This article is written by Arya Senapati and attempts to present an analysis of the landmark case of N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane through its facts, incorporated positions, contentions of the parties, legal issues and the overall judgement. This case is a landmark decision on cruelty in marriage and is one of the leading precedential authorities in matrimonial disputes related to the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. 

Introduction

Marriage, as a social institution, has existed for centuries now and has surpassed the turmoils of the society, but like any other social institution, it has not been free from the scrutiny of social reform and social change. It had to undergo transformations and changes to be a suitable institution as per the contemporary demands of society. In the Indian context, marriage has been considered as a sacrament in many communities and is an integral aspect of personal life.

Due to the sanctity of this personal space, many a times, the judiciary and the lawmakers have tried to stay away from interfering excessively in it to maintain its sanctity as a personal aspect of an individual’s life, but many times, it is imminent for legislators and judges to examine certain necessary aspects of marriage to protect the rights of the individuals and to initiate necessary transformations in the social institution. This is the idea that has led to multiple pieces of legislation like the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the provisions for maintenance and many other notable judgments which change the perceptions of marriage and matrimony, like the Shayra Bano v. Union of India (2017) case which ruled upon the validity of triple talaq or the Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) case which stated that it is illegal to prevent the marriage of two consenting adults and recognised marriage as a right of consenting adult individuals. While these cases are fairly recent, there have been a series of cases which secured a strong foundation for interpreting the rights of parties in a matrimonial dispute and one such landmark case is the case of N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975) which dealt with the interpretation and understanding of cruelty as a ground for dissolution of marriage. 

Cruelty, while in its original sense meant physical violence or harm, has been interpreted in recent times to include mental, economic and social aspects and therefore, it is important to condemn cruelty in a marriage to ensure that the rights of the parties are sufficiently protected. On the contrary, while dealing with matrimonial disputes alleging cruelty on the part of one spouse, the court often comes across the mention of multiple trivial facts which are in essence general consequences of trivial temperamental disharmony that is common to all marriages. Many such notable incidents arise in marriage out of general conflicts which are common between two individuals and cannot be accorded as cruelty. If they are referred to as cruelty, then it would open the doors of the court to innumerable cases which would do no better than the institution of marriage. 

Therefore, the Supreme Court felt the imminent need to lay down certain guidelines and tests to ascertain if the alleged acts of cruelty are so serious that they must be accorded the attention of the court and must lead to the dissolution of marriage. It is important to establish a standardised precedent to decide further cases which come before the court to help the court reach an adequate resolution of the disputes. Therefore, in the case of Dastane v. Dastane, the court laid down a clear-cut test for ascertaining the existence of cruelty in matrimonial disputes and for ascertaining its condonation.

Details of the case

Name of the case: Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane 

Judgement date: 19.03.1975

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: N.L. Untwalia, P.K. Goswami, Y.V. Chandrachud

