Fine Points For The Divorce Case Under Cruelty

FINE POINTS FOR THE DIVORCE CASE UNDER CRUELTY
1. the respondent continued her quarrelsome nature.

2. She picked up quarrels with all the members in the family. She misbehaved
and disrespected the parents of the petitioner. She often asked that she
should be reached to her parents.
3. She showed apathy (meaning = lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern.)
for matrimonial life and suggested that marriage be dissolved.
4. She was attending to all household work at her matrimonial house with
care. She stated that though she was never treated with dignity by the
mother-in-law and though she was abused, she as a dutiful wife continued
to do all the household work. The mother-in-law then started beating and
abusing her. Thus apart from mental cruelty she was victim of physical
cruelty also.
5. she was being coerced to agree for divorce.
6. she was beaten very severely by the petitioner causing injury to her hand.
7. made efforts to bring about reconciliation.
8. She claimed that she was very much desirous of matrimonial life.
9. In short, it is the contention of respondent that it is the petitioner, who has
treated the respondent with cruelty and he is not allowing her to resume
cohabitation.
10.It is alleged that petitioner cannot take advantage of his own wrong. He
wants to get rid of respondent in some manner or other.
11.The first case is K. Lalitha Kumari v. K. Ramprasada Rao, 1992 ALT 631 and
the second is Jayakrishna Panigrahi v. Surekha Panigrahi, 1995 (3) ALD 195.
(relied on the decisions of this Court for contending that petitioner can
claim divorce on the ground of 'cruelty' basing on the unproved allegations
in the counter levelled by the respondent. )
12.The petitioner has to prove that the allegations/charges levelled in the
counter are false, vexatious, baseless and defamatory.
13.In the instant case in the evidence the petitioner has nowhere even glibly
stated that the averments made by the respondent in the counter suffer
from any of these vices. It is urged that in fact the petitioner has never
made cut a case that the pleas raised by the respondent amount to 'mental
cruelty' to him.
14. WHAT IS CRUELTY: It is necessary to remember that the term "cruelty" has
nowhere been defined in the Act. It is also not possible to define the same.
Human conduct is so complex that a rigid definition of 'cruelty' is not

possible. The Legislature has purposely avoided to define "cruelty". It is for
the Courts to interpret, analyse and define as to what would constitute
'cruelty' in the facts of a particular case. While deciding, so many factors
have to be borne in mind. In particular social status, customs, traditions,
caste and the community, upbringing and the public opinion which prevails
in particular society, as well as in the particular locality. Thus before
deciding as to whether "cruelty" has been proved or not variety of factors
have to be considered. It is however, almost accepted by and large that
cruelty means such conduct of the other side by which the petitioner
cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. This is of
course a very broad approach. When a petitioner comes to the Court for
seeking relief on the ground of 'cruelty'', it is expected that the petitioner
would give particulars of the alleged cruelty. It is not that by merely
averring in the petition that the respondent treated the petitioner with
cruelty, the petitioner can hope to make out his case. Particulars of 'cruelty'
have to be given. The mere fact that parties are unhappy of some usual
wear and tear or due to some failings in the tempor, would not be sufficient
to spell out a case of cruely. This is because different temperaments is
always the Rule. Cohabitation cannot be disrupted merely because of
different temperaments of spouses. The expression 'cruelty' comprehends
both physical and mental cruelty. It is not possible to say that every
averment or allegations made against the other party showing some
incompatibility amount necessarily to 'cruelty'. It is of course true that of
finding out whether conduct of one party towards other amounts of
'cruelty' it is not necessary to prove the intention of the respondent
Irrespective of the intention of the respondent if his/her conduct or
behaviour makes it impossible to cohabit for any reasonable person, that
would constitute 'cruelty'. It is the result which is more important.
Therefore, it is for the petitioner to state and prove as to what was the
effect on him of the alleged conduct or behaviour of the respondent. As
pointed out earlier, it is quite possible that a particular conduct may
amount of 'cruelty' in one case but the same conduct necessarily may not
amount to 'cruelty' due to change of various factors, in different set of
circumstances. We are therefore of the view that it is essential for the
petitioner, who claims relief, to prove that a particular/ part of conduct or

