Does throwing away of mangalsutra amount to cruelty on husbn

quite often people ask that a particular act done by the life partner is a cruel act or not and whether it entitles him/her to seek divorce.  The courts often said in unambiguous terms that "cruelty" cannot be defined in precise terms.  The parties upbringing, culture, social and economic back ground will be taken into consideration to come to a definete conclusion whether such act is cruel act or not.  The courts have never set a list of acts to define them as cruel acts, which entitle the party to get divorce decree.  Calling the wife 'b*tch' in certain circumstances will be curelty and in different set of circumstances, it is not so.  similarly calling husband 'b*st*rd' may be cruelty in certain family cultures and not so in other family cultures.  so, do not attempt to come to a final decision on the basis of precedents or other wise to define the act of "throwing mangal sutra" is a cruel act or not.

If I am not wrong, in the case of author, (on the basis of his other postings), hiswife has not only thrown the mangalsutra but also insulted him by calling him "hijra"  If I am wrong, kindly ignore this remaining part of my answer.  After receiving such an abuse, he left the wife and started to live with his parents and does not want to have any physical relationship with his wife.

Now, we will take this case in two ways.  If he is really potent and is put off due to that woman's odd and atrocious behaviour, then throwing mangalsutra coupled with calling him so, are certainly cruel acts.

Now, if the wife's allegation is correct and he is really not competent to have physical relationship, then it is not a cruel act.

But, we must understand one thing.  Being impotent of incurable nature  is one of the disabilities.  If a person is disabled due to blindness, deafness, dumbness, loss of limbs etc.  we as a whole society shall shower pity and try to help them, whenever we come into contact with them.  But in the case of impotency, we completely adopt a most hateful attitude.  Being impotent is not a sin.  He/she does not  deserve ridicule from our part.  Compassionate attitude is the need of hour.  If a impotent person (either girl or boy) is stuck in a marriage and if it becomes a burden to her/him to carry such relationship, the other partner must allow the troubled spouse to get free of matrimonial bond.    

I dont think a man is not aware of wherther he is p*tent or not.If he were aware of that then he should not allow this situation to come ie he should not marry .

Impotence could be person specific as well. It could be temporary or permanent. It could be physical or secondary to non physical factors. If a husband is put off by his wifes behaviour and has no love left for her he may not get aroused by her.Infact it could be that negative feelings may cause him not to be aroused by her. Here mangalsutra seems to be thrown on first day-there could be any number of reasons including that the girl was forced into marrying against her will. That is why there is counselling/court etc Not everything can be reconciled.Fundamental issues may not be correctable and break should be made as painless as possible under these circumstances.Here the author seems quite disturbed by her actions. Also, if he really wasn't impotent physically, such a term is extremely derogatory and insulting. I mention physical permanent impotence vs temporary physical and non physical/ mental reasons. Medications, stress, depression etc are few of other causes for temporary non physical impotence. Performance anxiety could be another. Impotence for a specific person could be due to lack of love, affection, plain hatred, physical incompatibility etc. A lot of things to consider.

@ bhima bhalla, @ adv chandu, @ amit...........

Dear all,

i would really like to thank you all for understanding my point of view on this matter, i really appreciate the fact that you people have gone into depth and given your views on this matter.

i personally feel, that calling a man a hij*a, or throwing away the mangalsutra, especially during the first and second night, is highly degradable thing to do with a husband, no man worth his salt would forget such an incident and carry on with his marriage happily just because he is "legally" married to that woman. until of course, some man takes this incident in a lighter vein and forgets it. such incidents gives rise to many a doubt to the husband, and endless thoughts keep flowing in the mind, day after day and night after night.

i understand the suggestion that i forget the past and move on, as many people have suggested it, and i also appreciate their opinion, but such scars are definitely very tough to wipe off, when a man gets married to a woman or vice versa, he or she has a lot of emotiions attached to each and every aspect of the marriage, just as an indian woman gives a lot of dignity and respect to the sindoor or the mangalsutra she wears, as it symbolises her marriage with a man, similarly a man, who gives the mangalsutra has all the emotions attached to it, because this is a sacred thread that bonds the man and wife , and the society in which we live appreciate this fact, and a married woman is recognised by the sindoor and the mangsutra she is wearing. ortherwise what would be the importance to a mere piece of thread and the sindoor worth a few rupees?

I strongly believe that almost all men, in this forum appreciate this fact, which man would be like to have such incidents happen with him? the bond which was just about to begin has already been broken and only suspicion and supicion and hatred and feeling of being abused remains in the heart.

to be honest to all people who have commented here on this topic, i never had any physical problem with me, and i would have never have married if i were to have some kind of s*xual problem with me, but these incidents have scarred me so badly, that whenever i think of getting into a physical relationship with this woman those incidents keep flasshing in my mind, the mangalsutra i gave her, was the most valuable jewellery i had given her as i had arranged a lot of money just to give my wife something which she would appreciate it for the rest of her life, and believe me guys, this is the biggest turn off that one can face, this thing pushes you away from the person whom you got married to, and hate going near her.

I would again like to thank bhima bhalla, amit, adv chandu, and all other people who have appreciated my point of veiw, and also others who have given their valuable suggestions here. thanks guys.................

Chillax people.

The moot point is that it is cruelty.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor

harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

so, a married lady can legally throw away her Mangalsutra ... no implications !

Tajobs.

There are other judgements which has stated it is cruelty.

Also calling someone HIJDA would also be a cruelty.

