news details |
|
|
| Judicial activism in India a stark reality | | Supreme Court delivers yet another historic ruling | | NEW DELHI, MAR 29
Sex and pregnancy. These two crucial biological needs have been taken due cognizance of by the Supreme Court while dealing with a divorce petition. And the apex court has, in an interesting judgement, granted divorce to an IAS officer and his IAS wife as the wife refused to bear children for her husband. And the Supreme Court, while expanding the scope for mental cruelty, has said that "if the wife refuses to have/bear the child for her husband, it will be a valid ground for divorce".
Jaya Ghosh had refused to have children saying that it would affect her career adversely. The same law will apply in the reverse--if a husband undergoes a sterlisation operation without any medical reason and if this decision is hidden from the wife it will constitute mental cruelty and be a valid ground for divorce, the court has said. The court also stated that if the wife undergoes a vasectomy operation or abortion and hides the fact from her husband, it will be a valid reason for divorce.
A Bench comprising Justices B N Agrawal, P P Naolekar and Dalveer Bhandari maintained that no uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, but "we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with cases of mental cruelty". The Bench has given illustrative guidelines-- 14 in all-- wherein divorce on grounds of mental cruelty could be considered.
One, On a consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. Two, mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. Three, a sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture discommode or render miserable life of a spouse.
Four, sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. Five, mere trivial irritation, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
Sixth illustrative guideline given by the Supreme Court Bench: If a husband submits himself for sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. Guideline number seven: Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child after the marriage may amount to cruelty.
Eighth guideline: Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bound is beyond repair. Nine, the marriage becomes a fiction though supported by legal tie. Ten, by refusing to severe that tie, the law in such cases does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situation, it may lead to mental cruelty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