Citation: AIR 1975 SC 1534

Facts of the case and procedural history 

1. This case arises from a matrimonial dispute between the appellant and the respondent. The petition was filed by the appellant to annul his marriage with the respondent and then consequently to obtain a decree of divorce or judicial separation. The grounds for seeking annulment of the marriage was fraud and furthermore, the ground for divorce was unsoundness of mind and judicial separation on the ground of cruelty. 
2. Both the spouses come from academic backgrounds and are highly intellectual. They also hold respect and reputation in their societies. The appellant, Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane is a postgraduate from Poona University and holds a degree in agriculture. He was posted by the Indian Government in Australia under the Colombo Scheme, and he obtained his doctorate in Australia. He has then held many reputable positions. 
3. The respondent is Mrs. Sucheta, who passed her B.Sc in DU and spent a year in Japan. After conflicts in her marriage, she obtained a degree in Social Work and has worked in the field of marriage conciliation and juvenile delinquency and during the case, she used to work at the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi. 
4. In 1956, the respondent’s parents arranged her marriage to the appellant and before the marriage, the respondent’s father wrote two letters to the appellant’s father stating that the respondent met with a sunstroke before going to Japan, which affected her mental condition for some time. After two days to the first letter, her father wrote another letter which stated that “cerebral malaria” was an additional reason for the mental affectation. The letters also stated that she underwent treatment at Yerawada Mental Hospital and was cured after that. The letters were written to make things transparent and to not keep the parents of the appellants in the dark. Furthermore, the respondent’s father also asked the appellant’s father to discuss the matter in detail with Dr. P.L. Deshmukh from the Mental Hospital. 
5. Upon enquiry, Dr. Deshmukh, who is also a relative of the respondent’s mother, confirmed the truth of the letter and after that, no enquiries were made at the Yerawada Mental Hospital. The marriage was then solemnised in May 1956. The marriage was performed at Poona on 13.05.1956. The appellant was then 27 and the respondent 21 years of age. The appellant was then transferred to Poona where both of them lived together until 1958. They were blessed with a daughter named Shubha. The appellant then moved to Delhi and took a job there. Then a second daughter was born named Vibha. 
6. After some time, the appellant got the respondent examined by Dr. Seth, a psychiatrist in charge of the Yerawada Mental Hospital. The doctor wanted more data and therefore wanted some sittings with the respondents but she denied cooperating. Then she herself or both the spouses decided that she should stay for a while with a relative of hers. She left and went to the relative’s home and no consultation with the doctor was made. The appellant says that she promised to meet the doctor, but did not do so as she believed that the appellant was building a case against her due to the unsoundness of her mind. 
7. After a while, due to conflict, another letter was written by the maternal uncle of the respondent to the appellant’s father which was sadistic and full of malice. The appellant and the respondent started living separately and the appellant sought the protection of policy as he feared a threat to his life from the parents and relatives of the respondent. 
8. After some months, the respondent wrote to the appellant alleging him of his misconduct and seeking maintenance from him for herself and their children. The respondent also wrote to the Ministry of Food and Agriculture stating that she had been deserted by her husband due to extreme cruelty and asked the government to provide for her maintenance. She made a statement to the Assistant Superintendent of the Police alleging desertion and bad treatment. The appellant then wrote to the respondent’s father that he was going to the court to seek a separation. Then the proceeding was instituted on February 19, 1962, and this arises from it. 
9. Their third daughter, Pratibha was born on 19.08.1961. The appellant stated that he wrote a letter to the respondent’s father complaining about the ill-treatment meted out to him and how he was not even invited to the naming ceremony of their daughter. The appellant mentioned in the letter that he is going to the court to seek a separation from the respondent. The proceedings out of which this appeal arises were instituted on 19.02.1962.
10. The appellant sought a decree of nullity under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and stated the ground as consent obtained under fraud, He also sought a divorce under Section 13(1)(ii) under the ground of incurable mental unsoundness and asked for judicial separation under Section 10(1)(b) on the ground of cruelty and apprehension of danger to person and property. 
11. The appellant alleged that the respondent was getting treated for Schizophrenia unlike what her father represented. This contention was rejected by the trial court but the trial court held the respondent guilty of cruelty and passed a decree of judicial separation. 
12. Both the parties appealed to the District Court which accepted the respondent’s appeal and dismissed the appellant’s appeal completely. Then the appellant made a second appeal in the Bombay High Court where a single Judge granted him with a special leave to Appeal to the SC only on the question of Judicial Separation on the ground of cruelty. Therefore, the Supreme Court is concerned only with the question of judicial separation and not the fact of whether the consent to marriage was obtained by fraud or if the respondent is of unsound mind for the given period required after the presentation of the petition. The Apex Court considers the decision of the High Court on the above matters as final and states that they cannot be reopened. 

Issues raised

1. Does the burden of proof to prove that cruelty was conducted beyond any reasonable doubt fall on the appellant or not?
2. If the claims of the appellant as per the unsoundness of the respondent’s mind under Section 13(1)(iii) and fraudulent representation of her mental state to obtain consent for marriage by the respondent’s parents falls under Section 12(1)(c) or not?
3. Does the act of sexual intercourse with the spouse in a marriage amount to condoning cruelty by the appellant or not?
4. Are facts of a matrimonial dispute between parties necessary to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in any case or not?

Arguments advanced by the appellant

The appellant came up with multiple contentions to justify his petitions and to convince the court to grant his prayers. Some of the notable arguments include:

