Case title:
SHOBHA RANI vs. MADHUKAR REDDI
Date of Order:
12/11/1987
Bench:
Shetty, K.J. (J)
Parties:
PETITIONER: SHOBHA RANI
RESPONDENT: MADHUKAR REDDI
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 13(1)
- Dowry Prohibition Act 1961; Section 10, 23
- Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A
OVERVIEW
- The husband is a clinical specialist, while the wife has a postgraduate degree in organic sciences.
- On December 19, 1982, they were both married in happiness, but arguments quickly developed. They started writing one other stern letters. They then began to criticize one another as well.
- They briefly pondered coming to an understanding at one point.
- Maybe it was motivated by disgust. On the odd chance that it had happened, it would have been more.
- They eventually ended up in the Court.
- The wife went to court to complain about the breakdown of her marriage, but she only raised a few issues.
ISSUES RAISED
Should the wife be permitted to request a divorce decree citing cruelty?
whether or not it was a valid
ground for divorce
whether or not it was a valid
ground for divorce
whether or not it was a valid
ground for divorce
whether or not it was a valid
ground for divorce
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- Her annoyance about the husband's share interest was the only objection that was raised. The endowment is a pervasive, well-known evil in society.
- It has now started off as regular presents filled with love and tenderness. In the past, it was customary to present the bride with a few gifts at the time of the wedding, but today, we can say that if the groom or any member of his family requests anything—such as money, a car, or other property—it will be considered dowry under the dowry prohibition act.
- As soon as the husband and his family started asking the woman for dowry—money or other items—it became clear that this was a matter of legality.
- In addition, the Petitioner said in its testimony that "my mother-in-law always used to demand money from my parents. I used to discuss what was occurring to me in that house with my parents. When my mother-in-law demanded money, I used to remain mute.
- The response would occasionally make requests for money as well.
- The husband claimed that she used to explain to him why he shouldn't ask his parents for financial assistance as well as why he shouldn't do so. But he used to respond that such things only existed in the past and do not exist today, therefore I should ask my parents for money.
- In the bank, there were fixed deposit receipts in my name totaling between 1.5 and 2 lakhs.
- In addition, a house plot at Jubilee Hills was in my name. She was worried about telling her husband and in-laws because I wouldn't ask them for money.
- She also mentioned in her defense that she was terrified to visit the respondent's home again because she thought the constant nagging for money would continue. She consequently acquired a dislike for returning to the response. She joined as a teacher only because of that.
- The lawyer suggested that we should rely less on precedents. As Lord Denning noted in Sheldon vs. Sheldon, "The categories of cruelty are not closed." Each situation could be unique.
- The Court need merely take into account the spouses' unique grievances and perceive them as nature intended.
- In married affairs, we are not dealing with objective criteria; it is not a matrimonial offense to fall below the norm of the reasonable man (or the reasonable woman), as Lord Reid noted in Gollins Vs. Gollins. This man or this woman is the subject.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- Respondent tried to acknowledge that he had few priorities.
- The respondent said so, and it is clear from the candidate's demeanor that she has a propensity for exaggerating the truth. She objected to eating and drinking, which makes it clear that she does.
- She has created a mole-slope either as a result of her excessive affectability or as a result of her tendency for misrepresenting things.
- Additionally, the solicitor hasn't examined her father for the reasons she finds most compelling.
- She claims that the respondent and his family harassed her for money, but there is no explanation as to why he has not been examined.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The marriage fell apart once the appeal was granted.The court's satisfaction with the case's facts could be seen, and it was declared that they did indeed support the conclusion that dowry was demanded. Demands for dowries are against the law, hence they qualify as cruel treatment.
- The Honorable Court acknowledged a decree for the dissolution of the marriage and granted the appeal, allowing the decree for the grant of dissolution of marriage.
- Additionally, it was declared that cruelty, whether it be physical or mental, intentional or inadvertent, must be considered as a matrimonial offense in the ordinary sense.
- In one of the examples mentioned, Lord Evershed said that it is not necessary to demonstrate the intent of one party to damage the other in order to establish cruelty.
- In all such circumstances, the question is, in my opinion, whether the actions or statements of the group accused were "remorseless" in the traditional sense of the word, rather than whether the group accused was itself a heartless man or woman.
- The court has recognized that the ideal or nearly ideal couple will likely never need to go before a matrimonial court because, even if their disagreements cannot be resolved, their ideal attitudes may enable them to ignore or gloss over one another's flaws and shortcomings.
CONCLUSION
- We cannot regret the manner in which that share was demanded, and our law clearly states that the settlement interest is limited.
- The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was approved by Parliament in order to prohibit this abhorrent practice because endowment is a deeply ingrained evil in society. In order to resolve this situation, the court's decision would be incredibly helpful because the Act forbade the giving or taking of share.
- We can conclude by stating that the concept of cruelty has been given a new scale.
- According to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, provocation of a woman with the intent to force her or any person associated with her to fulfill any unlawful need for any property or significant security, as well as any wilful conduct that is of a nature that is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or that is liable to make grave injury or peril life, appendage, or wellbeing (regardless of whether mental or physical of the woman), would constitute crimes.
