctorate from Australia. The respondent, Sucheta, comes from Nagpur but she spent her formative years mostly in Delhi. She passed her B.Sc. from the Delhi University. In April 1956, the parents of respondent arranged the marriage between the petitioner and respondent, but before that the parents of Respondent mentioned about her mental illness which was cured. The marriage was performed at Poona on May 13, 1956 but they stayed in Delhi. Both of them had three children.

In January, 1961, the Respondent went to Poona to attend the Appellant’s brother’s marriage ceremony. The Appellant got the Respondent examined by Dr. Seth, a Psychiatrist at the Yeravada Hospital, fortnight after the marriage. As per Appellant’s claim, she had promised to see Mr. Seth but she denies the fact that she had made that kind of promise. The Respondent believed that the Appellant was concocting a case of unsound mind against her. They lived together until February 1961, and on the day of parting, she was three months pregnant.

 

During the Appellant’s stay in Delhi, he wrote a letter to the Police asking for protection as he feared his life was in danger from the Respondent’s parents and relatives.

 

On March 23, 1961, the Respondent addressed a letter to the Appellant complaining against his conduct and asking for maintenance of herself and the daughters. The Respondent also wrote a application to the Secretary, Ministry of Food and Agriculture of India, stating that the Appellant had deserted her and treated her with extreme cruelty, and asking the Government to make separate provision for her maintenance.

 

On August 1961, a third daughter named Pratibha was born to the family. The Appellant wrote a letter to the father of Respondent complaining about the Respondent’s conduct and expressed regret for not being given a proper invitation for the naming ceremony of his own child.

 

On December 15, 1961, the Appellant informed the Respondent’s father that he had decided to move to the Court for seeking separation from the Respondent. 

 

Allegations of Husband (Dr.Dastane)

 

“The respondent used to describe the mother of appellant as a boorish woman;

On the day of ’Paksha’ (the day oil which oblations are offered to ancestors) she used to abuse the appellant’s ancestors;

She beat her daughter Shubha while she was running on a high temperature of 104 degrees;

One night she started behaving as if she was ’possessed’. She tore off the Mangal-Sutra once and said that she will not put it on again; and

She used to switch on the light at midnight and sit by the bedside of husband nagging him through the night, as a result he literally prostrated himself before her on many occasions.”

 

Allegations of Wife (Sucheta)

 

“Special instructions given by my husband.

On rising up in the morning, to look after the minor;

Not to fill milk vessel or container or tea cup to the brim;

Not to serve meals in brass plates cups and vessels;

After serving the first course during meals, not to constantly and continuously ask ’what do you want?’ but to inform at the beginning of the meals how much and which are the courses.

Not to do any work with one hand.

To regularly apply to her ’Kajal’ and give him tomato juice.

Not to talk.”

 

Issues:

1.     Whether the Burden of Proof of cruelty lies on the Petitioner or not?

2.     Whether the act of sexual intercourse amounts to condonation of cruelty as mentioned under section 23 (2) of the said act?

 

Ratio Decidendi: 

 

The burden of proof of cruelty rests on a petitioner in a matrimonial petition under the Act. Doubtless, the burden must lie on the petitioner to establish his or her case for, ordinarily, the burden lies on the party which affirms a fact, not on the party which denies it. The principle accords with common sense, as it is so much easier to prove a positive than a negative. The petitioner must therefore prove that the respondent has treated him with cruelty.

 

The tests laid down in determining whether a given conduct leads to legal cruelty is as follows:

1.     The alleged acts constituting cruelty should be proved according to the Law of Evidence;

2.     There should be an apprehension in the petitioner’s mind of real harm or injury from such conduct;

3.     The apprehension should be reasonable having regard to the condition of the parties;

4.     The petitioner should not have taken advantage of his position;

5.     The petitioner should not have condoned the acts of cruelty.

What is cruelty? 

Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger.

The question whether the misconduct complained of constitutes cruelty and the like for divorce purposes is determined primarily by its effect upon the particular person complaining of the acts. The question is not whether the conduct would be cruel to a reasonable person or a person of average or normal sensibilities, but whether it would have that effect upon the aggrieved spouse. That which may be cruel to one person may be laughed off by another, and what may not be cruel to an individual under one set of circumstances may be extreme cruelty under another set of circumstances.

 

The High Court concludes that: Having regard to these principles and the entire evidence in a case, in my judgment, I find that none of the acts complained of against the respondent can be considered to be so sufficiently grave and weighty as to be described as cruel according to the matrimonial law.

 

Condonation means forgiveness of the matrimonial offence and the restoration of offending spouse to the same position as he or she occupied before the offence was committed. To constitute condonation there must be, therefore, two things: forgiveness and restoration. The evidence of condonation consists here in the fact that the spouses led a normal sexual life despite the respondent’s acts of cruelty. Sex plays an important role in marital life and cannot be separated from other factors which lend to matrimony a sense of fruition and fulfilment. Therefore, evidence showing that the spouses led a normal sexual life even after a series of acts of cruelty by one spouse is proof that the other spouse condoned that cruelty

 

Judgement

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 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 realised her mistakes. The appellant condoned the respondent after which she did not act in the manner as she did before the condonation. Hence, the respondent will not be held liable for cruelty and the divorce petition will not be granted.