1. The primary contention of the appellant was that the respondent’s father concealed some material facts to obtain his consent for the marriage. As per the letters that were sent by the respondent’s father, the respondent suffered from a sunstroke and cerebral malaria which affected her mental capacity. Upon inquiry, the appellant later found out that the respondent actually suffers from Schizophrenia (a severe mental disorder accompanied by hallucinations and fits of anger and rage at times), and she was treated for Schizophrenia. The appellant states that the misrepresentation of the respondent’s condition vitiated his free consent as it was obtained by the fraud conducted by the respondent’s parents. 
2. The appellant mentioned that there have been many incidents where the respondent would lose her temper in public and go ahead to insult the appellant as well as the appellant’s family in front of the general public which led to many situations that put their reputation at stake. He also alleged that the respondent used to verbally abuse the appellant’s mother by calling her a “boorish woman” and could never form a cordial relationship with her. 
3. The appellant asks the court to take note of the fact that the respondent used to act extremely viciously and aggressively with the entire family and there have been moments where she would hit her children badly. He notes an instance where she physically abused her eldest daughter Shubha while Shubha was under a severe fever of 104 degrees. 
4. He also stated that the respondent acted in a very abnormal manner at various times of the day and at various intervals. Especially on the day of the Paksha, the day when ancestors are offered prayers and worshipped, the respondent would abuse the appellant’s ancestors and create a scene in front of everyone. He also alleged that one night the respondent tore off her mangal sutra and denied weaning it ever again. 
5. The appellant mentioned that the respondent would nag her consistently at midnight, which was truly annoying to the appellant but to prevent any ruckus or scene, the appellant would humbly submit to her wishes like a helpless person. 
6. Therefore, keeping in mind all these incidents, the appellant submits before the court that the respondent is of unsound mind and her actions have greatly troubled the entire family and have created severe harm to their lives, reputation in society and peace. Her conduct also creates a reasonable apprehension of fear in the mind of the appellant and therefore, the court should grant them a decree of judicial separation. 

Arguments advanced by the respondent

The respondent came up with the following contention to defend their position in front of the Apex Court. Some of the notable arguments include:

1. The respondent’s primary argument is that the letters on which the appellant is basing his contentions on to prove that his consent was obtained through fraud are all written under coercion. She contends that her parents were coerced by the parents of the appellant to write those letters as a proof of her mental condition with mala fide intentions behind doing so. 
2. The respondent stated that since the beginning of their matrimonial ties, her husband, the appellant, has expected her to follow a strict code of conduct as to how she should behave. He expected her to follow a routine and forced her by putting pressure on her to adhere to his standards and expectations thoroughly. Some of the instructions he gave included:

1. To care for their minor child as soon as she wakes up which should be early in the morning
2. He does not use any brass plates, cups, vessels or other brass utensils to serve any kind of meal to him and to his family members
3. Ask every one of their dietary requirements and preferences even before serving the meal rather than continuously asking after serving the first course as to what the diners want more of or wish to eat more of. 
4. Not to completely fill a milk vessel or tea cup
5. Preserve whatever letters are received carefully and note down address in the address book, 
6. Not to dip fingers in any utensils
7. Not to do any work in one hand
8. Not to talk much 

3. She stated that he tried to control major aspects of her life and micromanage her by instructing her to not apply kajal or “kohl”, to serve him tomato juice daily, to work single handedly without expecting anyone else’s help in any matter and many such other instructions which were highly controlling and tried to interfere with her personal liberty and her choice of life. The counsel for the respondent also stated that the appellant was constantly pestering the respondent for a demand for divorce. 

4. She stated that even after they started living separately, or as per her, the appellant deserted her, he used to continue to perform sexual relations with her and due to those sexual intercourses, their third child was born. She contended that the very fact that he continued to engage in sexual intercourse with her after deserting her should amount to condoning the cruelty that he is accusing her of. 

5. Based upon all these facts, statements and incidents, the counsel for the respondent stated that such acts done by the petitioner used to annoy the respondent and make her life extremely difficult. It used to put unnecessary mental pressure and stress on her which affected her daily life and functioning. Such stressful daily situations led to such a situation where she acted irrationally because of the constant interference and pressure from her husband. The counsel for the respondent stated that the appellant was simply trying to take advantage of his own wrongs as per Section 23(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 

Judgment in N.G. Dastane vs. S. Dastane (1975)

The Supreme Court reviewed this case as a Special Leave Petition. The Apex Court then observed all the material facts, and the arguments raised and then decided the case by putting forth the following notable points:

