Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi
AIR1988SC121, (1988)1SCC105
Hon’ble Judges/Coram: B.C. Ray and K. Jagannatha Shetty, JJ.
Decided On: November 12th, 1987
FACTS:-
The appellant and the respondent were married on December 19th, 1982. After some time, differences arose between them. The wife moved the Court for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
ISSUE:-
Whether the wife should be allowed to grant decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty?
JUDGMENT:-
The word “cruelty” has not been defined. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. Cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. Physical cruelty is a question of fact and degree. Mental cruelty is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. In cases where the conduct complained of is per se unlawful or illegal, cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted.
Among human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. The Court in matrimonial cases has only to understand the spouses concerned as nature made them, and consider their particular grievance. One of the grievances of the petitioner was about the dowry demand by the husband or his parents. Cruelty requires to be proved on the preponderance of probabilities. There appears to be no doubt that the husband or his parents were demanding dowry from the appellant. This is not a case here the husband requested his wife to give some money for his personal expenses, why not try these out and learn more about loans. It has been admitted by the husband himself in his letter dated August 28th, 1983, addressed to the wife that his parents demanded dowry.
Demand of dowry went on with the support of the husband. That conduct which is complained of as cruelty by one spouse may not be so for the other spouse. There may be instances of cruelty by the unintentional but inexcusable conduct of the party. Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. ‘Cruelty’ has to be understood in the ordinary sense of the term in matrimonial affairs. The relief to the aggrieved party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or wilful ill-treatment.
HELD:-
Decree for dissolution of the marriage granted. ‘Cruelty’, which may be physical or mental, intentional or unintentional, has to be understood in the ordinary sense of the term in matrimonial affairs.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
