Distinction between cruelty u/s 498-A of IPC and that u/s 13(1)(i-a) of HMA 1955

Shobha Rani Versus Madhukar -Reddy12/11/1987-We are, however, not concerned with criminal offence either under the Dowry Prohibition Act or under the Indian Penal Code. We are concerned with a matrimonial conduct which constitutes cruelty as a ground for dissolution of marriage. Such cruelty if not admitted requires to be proved on the preponderance of propabilities as in civil cases and not beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases.

Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai Shah Vs Prabhavati-19/10/1956

In England until 1858 the only remedy for desertion was a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. But by the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857, desertion without cause for two years upwards was made a ground for a suit for judicial separation. It was not till 1937 that by the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, desertion without cause for a period of three years immediately preceding the institutions of proceedings was made a ground for divorce. The law has now been consolidated in the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950 (14 Geo. VI, C. 25). It would thus appear that desertion as affording a cause of action for a suit for dissolution of marriage is a recent growth even in England.

Judicial separation on the ground of Desertion

The question as to what precisely constitutes “desertion” came up for consideration before this Court in an appeal for Bombay where the Court had to consider the provisions of S. 3(1) of the Bombay Hindu Divorce Act, 1947 whose language is in pari materia with that of S. 10(1) of the Act.

Reputation of the spouse if sullied amongst his colleagues amounts to mental cruelty-SC-26/02/21

whether the conduct of the respondent would fall within the realm of mental cruelty. Here the allegations are levelled by a highly educated spouse and they do have the propensity to irreparably damage the character and reputation of the appellant. When the reputation of the spouse is sullied amongst his colleagues, his superiors and the society at large, it would be difficult to expect condonation of such conduct by the affected party.

Impact of Physical and Mental Cruelty in Matrimonial Matters

The word ‘cruelty’ has to be understood in the ordinary sense of the term in matrimonial affairs. If the intention to harm, harass or hurt could be inferred by the nature of the conduct or brutal act complained of, cruelty could be easily established. But the absence of intention should not make any difference in the case. There may be instances of cruelty by unintentional but inexcusable conduct of any party. The cruel treatment may also result from the cultural conflict between the parties.

Premarital agreements

(1) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the “Uniform Premarital Agreement Act” and this section applies only to proceedings under the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure. (2) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term: (a) “Premarital agreement” means an agreement between…

Whether refusal to have sexual intercourse for a long time without sufficient reason itself amounts to mental cruelty? SC Yes

26/3/2007-Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh-Law of divorce based mainly on fault is inadequate to deal with a broken marriage. Under the fault theory, guilt has to be proved; divorce courts are presented concrete instances of human behaviour as bring the institution of marriage into disrepute.

What is the meaning of “an idiot” in section 5(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Persons of unsound mind, i.e. idiots and lunatics, though disqualified for civil purposes generally, were not declared incompetent to marry under the accident Hindu Law. But such marriages were reprehensible. The late Sir Gurudas Banerjee in his Tagore Law Lectures…