Skip to main content

Cruelty as Ground of Divorce Under Hindu Law

 Cruelty as Ground of Divorce Under Hindu Law


As Per the Ancient Hindu Law, marriage is a sacred institution and it is one of the ten sacraments and therefore, divorce was not recognised unless approved by customs. However, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 changed this position with the introduction of Section 13, which in its operation is retrospective as well as prospective. It lays down 15 grounds for divorce available to husband and wife or to wife only.


Theories of divorce:

Fault Theory: Under this theory, marriage can be ended when one party to the marriage is responsible or liable for the offence under matrimonial offences done against another spouse. Only the innocent spouse can seek this remedy. The only drawback of this theory is when both the spouse are at fault, then no one can seek these remedy of divorce.


Mutual Consent: Under this theory, the marriage can be dissolved by mutual consent. If both the spouse mutually gives their consents to end the marriage, they can take the divorce. But many philosophers criticise this theory as this concept is immoral and leads to hasty divorce.


Irretrievable Breakdown: According to this theory, the dissolution of marriage happens due to failure of the matrimonial relationship. The divorce can be taken by the spouse as a last resort i.e. when both of them are not able to live together again.


Cruelty: Cruelty as a ground for divorce has been laid down in Section 13 (1)(I-a). Cruelty is also an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In Shobha Rani V. Madhukar Reddi, the definition of the word ‘cruelty’ was expanded. The concept refers to human conduct in relation to matrimonial obligations and includes mental as well as physical cruelty, intentional or unintentional. To determine physical cruelty, one needs to determine to what degree and why the harm was caused. For instance, keeping in illegal confinement, starving or causing fractures of any organ. Whereas, for the mental cruelty, one needs to infer what has been the impact of such cruel treatment of the mind of the spouse. For instance, mental cruelty against wife by husband: False accusation of adultery, demand for dowry, impotency of Husband, the problem of drunkenness of husband, aggressive and uncontrollable behaviour of the husband etc. Instances of mental cruelty against husband by wife: humiliating the husband in front of his family and friends, undertaking the termination of pregnancy without husband consent, making false allegation against him, denial for Martial Physical Relationship without a valid reason, ill-treatment to the husband parents and family etc.


Judicial Pronouncements: 

  • In Shobha Rani case, it was held that lack of intention cannot be a ground for evading punishment. 

  • In A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, it was held that cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such 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.

  • In K. Srinivas v. K. Sunita, 2014 it was found that the wife had lodged a false complain against the husband to embarrass and incarcerate him and his family members. The filing of a false complaint was held to be an act of cruelty committed by the wife and therefore the court granted divorce.

  • In Mayadevi V. Jagdish Prasad, 2007 it was held that both and husband can apply for a divorce on grounds of cruelty, not just the wife.   


Other grounds of divorce:

  1. Adultery:  Section 13(1)(i)

  2. Cruelty:  Section 13 (1)(i-a)

  3. Desertion: Section 13(1)(i-b)

  4. Conversion: Section 13(1)(ii)

  5. Unsound Mind: Section 13(1)(iii)

  6. Leprosy: Section 13(1)(iv)

  7. Venereal Disease: Section 13(1)(v)

  8. Renouncing the World: Section 13(1)(vi)

  9. Unheard of for seven years or more: Section 13(1)(vii)

  10. Judicial Separation Decreed: Section 13(1A)(i)

  11. Non-restitution of conjugal rights: Section 13(1A)(ii)

  12. Bigamy: Section 13(2)(i)

  13. Rape, Sodomy, bestiality: Section 13(2)(ii)

  14. Maintenance decreed to wife: Section 13(2)(iii)

  15. Consummation of marriage: Section 13(2)(iv)


Grounds 1-11 are available to both husband and wife and the remaining 12-15 are only available to wife. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more