DASTANE V/S DASTANE

A Case Study
Cruelty as a ground for divorce can be defined as willful and
unjustifiable conduct of such a nature as to endanger life,
limb, or health, bodily or mental, or to give rise to a
reasonable fear of such a danger. The issue of mental cruelty
must be considered under the norms of marital ties of the
specific society to which the parties belong, as well as their
social values, status, and the environment in which they live. What is cruelty?
Cruelty does not have to be physical. If it is established or an
inference can be legitimately drawn from the spouse's conduct
that the treatment of the spouse causes apprehension in the
mind of the other spouse about his or her mental welfare, then
this conduct amounts to cruelty.
Cruelty as one of the grounds for Judicial Separation:
Section 10(1): Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or
after the commencement of this Act, may present a petition to the district
court praying for a decree for judicial separation on the ground that the
other party has treated the petitioner with cruelty as to cause a reasonable
apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or
injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Provisions for
Cruelty as one of the grounds for Divorce:
cruelty
Section 13(1)(i)(i)(a): “Any marriage solemnized whether before or after
the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the
husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground
that the other party has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the
petitioner with cruelty.”
Effect of condonation of cruelty:
Section 23(1)(b): “In any proceedings under this Act, whether defended
or not, if the court is satisfied that the ground of the petition is the
ground specified in clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 10, or clause
(i) of sub-section (1) of section 13, the petitioner has not in any manner
been accessory to or connived at or condoned the act or acts
complained of, or where the ground of petition is cruelty the petitioner
has not in any manner condoned the cruelty, then, in such a case, but
not otherwise, the court shall decree such relief accordingly.”
Case
Narayan Ganesh Dastane vs. Sucheta Narayan Dastane, AIR 1975 1534
Court
Supreme Court of India Bench: Chandrachaud, Y.V. Goswami, P.K.
Untwalia, N.L.
Author of the Judgement
Chandrachaud, Y.V. Goswami
Decided on
19/03/1975
Counsel for Petitioners
V.M. Tarkunde, S. Bhandare , P.H. Parekh, Manju Jaitley
Overview
Counsel for Respondents
V.S. Desai, S.B. Wad, Jayashree Wad
Act
S. 10(1)(b) and S. 23(1), Hindu Marriage Act; Cruelty; Burden of proof in
matrimonial cases; Condonation of cruelty; Conditional nature of
condonation of cruelty; Revival of cruelty; Whether sexual intercourse
amounts to condonation; Section 100 and Section 103, CPC; Powers of
High Court; Second appeal; Section 3, Evidence Act
The year 1955 was pivotal in Hindu history. Prior to 1955,
Hindu law was considered uncodified. The necessity of the
time prompted Parliament to pass four Acts for the Hindu.
One of the most prominent examples is the Hindu Marriage
Act of 1955. Inter-caste marriages, marriages with widows,
and re-marriages are not prohibited by the Act as they were

Introduction
prior to 1955. Marriage is also regarded as a pious and
spiritual tie in Hindu law. It is founded on Hinduism. As a
result, divorce was not permitted under uncodified Hindu
law. The Hindu Marriage Act effectively ended patriarchal
society. Both spouses are now eligible for divorce. However,
cruelty has always been a new and concerning issue for the
courts. Cruelty has been recognized as a ground for divorce
by the Supreme Court.
 Divorce on grounds of cruelty can take two forms:
physical cruelty and mental cruelty. Physical cruelty is
easier to prove because direct evidence, such as witnesses
and medical records, is readily available. But what about
psychological cruelty? How can one measure or see
emotions such as fear, depression, frustration, and so on
that are caused by the other spouse? The spouse appears
physically healthy to the outside world, but the reality is
harsh.
In April 1956, the respondent's parents, Sucheta, proposed
marriage to the appellant. The respondent earned a B.Sc. from
Delhi University and a Master's Degree in Social Work. Dr.
Narayan Ganesh Dastane, the appellant, had a master's degree
in M.Sc. in Agriculture. Before finalising the marriage
proposal, the respondent's father sent a letter to the appellant
informing him of the incident in which the respondent suffered
from a "severe attack of sunstroke" that affected her mental
condition for some time and from which she has now
Facts
recovered. Furthermore, respondent's father stated that she was
cured at Yeravada Mental Hospital. The appellant made no
further inquiries after confirming the incident with the doctor.
On May 13, 1956, they got married. This marriage resulted in
the birth of two daughters. In 1961, the appellant requested
Police Protection, claiming that the respondent was a threat to
his life.
The respondent requested maintenance for herself and her
two daughters and wrote to the Ministry of Food and
Agriculture about the appellant's cruel behavior. The
appellant petitioned the court to annul the marriage under
section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, claiming
that his consent was obtained fraudulently. He also asked the
court to grant him a divorce under section 13(1)(iii) of the
Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. On the other hand, he sought
judicial separation under Section 10 (1)(b) of the HMA of
1955.
The respondent used to describe the mother of appellant as a
boorish woman;
On the day of ’Paksha’ (the day oil which oblations are offered
to ancestors) she used to abuse the appellant’s ancestors;
She beat her daughter Shubha while she was running on a high
temperature of 104 degrees;
Allegations of
One night she started behaving as if she was ’possessed’. She
tore off the Mangal-Sutra once and said that she will not put it Husband
on again; and
She used to switch on the light at midnight and sit by the
bedside of husband nagging him through the night, as a result
he literally prostrated himself before her on many occasions.
Special instructions given by my husband.
On waking up in the morning, to look after the minor;
Not to fill milk vessel or container or tea-cup to the brim;
Not to serve meals in brass plates cups and vessels;
After serving the first course during meals, not to constantly
Allegations of
and continuously ask ’what do you want?’ but to inform at the
beginning of the meals how much and which are the courses.
Wife
Not to do any work with one hand.
To regularly apply to her ‘kajal’ and give him tomato juice.
Not to talk.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that the appellant's claim
that his wife was insane was made up by him. The claim that
the respondent inflicted cruelty on the appellant has been
proven within the meaning of Section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu
Marriage Act of 1955, but the appellant's act of engaging in
sexual intercourse with the respondent results in 'condonation
of cruelty' in the eyes of the law. As she realized her errors, the
respondent was willing to return to the household shared by
both parties. The appellant pardoned the respondent, and she
Judgement
did not act in the same way she did before the pardon. As a
result, the respondent will not face cruelty charges, and the
divorce petition will be denied.
Cruelty is one of the grounds for divorce and judicial
separation. The term "cruelty" is not defined in the Act. As a
result, it must be determined in light of the facts and
circumstances of the case. Mental cruelty is a mental state. For
a long time, one spouse's deep anguish, frustration, and
disappointment caused by the actions of others led to mental
cruelty.
As a result, the court of law has determined that “It is a well-
Conclusion
recognized proposition that neither exclusive nor inclusive
definition of mental cruelty can be given, and even the courts
have not attempted to do so, yet generally content themselves
with determining whether the facts in the particular case in
question constitute cruelty or not.”