Whether Offence under S 498A of IPC committed beyond Indian Territory by Indian Citizens can be tried in India?

The Court also finds that under Section 188 and 189

Cr.P.C. the offences alleged to have been committed beyond the

territory of India by an Indian citizen could be investigated into

and also tried in India.

 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7081 of

2021

Petitioner :- Shri Abhishek Shukla

Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others

Coram:  Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.

Order Date :- 10.06.2022

Print Page

Whether court should give divorce on ground that wife had filed criminal case against husband if he has not taken that plea in his divorce petition?

 It cannot be in doubt that in an appropriate case

the unsubstantiated allegation of dowry demand or such

other allegation has been made and the husband and his

family members are exposed to criminal litigation and

ultimately if it is found that such allegation is

unwarranted and without basis and if that act of the wife

itself forms the basis for the husband to allege that

mental cruelty has been inflicted on him, certainly, in

such circumstance if a petition for dissolution of

marriage is filed on that ground and evidence is tendered

before the original court to allege mental cruelty it could

well be appreciated for the purpose of dissolving the

marriage on that ground. However, in the present facts

as already indicated, the situation is not so. Though a

criminal complaint had been lodged by the wife and

husband has been acquitted in the said proceedings the

basis on which the husband had approached the Trial

Court is not of alleging mental cruelty in that regard but

with regard to her intemperate behaviour regarding

which both the courts below on appreciation of the

evidence had arrived at the conclusion that the same was

not proved. In that background, if the judgment of the

High Court is taken into consideration, we are of the

opinion that the High Court was not justified in its

conclusion.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 19121913

OF 2020

Mangayakarasi  Vs  M. Yuvaraj 

Dated:March 03, 2020

A.S. Bopanna,J.

Print Page

Whether offence U/S 498A of IPC is made out if there is ordinary petulance and discord in matrimonial life?

Prima facie, this discloses hyper sensitivity of a wife, and ordinary petulance and discord in matrimonial life. Prima facie, this incident cannot be said to satisfy the requirement of ingredients of offence of cruelty defined in Section 498A of the IPC. Similarly, for making out an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, what is required to be proved is mensrea. Without knowledge and intention, there cannot be an abetment. There must be some active suggestion or stimulation by accused persons to the victim.

12. Perusal of evidence of parents of deceased Neha, prima facie goes to show that they have spoken about matrimonial cruelty rather than legal cruelty,

In the High Court of Bombay

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

(Before A.M. Badar, J.)

Neeraj Subhash Mehta 

v.

The State of Maharashtra 

Criminal Application No. 1213 of 2016

Decided on January 13, 2017

Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 62

Print Page

Whether false character assassination allegation constitutes matrimonial cruelty?

The disgusting accusations made by the wife against the husband of he being in illicit relationship, referring him as a drunkard are serious in nature assassinating his character and harming his reputation as a teacher. She has failed to prove any of the above but yet resisting the divorce which if accepted, would make life of the two even more complex and unbearable. The allegations made not only in the written statement but also in the FIR against the husband and his entire family have the effect of causing mental cruelty to him and his entire family. It is now beyond cavil that if a false character assassination allegation is made by either spouse it would invariably constitute matrimonial cruelty to entitle other spouse to seek divorce.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Pradeep Nandrajog and Pratibha Rani, JJ.)

Santosh Sahay 

v.

Hanuman Sahay 

MAT. APP.(F.C.) 63/2016

Decided on October 7, 2016

Citation: 2016 SCCONLINE DEL 5503

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence in matrimonial matters?

 Cruelty as a ground for matrimonial relief is defined as conduct of
such character as causes or is likely to cause danger to life, limb or health,
body or the mind, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such
danger. The concept of cruelty has varied from time to time, place to place,
individual to individual. Cruelty is antithetical to love and affection.
Between a husband and a wife cruelty would be a conduct which destroys
the soft feeling of concern for each other and the sense of togetherness
which is the bed-lock of a healthy matrimonial relationship. Such conduct
which assumes a level where parties cannot reasonably be expected to live
together would be cruelty of the kind warranting the matrimonial bond to be 
snapped. The factors of each case must be considered and the accusations
and allegations must be viewed in the context in which they were made.
Whether a spouse is guilty of cruelty is essentially a question of fact. The
distinction between ordinary wear and tear of marriage vis-a-vis grave and
weighty conduct so as to make cohabitation virtually unbearable has to be
kept in mind.
2. The preamble statement above, if read by a lay person, would result in
the person forming an opinion that it is very easy for a Judge to decide a
matrimonial dispute because the contours of law are so well defined that
cases on either side of the line can be identified with precision.
3. Alas! This is not so. Human relations are built on feelings. Not on
reason or logic. Feeling is not an exact science; it has vagueness around it.
Law and justice is built on reason and logic – not feelings. Therefore the
process of judicial decision making in matrimonial affairs is riddled with
complications. To a person who is weathered by time and circumstances
and whose emotions have been overcome by the vagaries of time, a hard
word spoken may be inconsequential. To a soft minded person, where
feelings matter more, even the most trivial word would be cruel. More the
love – more the affection. But the danger would be that a slightest dent
would break the edifice.
4. The situation is indeed paradoxical. Matrimonial bonds which are
bonds of emotion require adjudication on logic and reason.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment Delivered on: September 01, 2016
 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 4/2013
RAJDEEP ...
versus
GURMEET SINGH ...
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

Print Page

Guidelines of supreme court for ascertaining mental cruelty in case of matrimonial relation

Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system.

Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any strait-jacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration.

No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

(i) On 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.

(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.

(iii) 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.

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.

(vii) 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.

(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.

(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization 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.

(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.

(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.

(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever 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 situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.

Supreme Court of India

Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007

Author: D Bhandari

Bench: B.N. Agrawal, P.P. Naolekar, Dalveer Bhandari

           CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil)  151 of 2004

Print Page

Whether divorce can be refused to a party on ground that there was no deliberate or wilful ill- treatment to him or her?

It is settled law that mens rea has no role to play to constitute cruelty as per number of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court including Sovarani vs. Madhukar Reddy reported in AIR 1980 SC 121 as well as Suman Kapur vs Sudhir Kapur reported in (2009)1 SCC 422. The husband is under moral and legal obligation to establish the detail particulars of acts and behaviour of wife manifest to constitute the ingredients of matrimonial cruelty. It has been held therein that "the absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be regarded is cruelty. Mens rea is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has not been any deliberate or wilful ill- treatment."

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Smt. Bipasha Bhowal vs Sri Biplab Bhowal on 15 May, 2014

Present : The Hon'ble Justice Tapan Kumar Dutt
                                       and
          The Hon'ble Justice Dr.Mrinal Kanti 

           Chaudhuri


                         F.A. No. 249 of 2013
                             (CAN 4649 of 2012)
                                     with
                          F.A. No. 248 of 2013

Print Page