PRANEEN MEHTA Vs. INDERJIT MEHTA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Click here to view full judgement.
D. P. Mohapatra, J. -
(2.)What is the meaning and import of the expression 'cruelty' as a matrimonial offence is the core question on the determination of which depends the result and the fate of this case.
(3.)The appellant is the wife of the respondent. They were married according to Hindu rites and customs on 6th December, 1985. The marriage was preceded by negotiation between the two families, ring exchange ceremony, etc. A meeting between the boy and the girl was also arranged at Yamuna Nagar in the State of Haryana. After marriage the spouses stayed together at Panipat where the respondent was posted as a Judicial Officer. They lived together till 28th April, 1986 when they parted company never to stay together again. It is the case of the respondent that right from the first day of the marriage he sensed something abnormal with his wife; he was unable to consummate the marriage as there was no co-operation from the side of the wife for sexual intercourse. Despite several attempts cohabitation was not possible for lack of co-operation on the part of the wife. It is the further case of the respondent that when he first met his wife when some members of the two families met he had noticed that she was looking very frail and weak. When he wanted to know the reason for such state of her health her father and other relations told him that she had been undergoing a strict diet control and had been making efforts to reduce her weight.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.