|
|
| Line 11: |
Line 11: |
| | [[Category: India |C]] | | [[Category: India |C]] |
| | [[Category: Law,Constitution,Judiciary |C]] | | [[Category: Law,Constitution,Judiciary |C]] |
| − | [[Category:Name|Alphabet]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Name|Alphabet]]
| |
| | | | |
| − | =Cruelty To Spouse and Sterilisation=
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/welcome.asp?skin=pastissues2&QS=skin%3Dpastissues2%26enter%3DLowLevel The Times of India]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Got sterilised secretly? It’s mental cruelty
| |
| − | SC Defines Criteria For Cruelty To Spouse As Ground For Divorce
| |
| − | Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN
| |
| − |
| |
| − | New Delhi: In a path-breaking decision, Supreme Court has defined what connotes ‘mental cruelty’ — the ground that has been frequently cited as the reason for those seeking divorce but which had so far lacked a precise definition.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The court on Monday laid down elaborate criteria of what would constitute “mental cruelty”. However, it said that the behaviour patterns so mentioned must persist over a period of time to warrant the conclusion that the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down and qualified to be the ground for divorce.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In fact, the verdict seems to strike the right balance between the competing considerations of rescuing people trapped in unhappy alliances and the anxiety to save marriages from divorce petitions based on false allegations and on impulse. The definition, part of a verdict annulling the marriage of senior IAS couple Samar and Jaya, came close on the heels of the court’s bid to define the legal concept of “outraging of modesty”.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | While the court said that, given the complexities of human mind, “no court should even attempt to give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty”, it tried to get a handle on the issue with help from previous judgments.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | It listed specific actions as amounting to mental cruelty. The court, however, balanced that by inserting the caveat that it is pattern persisting over a period rather than isolated instances which should constitute the basis for divorce in what can be seen as reflecting its anxiety to ward off divorces being sought on false pretenses, or even in fits of anger and on impulse.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | “Conduct must be persistent for a fairly long period and is so offensive that the other party finds it difficult to live together,” said the court.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Clarity From The Court
| |
| − | What is
| |
| − | Undergoing sterilisation without knowledge or consent of spouse Wife having abortion without medical reason or without consent of spouse Not having intercourse without physical incapacity or valid reason Unilateral decision not to have child Sustained reprehensive conduct, studied neglect Actions aimed to derive sadistic pleasure Abuse and humiliation Sustained unjustified conduct affecting physical & mental health of spouse Frequent rudeness, indifference and neglect
| |
| − | What isn’t
| |
| − | Wear & tear of marriage Jealousy, selfishness & possessiveness causing unhappiness or stress Mere coldness or lack of affection
| |
| − | A final caveat
| |
| − | View married life as a whole; isolated instances not cruelty ‘Review married life as a whole’
| |
| − |
| |
| − | New Delhi: The Supreme Court also stressed that while deciding any divorce petiition based on the ground of mental curelty, “married life should be reviewed as a whole” and “that a few isolated incidents over a period of years will not amount to cruelty”.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The focus of the Bench was on “sustained”. It said that “mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty” but made allowance for the fact that “frequent rudeness of language, petulence of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable”.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In the case at stake, Jaya, an IAS officer, after divorcing her first husband who also was an IAS officer and from whom she had a daughter, married a second time in December 1984. She, however, refused to cohabit with her second husband, Samar, on the ground that she did not want any more children and told him not to interact with her daughter from the previous marriage.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Finding this humiliating, Samar filed a divorce petition in Alipur, Kolkata. He also mentioned that he had been forced to live separately since August 1990. Jaya, however, denied the allegations and said that the divorce petition was filed by her husband at the instigation of his relatives, whose interference in her married life she had resented.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | While trial court granted divorce on the ground of mental cruelty and the additional district judge agreed with it, the Calcutta High Court reversed the judgment. The husband moved the apex court in appeal.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | An apex court Bench comprising Justices B N Agrawal, P P Naolekar and Dalveer Bhandari upheld the trial court verdict and said the HC was unnecessarily obsessed by the fact that the woman was also an IAS officer even though it is proved that she inflicted mental cruelty on her husband that led to both living separately for long without there being any reconciliation.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ‘‘Even if the appellant had married an IAS officer, that does not mean that the normal human emotions and feelings would be entirely different,’’ said Justice Bhandari writing the judgment for the Bench.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | =Cruelty in matrimonial homes: Kicking the daughter in law=
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?skin=pastissues2&enter=LowLevel From the archives of '' The Times of India '' 2010]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ''' Kicking bahu not cruelty? SC to review '''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN
| |
| − |
| |
| − | New Delhi: After stirring up a controversy last year by ruling that a mother-in-law who kicks her daughter-in-law or repeatedly threatens her with divorce attracts no punishment for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court has agreed to take a second look.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | After the verdict on July 27, 2009, women’s organizations had protested vociferously. CPM leader Brinda Karat met law minister Veerappa Moily and urged him to take steps to correct the flaw in the “retrograde” judgment.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The National Commission of Women said the ruling would defeat the purpose of the provision to protect women from cruelty and harassment in matrimonial homes.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Second Opinion ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Court had in 2009 said
| |
| − | kicking daughter-in-law and threatening her with divorce
| |
| − | does not amount to cruelty
| |
| − | CPM leader Brinda Karat wrote to law minister against
| |
| − | ‘retrograde’ ruling
| |
| − | SC takes up curative petition, to be heard in open court
| |
| | | | |
| | == NCW petition to be heard in open court == | | == NCW petition to be heard in open court == |
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to review its own 2009 verdict in the case between Bhaskar Lal Sharma and his daughter-in-law Monica after the NCW, through counsel Aparna Bhat, moved a curative petition requesting reconsideration. Curative petitions normally have a 99% failure rate in the apex court.
A bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices S H Kapadia, Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph entertained NCW’s curative petition and issued notice to both parties — Sharma and Monica. This means the curative petition will now be heard in open court for the parties to point out the anamoly in the July 27 ruling and suggest corrective measures. NCW had reflected the views of CPM leader Brinda Karat who had said the apex court’s decision — that a mother-in-law who kicks her daughter-inlaw or repeatedly threatens her with divorce attracts no punishment for cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC — would only “further deepen the miseries of women and undo the effect of various legislations passed for the emancipation of women”.
“Such a judicial understanding of cruelty will be a licence for domestic violence. It may also encourage wife-beaters. It will undo the positive steps taken by government to provide a just legal framework to address domestic violence,” Karat had written.