And as this young would be lawyer has stressed many times. How you plead is important. 

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor

harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

PS: Personal picking seems to becoming a habit :P

sir,whom r u referring to?

there's no "member account deleted" here, who's participated in this particular thread

1.  here = here in LCI
2. The day when you understand ENGLISH language come in forum discussions otherwise do your best work that you are good at. Understood.

OK Tajobs,

Now read the Hanumanta Rao Judgement carefully, as the same needs to be read in entirity (and it should not be taken as an assertion only): 

There was no other witness to the incident. The respondent very well could have denied the alleged incident. But she admitted to have removed the Mangalsutra only to please her husband. Moreover, when the wife was being cross-examined before the trial court no question was put to her about throwing of Mangalsutra at the appellant. For all these reasons we find that testimony of the respondent was rightly believed by the High Court while disbelieving the incident of throwing of Mangalsutra by the respondent, as alleged by the appellant.

(THE SC HERE HAS BELIEVED THE TESTIMONY OF THE WOMAN THAT MANGALSUTRA WAS NOT THROWN)

Under such circumstances the appellant cannot be allowed to take advantage of a wrong done by his wife of which he himself was responsible. In such a case the appellant cannot be allowed to complain that his wife is guilty of committing an act of mental cruelty upon him, and further by such an act, has suffered mental pain and agony as a result of which married life has broken down, and he is not expected to live with his wife. It also appears to us that, whenever the appellant asked her wife for removal of her Mangalsutra, the respondent never comprehended that her husband at any point of time would react to such occurrences in the way he did. Under such circumstances, the appellant was not expected to have made an issue out of it. We are, therefore, of the view that removal of Mangalsutra by the respondent would not constitute mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.

(HERE SC HAS HELD, MERE REMOVAL OF MANGALSUTRA WHEN APPELLANT ASKED HIM TO DO SO IS NOT CRUELTY)

Now, coming to judgements where throwing of MANGAL SUTRA has been held cruelty. I would post the same later but for sure.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor

harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

@ Shonee

Issue before us of querriest is

1. "Throwing" mangalsutra by his wife is cruelty to him.

I replied citing two citations of SC which are on "throwing" as well as on "removing" and said as per SC 'it is not cruelty".

You replied stating “there are other judgments which stated it is cruelty” and "depends upon pleading".

I suggested you to continue this discussion forward and bring on board either one of them especially from SC for 'general consumption" which is to say any thing else other than above two which I already placed here and now cherry picking from same two SC citations and even if it to be done so “throwing” still does not amounts to cruelty.

However will watch board to read down anything else SC has said on raised issue of querriest which you assure us to place them here (later whatever) and shall take a pause saying the discussion has trickily changed course and suggesting to take a way out i.e. the way one now looks at it and may have cometh to a level; is the bottle half full or half empty?

Interesting................

Now Tajobs, 

You are taking things a little too far.

Let me clarify things so that we are on the same page. The queriest wrote amongst other things

"my wife threw away my mangalsutra in front of me on the very first day and abused me which has trumatised me a lot"

There was a lot of discussion on it: And I wrote a single sentence

"The moot point is that it is cruelty."

Now, let me assure you when I stated, the moot point is it is cruelty. I definately meant that the act of abuse as well as throwing of mangalsutra is cruelty, which has traumatized the queriest.

I don't know which led you to have the assumption that I was referring to only the act of throwing away mangalsutra. (Assumption, because you didnot clarify, before citing two judgements.) And also adding a needless reasoning, which I countered as saying, "personal picking has become a habit :P" Let me again emphasize this :P here. I quoted  other instance of cruelty "HIJDA" thing.

But during whole this, your assumption led you to believe that the my comment only revolves around "throwing of mangalsutra" which it was not. To which you again, and mind it, I think it was needless, launched into some other tangent. about the "member account deleted". Now let me assure you about that tangent

1. I have no reason to be interested in "member account deleted" or her banter on you, and I have always asked people to tone down on LCI and other forums as well.

2. I have graciously accepted my mistakes and have stood corrected at multiple places.

Now, I have already told you in my previous post as to why your understanding of Hanumanta Rao judgement is wrong. Let me once again repeat, little unnecessarity, Judicial pronouncement is valuable, only so far as it interprets statute law or some recognized legal principle. Taking it blindly to facts can lead to a serious errors. Which you did. Law of cruelty is clear that it has a big deal to do with the conduct and tolerance of the parties, which the trial court can only find. What is cruelty for one may not be cruelty for other. i.e. My wife/ GF/ Friend forcing me to eat Chicken Tikka would not be cruelty, but imagine someone doing the same to a vegan. Unintelligent and mechanical citation of cases is thus deprecated.

Now coming to where it was held that "TEARING OF MANGALSUTRA IS CRUELTY" It is "Ramlalli Vs Soneylal" 1(1990) DMC 518, and if my memory serves me right, it is MP HC Judgement, because this citation comes from my little book, for complete judgement I would have to pick DMC or search on Indian Kanoon. Which I loathe to do while discussing.

Trust me, this young going to be lawyer would have dug more citations, if he was coming for an argument.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor

harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

PS: I graciously also accept your supremacy when it comes to the collection of citations/ case law. I have already asked you for your collection.

PPS: In all my 12 cases, which I fought, defended well, won or compromised (w.o yielding unnecessary grounds) right upto SC level. I have used a total for 4 citations. BEAT THAT.

PPS1: Agar aap aur mein case ka faisla forum pe hi kar denge to court mein judge kya karega Maamu.