behaviour resulted in 'cruelty' to him. No prior assumptions can be made in
such matters. Meaning thereby that it cannot be assumed that particular
conduct will under all circumstances amount to 'cruelty' vis--vis the other
party. The aggrieved party has to make a specific case that the conduct of
which exception is taken amount of cruelty'.
15.There is no doubt whatsoever that false, scandalous, malicious and baseless
charges leveled by one party against other party do amount to 'cruelty'.
16.Act Of cruelty: "13(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the
commencement of this jAct, may, on a petition presented by either the
husband or the wife, lbe dissolved by a decree of divorce on
the ground that the other party -
(i-a) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner
with cruelty
17.The appellant is the wife of the respondent. They were married according
to Hindu rites and customs on 6th December, 1985.
18.The marriage was preceded by negotiation between the two families, ring
exchange ceremony, etc.
19.A meeting between the boy and the girl was also arranged at Yamuna
Nagar in the State of Haryana.
20.After marriage the spouses stayed together at Panipat where the
respondent was posted as a Judicial Officer. They lived together till 28th
April, 1986 when they parted company never to stay together again.
21. t is the case of the respondent that right from the first day of the marriage
he sensed something abnormal with his wife; he was unable to
consummate the marriage as there was no cooperation from the side of the
wife for sexual intercourse. Despite several attempts cohabitation was not
possible for lack of cooperation on the part of the wife. It is the further case
of the respondent that when he first met his wife when some members of
the two families met he had noticed that she was looking very frail and
weak. When he wanted to know the reason for such state of her health her
father and other relations told him that she had been undergoing a strict
diet control and had been making efforts to reduce her w.eight On
questioning his wife immediately after the marriage the respondent could
ascertain that she was suffering from some ailment and she was under the
treatment of Vaid Amar Nath Sastry of Chandigarh
22.Thereafter they returned to Yamuna Nagar where parents of the
respondent were living.
23. the state of health of the appellant continued to deteriorate; she
continued to lose weight; she suffered from asthmatic attacks; on account
of her ailment her behavior became quarrelsome; and on trifle matters she
threatened to leave the matrimonial home.
24. the condition of her health may improve and both of them could lead a
happy married life. All such attempts failed. The offer of medical treatment
was rejected and even nature of the ailment suffered by her was not
disclosed to the respondent.
25. the marriage was duly consummated and the phera ceremony was
performed;
26.expressing full love and affection towards her
27.several attempts were made by her parents and other relations to
persuade the respondent to take the appellant to his house but such
attempts were of no avail on account of want of any response from the
respondent and his parents.
28.marriage as indissoluble
29.at the time of marriage, the respondent's father informed that all his sons
were settled in life and they were all living in their own house and on
believing the abovesaid fact, the petitioner's parents consented for the
marriage, but his elder brother Kirubakaran, who was married and having
children, was unemployed and the entire family was depending upon the
respondent and the respondent's father had chosen the petitioner in the
interest of her income from employment.
30.he had beaten up the petitioner black and blue everyday for not asking
money from her parents.
31.The petitioner has further stated that the respondent went to the extent of
dashing the face and head of the petitioner on wall by holding her hair in
his hands and unable to bear the torture, the petitioner requested her
parents, who had helped her by giving Rs.1 lakh from their pension. It is
further stated that the petitioner was not even permitted to see or handle
the pass-book or cheque books and her jewelleries in the bank locker
maintained by the respondent and thus the petitioner was subjected to
cruelty both physically and mentally by the respondent.
32.

Fine Points For The Divorce Case Under Cruelty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fine Points For The Divorce Case Under Cruelty

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fine Points For The Divorce Case Under Cruelty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINE POINTS FOR THE DIVORCE CASE UNDER CRUELTY

1. the respondent continued her quarrelsome nature.

Human conduct is so complex that a rigid definition of 'cruelty' is not

petitioner, who claims relief, to prove that a particular/ part of conduct or

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.