1. First and foremost, the court notes that this appeal which has been allowed by special leave against the judgement given by the High Court in the Second Appeal, the Apex Court would not normally review the evidence again and it is even unfair to the part of the High Court to do so during the second appeal. As per Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the High Court during the second appeal must restrict itself to questions of laws, substantial errors and defects if any. However, in this case, the court has indulged in evidence and reached the inference that the appellant has failed to establish cruelty on the part of the respondent. 
2. The High Court is of the opinion that the abuses and remarks made by the respondent could not have been addressed to the vacuum. It must have been in retort to the remarks made by the husband. Without any evidence to support the conduct of the wife on a particular occasion, the court cannot draw inferences against the respondent. As per the Apex Court, this approach taken by the High Court is erroneous and it is the duty of the court of fact to draw inferences from whatever evidence available to them, either circumstantial or direct. To not draw inferences against the wife due to lack of evidence while saying that her conduct towards the husband must have been in retaliation is an attempt to draw inferences regarding the conduct of the husband without any evidence whatsoever. Therefore, the court contradicts its approach.
3. On the question of whether the burden of proof of cruelty and unsoundness of mind rests on the appellant, the court stated that in any matrimonial dispute, the burden of proof will always lie on the petitioner and the petitioner must prove his contentions but through preponderance of probabilities and not beyond any reasonable doubt. The petitioner must be capable of establishing his/ her case. Therefore, the petitioner must prove that he was subjected to cruelty under the meaning of Section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 
4. Going deep into the question of burden of proof, the court says that as per the normal rules, a fact is established only when it is proved by the preponderance of probabilities, in civil matters and as per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 a fact is proved when the court believes it’s existence as a man of ordinary prudence would. In contrast, the proof beyond reasonable doubt is a higher standard of burden of proof which is usually utilised in criminal cases, in this instant case, neither Section 10 of the Act nor Section 23 requires that the petitioner must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 23 simply states that a court can pass a decree once it is satisfied with the existence of facts necessary to prove those matters mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of the provision. Noting that the cases under the Act are usually of a civil nature, it prescribed preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt as a standard of proof. 
5. Coming next to the definition of cruelty, the court first refers to the Bombay High Court’s judgement where the High Court has stated that the character of cruelty differs from Mohammedan Law and our legal system and to establish cruelty, there must be actual violence which leads to endangering the personal health and safety of individuals. There must be a reasonable apprehension of such violence but then again the court refers to the recent understanding of cruelty which states that it is a “wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The High Court concludes that “Having regard to these principles and the entire evidence in the case, in my judgement, I find that none of the acts complained of against the respondent can be considered to be so sufficiently grave and weighty as to be described as cruel according to the matrimonial law.”. Therefore, it is clear that the High Court did not hold the respondent guilty of cruelty. 
6. The Supreme Court on the matter of cruelty states that the appellant has mentioned multiple instances which he terms as cruelty but these trivial incidents are considered as general wear and tear of marriage and must be ignored which ascertains something as serious as cruelty. This temperamental disharmony is common in marriages and must be treated as such. They do not furnish sufficient cause for dissolution of marriage but after appreciation of evidence, the court notes that the respondent has wilfully caused misery to the appellant and his relations and she enjoyed doing so. Even though there was some justification for certain incidents, the pattern of her rude and aggressive behaviour cannot be ignored and does constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10(1)(b).
7. The next question that the court dealt with was whether the appellant had at any point condoned the cruelty of the respondent through his conduct. The court stated that it is clear by the provision of the Section 23(1)(b) that relief prayed can only be decreed if there is cruelty and the petitioner has not condoned the cruelty in any manner. The court having observed the fact that the spouses parted ways when the respondent was three months pregnant is proof enough that they used to engage in sexual intercourse and cohabitation. Condonation simply means forgiving a marital offence and restoring the offending spouse to the same position she had before the commission of offence. Observing all the evidence, it is clear that the appellant’s continuance of sexual intercourse even after the respondent’s cruelty can amount to condonation of the act but as per the English view condoned cruelty can be revived with desertion or adultery. In the Indian legal system, Section 23 doesn’t mention anything about revival of condonation and therefore it shouldn’t be applied to Indian matrimonial disputes.
8. On matters of the revival of the condonation, the Court interprets Section 23 as conditional forgiveness on the implied condition that the condoned party to the dispute would not constitute a fresh matrimonial offence but it doesn’t mean that the party who is condoning the offence has the right to subject the other party to cruelty. In this instant case, the petitioner has also done certain acts which are evaluated through evidence that can amount to cruelty. Therefore, based upon all the evidence, statements and provisions, the Court holds the respondent guilty of cruelty but the appellant condoned the cruelty with the conduct and there can be no revival of the original cause of action and therefore the appeal is to be dismissed and the appellant must pay the costs to the respondent. 

Rationale behind the Judgement 

The Hon’ble Apex Court made reference to multiple judgements and precedents to declare the judgement given in this instant case. First and foremost, on the question of the standard of proof necessary for constituting a matrimonial offence related to grounds of divorce or the bars on divorce, the court refers to the Judgement of the House of Lords in the case of Blyth v. Blyth (1966) in which it was held by a majority opinion that matrimonial offences must be proved like any other civil matter using preponderance of probabilities. Similarly, it also referred to the decision of the High Court of Australia in the case of Wright v. Wright (1948), wherein the court held that the civil and criminal standards of burden of proof differ largely in their applicability and the civil standard is usually applicable to cases of matrimonial dispute. Therefore, in the instant case, the Bombay High Court was erroneous in applying the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard to establish a charge of cruelty. 

