CASE ANALYSIS ON THE 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:

1. Whether the Burden of Proof of cruelty lies on the Petitioner or not??
2. Whether the facts have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt in matrimonial matters??
3. 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/

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?