Narayan Ganesh Dastane Vs. Sucheta Narayan Dastane

CASE BRIEF

Apellant- Narayan Ganesh Dastane

Respondent- Sucheta Narayan Dastane

Decided On: 19.03.1975

Equivalent Citations:

1. 1975 AIR 1534
2. 1975 SCR (3) 967

Bench:

1. Chandrachud, Y.V.
2. Goswami, P.K.
3. Untwalia, N.L.

Statutes Referred:

1. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
2. Divorce Reform Act, 1969
3. Matrimonial Causes Act, 1963
4. Matrimonial Causes Act, 1965

Cases Referred:

1. Blyth v. Blyth, [1966] 1 A.E.R. 524
2. Wright v. Wright
3. Moonshee Bazloor Rubeem v. Shamsoonnissa Begum
4. Horton v. Horton
5. Gollins v. Gollins
6. Kaslefsky v. Kaslefsky

Facts:

1. This is a matrimonial dispute that arose out of a petition, which the appellant filed regarding the annulment of his marriage with the respondent or alternatively for divorce or for judicial separation.
2. The grounds sought for such annulment were fraud, divorce on the ground of unsoundness of mind and judicial separation on the ground of cruelty.
3. The Appellant, Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane, is a well-educated and qualified man who passed his M.Sc. in Agriculture from the Poona University and has worked on various projects on a national and international level.
4. The Respondent, Sucheta, passed her B.Sc. from the Delhi University and has obtained her Master’s Degree in Social Work. She is a well-educated woman, daughter to a father who works as an Under Secretary in the Commerce of Ministry of the Government of India.
5. The marriage with the Appellant was arranged by the Respondent’s parents in April 1956. Before finalising the marriage proposal, however, letters were received from the Respondent’s father, B. R. Abhyankar, by the Appellant informing him regarding an incident that occurred where the Respondent suffered from a ‘bad attack of sunstroke’ which affected her mental condition for some time from which she recovered and there was also the mention of ‘cerebral malaria’ as another cause for her mental health’s brief decline.
6. After a course of treatment, the Respondent was cured at the Yeravada Mental Hospital, and the Appellant was asked to discuss the matter with the doctors at the hospital, if necessary.
7. The Appellant did so and upon the Doctor’s confirmation of the Respondent’s father’s statement, no further inquiries were made by him at the Yeravada Mental Hospital.
8. May 13, 1956, the marriage ceremony took place.
9. On March 11, 1957, a daughter named Shubha was born to the couple, and a second daughter named Vibha was born on March 21, 1959.
10. In January 1961, the Respondent went to Poona to attend the Appellant’s brother’s marriage ceremony.
11. On February 27, 1961, a fortnight after the marriage, the appellant who had also gone to Poona to attend the marriage got the respondent examined by a Psychiatrist in charge of the Yeravada Mental Hospital, Dr. Seth, but for reasons uncertain, the respondent was averse to submit herself to such examination.
12. The Appellant claimed that she had promised to see Mr. Seth but that fact is denied by the Respondent. The Respondent claimed to have reasons to believe that the Appellant was concocting a case of unsound mind against her. They lived together until February 1961, and on the day of parting, she was three months pregnant.
13. On March 11, 1961, the appellant returned to Delhi alone and was followed by the Respondent two days later, but she went straight to her parent’s house in Delhi. On the 15th, during the Appellant’s stay in Delhi, fearing that his life was in danger from the Respondent’s parents and relatives, the Appellant sent a letter to the Police, asking for protection.
14. On the 19th, the parties briefly interacted with each other which was another opportunity for them to spew more venom at each other, and subsequently on the 20th, the Appellant renewed his request for Police protection.
15. On March 23, 1961, the Respondent addressed a letter to the appellant complaining against his conduct and asking for maintenance of herself and the daughters. An application was also sent by the Respondent on May 19, 1961, to the Secretary, Ministry of Food and Agriculture of India, stating that she had been deserted by the Appellant and had been the recipient of extreme cruelty, and a separate provision for her maintenance was asked of the Government. Respondent’s statement regarding the Appellant’s ill-treatment and desertion was recorded by an Assistant Superintendent of Police. The cross-complaints and recorded statements amongst the parties were futile and did not bear any fruit.
16. On August 19, 1961, the family welcomed a third daughter named Pratibha. A letter, complaining about the Respondent’s conduct and expressing regret about not being properly invited to his own daughter’s naming ceremony, was sent to the father of Respondent.
17. On December 15, 1961, the Respondent’s father was informed by the Appellant about his decision to move the Court, seeking separation from the Respondent.
18. On February 19, 1962, proceedings were instituted in the Trial Court where the Appellant asked for the annulment of his marriage under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that his consent for the marriage was obtained by fraud. The Appellant alleged that the Respondent was treated at Yeravada Hospital for Schizophrenia and the Respondent’s father fraudulently depicted the state of her mental health to him to obtain his consent to the marriage. Alternatively, he asked for divorce under Section13 (1) (iii), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground that the Respondent was of unsound mind. Alternatively, the Appellant asked for judicial separation under Section 10(1) (b) on the ground that the Respondent had treated him with cruelty which created a reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful and injurious for him to live with her.
19. The trial court rejected the contentions regarding the unsoundness of the respondent’s mind. The respondent was, however, held guilty of cruelty and on that ground, a decree for judicial separation was passed by the Trial Court.
20. Both sides went in appeal to the District Court which dismissed the appellant’s appeal and allowed the respondent’s, with the result that the petition filed by the appellant stood wholly dismissed.
21. A Second Appeal No. 480 of 1968 was filed by the Appellant in the Bombay High Court. That appeal was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Court, by a judgment dated February 24, 1969. This Court granted to the appellant special leave to appeal, limited to the question of judicial separation on the ground of cruelty.

Issues:

1. Whether the Burden of Proof of cruelty lies on the Petitioner or not?
2. Whether the facts have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt in matrimonial matters?
3. Whether engagement in the act of sexual intercourse amounts to the condonation of cruelty?

Ratio Decidendi:

1. The allegations by the Appellant were provoked by his persistent and purposeful accusation, repeated times without number that the Respondent was of unsound mind.
2. In Blyth v. Blyth, the House of Lords held by a majority that so far as the grounds of divorce or the bars to divorce like connivance or condonation are concerned, “the case; like any civil case, may be proved by a preponderance of probability”.
3. The engagement of the Appellant in the act of sexual intercourse with the Respondent amounts to condonation of cruelty and desertion in the eyes of law.

Judgement:

1. It was held that the appellant’s contention based on the unsoundness of mind of the respondent was completely fabricated.
2. The respondent was guilty of cruelty but the appellant had condoned it and the subsequent conduct of the respondent was not to such an extent that would amount to a revival of the original cause of action.
3. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant was directed to pay the costs of the respondent.

Conclusion:

A perusal of the facts of the case by the bench along with a study of the relevant cases and provisions helped in coming to a conclusion regarding the various contentions of the appellant and as a result of such perusal, the appeal was dismissed.