Coming to the meaning of cruelty, the Bombay High Court refers to the case of Moonshee Badloor Ruheem V/s. Shumsoonnissa Begum (1867), states that in the Mohammedan Law, the idea of legal cruelty doesn’t differ largely from the present idea of cruelty. As per the Mohomoden law, the idea of cruelty connotes actual violence of such a nature that endangers personal health and safety or creates a reasonable apprehension of the same. It also quotes a passage from D. Tolstoy’s. “The Law and Practice of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes” states that “Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger.” 

Considering these two propositions, the Bombay High Court stated that none of the acts complained on behalf of the respondent’s conduct amounts to cruelty as they are not sufficiently grave but the Supreme Court is of the opinion that while foreign decisions can help us interpret certain cases, we have to put heavy reliance on our own enactments to interpret certain provisions which is Section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act in this case. The provision states the reasonable apprehension of harm and injury making it impossible for a spouse to live with the other. In this situation “reasonability” cannot be construed using the “reasonable man” test as is used in cases of negligence. The court has no role to play in determining philosophies of marriage. What may be cruel to one person might not be to another. The court cannot deal with the spouses under the impression of an ideal man and an ideal woman, it has to treat them as the particular man and woman present before it which is proposed in the case of Gollins v. Gollins (1963). 

Therefore, observing the personalities of the appellant and the respondent and the circumstances they were present in, the court reaches the inference that the conduct of the respondent was indeed cruel but it was condoned by the acts of the appellant. 

Important legal aspect of N.G. Dastane vs. S. Dastane (1975) 

This case dealt largely with the legal interpretations of the concept of cruelty, cruelty as a ground for divorce under Hindu law and the test for establishing cruelty. 

Cruelty

Under the Indian criminal laws i.e. the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 498A states that any husband or any relation of the husband that subjects a woman to an act of cruelty must be punished with imprisonment or a period of three years or more and must be made liable to fine. This section defines cruelty as a wilful conduct by a person which leads a woman to commit suicide, or a conduct that causes grave injury or danger to the life and limb and health of a woman i.e. either mental or physical health. It also includes harassment of a woman to coerce her into meeting unlawful demands related to property. Such a definition of cruelty is largely understood from a physical violence point of view and requires actual harm. Cruelty in matrimonial disputes has also been defined under the Hindu Marriage Act as a ground for obtaining a divorce under Section 13. Originally, the law recognised cruelty as a ground for obtaining judicial separation but not divorce. 

Later on, through the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 Section 13 was amended to include cruelty as a ground for obtaining divorce. Earlier, Section 10 noted cruelty as grounds for obtaining judicial separation and defined it as a conduct that causes reasonable apprehension of harm or injury but the definition was not used in the letters of Section 13 which signifies the parliament’s intention of not defining cruelty in a restrictive sense. Therefore, the present understanding of cruelty is both mental and physical. It can have multiple connotations and dimensions in a marriage. In the case of Dastane v. Dastane, the court interpreted cruelty as an act that causes a reasonable apprehension of being harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live or reside with the respondent. Currently, cruelty simpliciter is enough to obtain a ground for divorce and the petitioner need not prove that the respondent persistently and repeatedly subjected them to cruelty. In the case of Smt. Chanderkal Trivedi v. Dr. S.P Tripathy (1993), the Supreme Court gave a nuanced understanding of mental cruelty and stated that allegations and cross allegations which are of such a nature that it has an effect on the continuance of a marriage can be accorded as mental cruelty and can be considered as a ground for divorce. In such situations, it is highly important to note that the understanding of cruelty has evolved from time to time and must be interpreted in a broader sense to protect the rights and integrity of parties in a matrimonial setup. 

Similarly, in the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994), the petitioner accused his wife of adulterous conduct and the wife denied the allegations but stated that her husband has mental disequilibrium and suffers from mental hallucinations. She stated that her husband requires psychological intervention for his hallucinations. Based on these statements, the husband amended his petition and included cruelty as grounds for obtaining a divorce. The Supreme Court accepted its cruelty and stated that these allegations are proof of the intense hatred and rancour between the parties and there is no space for reconciliation and therefore, the decree for divorce can be granted. 

In many cases in India, it is noted that women are largely the victims of cruelty and domestic violence in matrimonial setups. This led to the question of whether men can be treated as victims of cruelty and if they can seek divorce using cruelty as a ground. In the case of Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad (2007), it was held that even men can be victims of mental cruelty and they too have the right to approach the court to seek a divorce due to cruelty inflicted by their wives. 

