Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Case law - Section 13 - Narayan Ganesh Dastane vs. Sucheta Narayan Dastane
Bench: Justice N.L. Untwalia, JusticeP.K. Goswami and JusticeY.V. Chandrachud.
Facts:
- At the time of finalising the marriage between the parties, the father of Sucheta Narayan Dastane, herein the Respondent informed Narayan Ganesh Dastane, herein the Appellantthrough letters about the past mental condition of the Respondent.
- The Respondent’s doctor confirmed that she suffered from Cerebral Malaria but is now cured.
- After the marriage was solemnised, the Respondent did not cooperate with the Appellant to get herself checked by a psychiatrist and insulted her publicly. Such events caused tensions in their married life. However, sexual relations were maintained between the parties as the Respondent was pregnant at the time.
- The Appellant requested the Police for protection from the Respondent and her relatives as he feared that his life was in danger.
- The Respondent sent a letter to the Appellant complaining against his conduct and asking for maintenance for herself and her daughters. She also wrote a letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, claiming that the Appellant had deserted her, treated her with cruelty, and requested the Government to provide for her maintenance.
- The Appellant ultimately filed a petition seeking annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(c), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) on the ground that his consent was procured by fraud.
- Alternatively, he moved the Court for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act, on the ground that the Respondent was of unsound mind.
- Alternatively, the Appellant filed for judicial separation under Section 10(1)(b) on the ground that he suffered cruelty exercised by the Respondent, which created a reasonable apprehension in his mind that his life is under threat if he lives with her.
Issues:
- Whether the onus of proof lies on the Petitioner to prove that he/she has been treated with cruelty?
- Whether the act of sexual intercourse amounts to condonation of cruelty?
- Whether the facts have to be established beyond reasonable doubt in matrimonial cases?
Contentions of the Appellant:
- The Respondent was treated for Schizophrenia and not Cerebral Malariawhich shows fraudulent misrepresentation on part of the Respondent’s father to obtain Appellant’s consent to marry the Respondent.
- The Respondent wrote several letters to her family and the Appellant admitting facts about her mental health and abusing the Appellant and his family.
- The Respondent was short-tempered and often insulted the Appellant and members of his family for which she would apologize later.
- The Respondent’s actions were cruel to the Respondent and their daughters.
Contentions of the Respondent:
- The letters sent out by the Respondent were written under coercion proceeded from the Appellant himself.
- The Appellant is taking advantage of his own wrong as he provoked her to act in the manner that she did.
- The Appellant was attempting to concoct a case of unsound mind against her.
- The parties engaged in sexual relations which resulted in her 3-month pregnancy at the time of her leaving their broken home and that shall amount to condonation of cruelty.
Background:
Both the parties appealed to the District Court against the decree of judicial separation passed by the Trial Court, where the Respondent’s appeal was allowed and the Appellant’s petition got wholly dismissed. Aggrieved by such dismissal, the Appellant moved the Bombay High Court, which again dismissed the appeal but granted a special leave to appeal only to decide the question of judicial separation on the ground of cruelty, retaining finality of its judgment on other issues. Hence, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court on the above question, which accorded its decision below.
Judgment:
The Apex Court in the present case, laid down the tests to determine whether an act amounts to legal cruelty and thereafter, concluded that the burden of proof to establish cruelty must lie on the person who affirms it and not on the one who denies it. Hence, the Appellant must prove (not expected to prove beyond reasonable doubt) that he has suffered cruelty within the meaning of Section 10(1)(b) of the Act.
The Court founded the Respondent guilty of cruelty but also observed that the Appellant’s act of engaging in sexual intercourse with the Respondent amounts to condonation of such cruelty as it displayed the intention of the Appellant to forgive and restore the Respondent to her original status. Also, the subsequent conduct of the Respondent was not founded to be grave enough as she made amends and also returned to the matrimonial home. Thus, the appeal was dismissed and Respondent was not held liable for cruelty.
