Top News Headlines 29th Jan 2022: Not Taking Treatment For Mental Issues To Bring Peace To The Family Amounts To Cruelty

Not Taking Treatment For Mental Issues To Bring Peace To The Family Amounts To Cruelty: Kerala HC

The Hon’ble Kerala HC has described the scope and ambit of cruelty while granting a decree of divorce in the case of Mary Margret vs Jos P Thomas and has held that not taking treatment for mental issues in order to bring peace to the family home will amount to cruelty.

The Court also held that there could not be different scales to measure what would be cruelty under Hindu law, Muslim Law and Christian Law and that the concept of matrimonial cruelty to entitle a spouse for divorce cannot be dissimilar for people belonging to different religious faiths.

In the instant case, the appellant (wife) and the husband (respondent) got married in 1988 and they had two daughters. The husband filed a petition under section 10 of the Divorce Act, citing both mental and physical cruelty by his wife.

The husband alleged that from the very beginning, the wife showed behavioural abnormalities. She would resort to violence even in the most meagre domestic problems and never gave proper attention to the children. It was also alleged that she would threaten the husband by saying that she would slit his throat, or that she would chop off his penis if he did not accede to her demand of unnatural sex.

It was alleged that though she was taken to various psychologists, she never cooperated with them and always refused the treatment. The lower Court agreed with the husband’s contentions and granted the decree of dicvorce. The same was challenged by the wife before the HC.

The HC observed that the husband had a case and that the appellant did indeed suffer from some behavioural disorders for which she refused treatments time and time again. The wife on the other hand claimed that she had no mental disorder but only mental stress which was caused due to the cruelty meted out to her by her husband and her mother-in-law. This claim was rejected by the Court because the wife had already admitted to the behavioural disorders before the lower Court and that she had refused to undergo treatment for it.

The Court observed that one might suffer from mental disorders due to a variety of reasons, but refusing to undergo medical treatment and thus not being able to lead a harmonious matrimonial life would amount to cruelty. The Court also noted the testimony of the doctor that stated that impulse control disorder would necessarily affect a normal family life but with treatment, it could be kept under control.

The Court also held that there could not be any comprehensive definition of cruelty and that the same would have to depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

Relying upon Article 44 of the Constitution, the Court observed that the nature of cruelty would not be different under different laws. Referring to section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act which is applicable to Christians, the Court observed that the cruelty complained of should be of such a kind as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be injurious or harmful for him to live with the respondent.

Harmful or injurious, in this situation, would mean anything which would hinder the ability of the spouse to blossom and enjoy matrimonial life to its fullest.

Thus, holding that the husband had sufficiently proven his case, the appeal of the wife was dismissed and the Court held that she had indeed subjected her husband to cruelty.

Divorce Not Yet Finalised? Cannot Seek Reservation Under ‘Divorcee Female’ Category: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan HC, in Parul Khurrana vs. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & anr. has held that there is nothing in law that allows for a woman, not yet divorced, to seek reservation under the ‘Divorcee Female’ category.

In the instant case, the petitioner had filed a writ petition as her candidature was rejected as she did not possess a decree of divorce on the last date of submission of her application for the post of Stenographer Grade- III in the District Court.

The petitioner was married to Shri Vikas and obtained a customary divorce on 17-9-2018. An application under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act had been filed on 12-07-2019 and a decree of divorce was obtained on 13-08-2020.

Since the application under 13B had already been filed before the application form in the recruitment process was submitted, the appellant applied in the Divorcee Female category. The Final result was declared on 15-12-2021 and a note was annexed to it stating that since the appellant did not have a decree of divorce on the last date of submission of the online application, she was not being considered as a ‘Divorcee Female’. Aggrieved, she moved the HC.

The Counsel for the appellant argued that the respondents were unjustified in rejecting her candidature in the divorcee female category as she had already obtained a customary divorce. It was also argued that an application under section 13B had been filed a long time ago but due to the pandemic, it could not be decided, and hence the appellant should be given appointment under the Divorcee Female category.

The Court held that the advertisement for the post of stenographer clearly stated that the reservation was given to a ‘Divorcee Female’. The Court relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble SC in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs Union of India (2007)3 SCC and held that the appellant was not a divorcee on the last date of submission of the application form and thus was not eligible to apply in the said category.

Thus, the writ petition was rejected as being devoid of merit.

TPCL Is Authority Within Article 226; Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Orissa HC

The Orissa HC has, in the case of Surendra Kumar Sahoo vs State of Odisha, held that the Tata Power Company Limited (TPCL), though not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, is nevertheless an authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution and is thus subject to the writ jurisdiction of the HC.

In the instant case, the supply, maintenance and distribution was undertaken by the Orissa State electricity board, which was created under a statute and completely under the control of the State. Later, to restructure the electrical industry, the State Government, in consultation with the Grid Corporation of Orissa and in exercise of the power conferred by the Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, made the transfer scheme rules.

In accordance with this, the entire State of Odisha was divided into four distribution zones for the supply of electricity. Four distribution companies were involved in the same, namely WESCO, NESCO, CESCO and SOUTHCO. These distribution companies were responsible for collecting electricity duties along with energy charges collected from the customers.

A number of PILs were filed against these companies, and the current petition was filed challenging the maintainability of the PILs.

It was observed by the Court that TPCL, though a company, was engaged in the distribution of electricity in the four distribution areas of the State under different names and its management was also controlled by the State through GRIDCO (Grid Corporation of Orissa).

The Court also observed that though the word State has not been defined, it includes all authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. The word ‘or’ must be read disjunctively and not conjunctively, meaning thereby that the company must not necessarily be under the control of the Government of India.

The Court had also observed that the notion that all PSUs must be financed by the government or must be under its deep, pervasive control has undergone a massive change in the past decades. The focus now is on the functions that these companies perform. The main question that needs answering is whether the function that is exercised by the company is a ‘public function’.

The Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K.K.Saksena vs international Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (2015)4 SCC where it was held that the word authority used in Article 226 has to be given a more liberal interpretation than the word state used in Article 12. It was further held that even if a person or authority does not come within the sweep of Article 12 but discharged public functions, the same would come within the term ‘authority’ under Article 226 and appropriate writs can be issued against the same.

Thus, the HC held that the TPCL falls within the term ‘authority’ within the meaning of article 226 and that the writ petitions are maintainable against these aforementioned distribution companies.