Test to determine cruelty

In the Judgement delivered by the Supreme Court of India, in this case, Hon’ble Justice Y.V. Chandrachud laid out a detailed test to ascertain the seriousness of cruelty. He stated that to ascertain is the acts of the appellant amount to cruelty or not, it should fulfil these criteria:

1. The acts which are alleged to be constituted as cruelty must be proven by the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and the court must ensure that it is done in such a manner. 
2. The act of the respondent must create a reasonable apprehension of actual harm and injury in the mind of the person who alleges cruelty and it must be risky for the person to cohabit or reside with the person accused of cruelty in matrimonial disputes. 
3. The apprehension of threat must be rational and must come from the acts of the accused party directly. 
4. There should not be any act on the side of the petitioner that shows condonation of cruelty which necessarily implies forgiveness on the condition of no fresh offence being committed by the accused party. 

Cruelty as a ground of divorce under Hindu law

Since the inception of legal systems, courts have consistently struggled with finding the right meaning or definition of cruelty. Many jurists have noted that out of all the matrimonial offences, cruelty is the toughest to define and therefore, in many systems, the legislatures and judiciary have abstained from creating a standardised definition of cruelty. Similarly, under the Hindu Marriage Act, before the amendment in the year of 1976, cruelty was simply a ground for judicial separation and not divorce, but due to the changing nature of society, it was introduced as a ground for divorce later on. In doing so, the definition of cruelty took a significant turn under the Hindu Law. While it was earlier perceived to be constituted apprehension of danger and injury to life., it changed into any conduct which causes a “reasonable apprehension” in the minds of the petitioner that it is harmful to them to live with the respondent. 

It is a general perception that usually men are perpetrators of cruelty and women are the victims which is largely true, but recently there have been many cases where men have been acknowledged as victims of the cruel conduct of their wives. Earlier, under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, cruelty was a ground for divorce only given to women, but once the Special Marriage Act, 1954, came into existence, it granted the right to men also to seek divorce on the grounds of cruelty. Also, in the Hindu Marriage Act, the option to seek divorce on the grounds of cruelty is available to both husband and wife. Interestingly, the meaning of respondent/ perpetrator has also been widened by the Supreme Court. In the case of Savitri v. Mulchand (1987), the Apex Court held that the definition of respondent would also include a child who beats his father on behalf of his/ her mother. Similarly, in the case of Shyam Sundar v. Santa Devi (1962), the Supreme Court held that the failure of a husband to protect his wife from the constant nagging of his parents makes him guilty of cruelty. So all these ever-changing and evolving facets of cruelty prevent legislators and courts from creating a standardised definition of the same. 

While adjudging cruelty as a ground of divorce, the court often gives importance to the intention of the alleged party to determine if the conduct is cruel or not. There has to be conscious action on the part of the predator to establish an act of cruelty. On the contrary, there have been many cases where the courts have stated that intention is not an essential ingredient when it comes to cruelty. In the decision of Bhagat v. Bhagat (1994), the Bombay High Court appreciated all the evidence, went through the statements and based on the facts held that the husband who is suffering from Schizophrenia, cannot form an adequate intention to be cruel to his wife and therefore, there is no intention to conduct cruelty, but his act certainly amounts to cruelty for which divorce can be decreed. 

While adjudging cruelty as a ground of divorce, the courts have time and again made the caution that the act needs to be grave enough to be constituted as cruelty. Trivial fights and quarrels are the results of disagreements in every marriage but in a Hindu society, marriage is viewed as a sacrament and shouldn’t be dissolved so easily. The judiciary believes that by allowing cases of cruelty on trivial matters, it poses harm to many cases coming to the court where the matter severity is lacking and marriages would be dissolved very easily. Therefore, while adjudging cruelty, the physical and psychological consequences of an act upon the spouse must be carefully studied to ascertain whether or not cruelty was committed by one spouse on the other. 

In the case of Siraj Mohammed Khan Janmohamed Khan v. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan (1981), the Apex Court has stated that there are many interpretations of cruelty but these interpretations must change with the changing needs of time and society. Due to this principle, mental cruelty came to be recognised as an essential matrimonial offence. In the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), the court gave a suggestive but non-exhaustive list of mental cruelty which includes things like unilateral denial to engage in sexual intercourse for a long period of time without any valid reason or physical incapacity, unilateral decision of either husband or wife to not have a child or offspring, regular verbal abuse or rude language, sustained abusive and humiliating treatment which makes the life of a spouse miserable etc. 

Cruelty under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 

While the Indian Penal Code dealt with the concept of cruelty under Section 498A, in the new criminal law i.e. the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 86 deals with Cruelty against a woman and defines cruelty as any act of wilful conduct that consequentially forces a woman to commit suicide, serious injury, danger to life, limb and health or coercing a woman to meet unlawful demands. While the text is almost similar to the previous provision, in the new section, much reliance is placed towards the mental health of a woman. It defines cruelty from a physical as well as mental connotation and states that any act which hampers the mental health of a woman can also be construed as cruel. Therefore, it takes a more progressive stance towards the concept of cruelty. In terms of punishment, Section 85 prescribes a punishment of imprisonment of up to 3 years and/or a fine. This welcome change towards interpreting cruelty from a lens of psychological and mental harm is highly necessary as the dimensions of cruelty change through judicial interpretations as well. 

Recent judgements on cruelty in marriage

Recently, many courts have given varied interpretations of the term cruelty in matrimonial disputes. These judgements are often taken out of context and sensationalised by the media but it is very important to know what they are truly about to utilise them the best. Some of the most notable recent judgments on cruelty include:

Nikhil Wadhwan v. Priti Wadhwan (2024)

In this case, the Delhi High Court granted a decree of divorce to a man who alleged that his wife was cruel to him under the influence of her parents, which led to bitterness in their matrimonial life. The bench observed that there was unnecessary and substantial interference from the wife’s parents and other relations in the married life of the couple, which led to major stress and hassle for the husband. It is clear from the evidence that the wife’s family has asserted their position in the marriage many times. 

The court also noted that the parties have been living separately for over 13 years, and he is deprived of any conjugal relations and the wife’s family has filed many complaints on him which were untrue and lacked substance. The wife’s failure to remove herself from the control of her parents and form an independent relationship with her husband can be characterised as cruelty, according to the court. As per the court, even the absence of conjugal relationships and companionship, which are two of the most important reasons why people enter into a marriage, can also be termed to be an extreme form of cruelty to a spouse. Based on all these grounds the court was pleased that there was no scope for reconciliation between the parties and therefore, divorce was granted on the grounds of cruelty. 

Prem Kumar v. Kalpana Kumar (2023)

In this instant case, the Delhi High Court recognised the importance of conjugal relationships and companionships in a marriage. While granting a decree for divorce under Section 13(i)(a), the court held that the foundation of any marriage is cohabitation and conjugal relationships and a marriage cannot survive when either of the spouses is deprived of the same. Such deprivation also amounts to an extreme form of cruelty. In this case, the parties were married in 1998 and had two children but due to many factors, the wife always left their common residence after fights and quarrels, and she used to mistreat the husband’s relations especially his mother who is a widower. The court held that such acts of the respondents towards the petitioner’s mother are a source of mental stress and trauma for the petitioner and does amount to cruelty and therefore, granting a decree of divorce is feasible to prevent such acts in the marriage. The husband is entitled to divorce due to the mental cruelty that the wife subjected him to by depriving him of conjugal relationships and by mistreating his mother consistently. 

Charu Chug Alias Charu Arora v. Madhukar Chugh (2024)

In this case, the Allahabad High Court held that a spouse living separately from the other for a significant amount of time can be treated as an act of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act and can be a sufficient ground for divorce. The appellant’s wife and the respondent’s husband were married in 2002 and after a small amount of time started living separately for long periods. The husband stated that the wife deserted him and had subjected him to mental and physical cruelty and she had no interest in reconciling or compromising on the matter. It was found that the wife falsely accused the husband of dowry demands, physical abuse and extra-marital affairs which caused extreme mental cruelty to the husband. Based on all these aspects the court held that wherever there is a long period of continuous separation between two spouses and there is no scope for repair in the marriage bond, the marriage becomes a mere fiction and it is important to sever that tie as a continuance of such a relationship and impose heavy mental cruelty on the husband. 

Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007)

This case is a landmark case in the contours of mental cruelty in matrimonial disputes. In this case, the court laid down criteria to determine which human conduct can be attributed to mental cruelty. Firstly, such human conduct which affects the matrimonial life and relationships of two individuals and causes pain and mental torture and suffering to a spouse can be termed as mental cruelty. Such action must make it impossible for both parties to live with each other in matrimonial harmony. A mere lack of affection and coldness cannot amount to cruelty. There must be consistent and regular use of foul language, petulant manner, indifference and neglect to properly constitute cruelty. 

Conclusion

Marriage, as has been established, is an essential aspect of human life and human existence but when the matrimonial bliss turns sour, it is important to liberate an individual from the ties of a fictional marriage so that he/she can find further companionship in others. Therefore, cruelty is recognised as a ground of divorce under the Indian legal system and necessitates the dissolution of marriage when it is conducted by one party to the other. The N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane case became a landmark decision in the arena of establishing cruelty as it laid down a standardised test for ascertaining if cruelty was conducted or not. Earlier, courts found it difficult to define cruelty due to multiple reasons and interpretations but with the decision given in Dastane, the courts have relied upon the test to establish cruelty in many cases. It has also paved the way for a broader interpretation of the term “cruelty” to include mental, sexual, social, and economic forms of cruelty and has inspired many decisions which take a progressive stance on establishing cruelty in marriage to dissolve the same. 

Even today, the case of N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane is used as a reference in multiple cases by courts to establish cruelty in matrimonial disputes. The broader understanding of the dimensions of cruelty, the interpretation of provisions on condonation of cruelty, the clarification on a necessary standard of proof in matrimonial disputes and the acceptance of mental cruelty as a valid ground of divorce will all be important facets of the case for times to come. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

What is the primary ratio of the Dastane v. Dastane case?

The case of N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane deals primarily with the concept of cruelty as a ground for divorce in matrimonial disputes. It states that cruelty must create a reasonable apprehension of harm or injury to the appellant from the conduct of the respondent so as to make it impossible for them to stay together. It lays down a test for establishing cruelty and also deals with the condonation of cruelty. The Court stated that once cruelty is condoned by the act of the appellant, it cannot be revived as a fresh cause of action in a matrimonial dispute. In this case, the appellant continued having sexual intercourse with the respondent which was considered as the condonation of the cruelty by the courts. 

What is the test for establishing cruelty?

To establish cruelty the court must prove the acts alleged with provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. The alleged act must be of such a nature that it creates a reasonable apprehension of harm and injury making it risky for the appellant to cohabit with the respondent. The apprehension must be rational and must come directly from the acts of the respondent. There shouldn’t be any condonation of the alleged act by the conduct of the appellant. 

What is the condonation of cruelty?

Condonation basically means forgiveness. Therefore, condonation of cruelty is any act of the appellant that implies his/her forgiveness of the act of the respondent and shows an interest in resuming normal marital life. For eg: having sexual intercourse after cruelty. Condonation comes with an implied promise that a fresh act of cruelty won’t be committed by the partner at offence. In this instant case, the continuance of sexual intercourse between the appellant and the respondent amounted to condonation of cruelty as per the court. The court stated that the appellant cannot revive a condoned act of cruelty as a fresh cause of action in court. 

What is mental cruelty?

While the earlier understanding of cruelty was primarily physical, the current understanding puts reliance on mental dimensions as well. Mental cruelty means any conduct of the respondent that causes an apprehension of mental injury or harm to the appellant and makes it risky for them to cohabit. Consistent use of abusive words, trying to control someone’s life, and undignified treatment are all examples of mental cruelty. 

What are the misuses of Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act?

Many times false cases are lodged in the court to harass the respondent and seek divorce through unscrupulous means under Section 10 (1)(b). False charges of cruelty tamper the reputation of individuals and create such a situation that leads to an irretrievable breakdown of marriage as noted in the case of Bhagat v. Bhagat, wherein the appellant falsely accused the respondent of extra-marital affair and mental disorder. This was a show of intense hatred within the folds of matrimonial relationships that the court deemed fit to grant divorce. 

What is the standard of proof in matrimonial dispute?

As per the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Dastane v. Dastane, the standard of proof for matrimonial disputes is the same as any other dispute i.e. Preponderance of probabilities. All the facts must be proved in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. It is erroneous to apply the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard to matrimonial offences as they are civil in nature and the criminal standard of proof demands more severity.

References

• https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/33109.pdf 
• https://ijclsi.in/static/media/Case%20Comment%20on%20N.G.%20Dastane%20V.%20S.%20Dastane%20Prominence%20To%20Set%20Precedent%20To%20Use%20Cruelty%20For%20Divorce%20-%20Vasudha%20Kottapalli.41b150f3.pdf 
• https://ujala.uk.gov.in/files/DIVORCE_ON_GROUND_OF_CRUELTY__1.pdf 
• https://ijtr.nic.in/articles/art12.pdf 
• https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/CRUELTY-AS-A-GROUND-FOR-DIVORCE-ANALYZING-THE-SPHERE-OF-MENTAL-CRUELTY