NIRMALA MANOHAR JAGESHA Vs. MANOHAR SHIVRAM JAGESHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is meant by the word "cruelty" in matrimonial law? Is the old English law concept of "danger" applicable in India today?. If wild, reckless and baseless allegations of impotency and lack of manliness are made in the written statement, can this by itself amount to cruelty in matrimonial law? These are some of the questions which arise for determination in this appeal by the original respondent-wife,

(2.) AT the out-set I must mention that in accordance with the mandate of Section 23 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, an attempt was made to bring about a reconciliation between the parties. The wife who is now staying at Delhi had come down to Bombay. However, I am informed by the learned Counsel Mr. K. S. V. Murthy for the appellant-wife and Mr. C. G. Patil for the respondent-husband that despite their efforts to bring about the reconciliation, they have not been successful at all. Unfortunately, the parties are staying separately since September, 1980 i. e. for nearly more than ten years now. There is thus, no alternative left but to decide the matter on merits.

(3.) THIS appeal by the wife seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 30/04/1983 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Nasik in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 186 of 1981. The said petition was filed by the husband on 7/09/1981 for a decree for divorce on the grounds of (i) cruelty under Section 13 (1) (ia), (ii) desertion under Section 13 (1) (b) and (iii) that the wife was suffering from mental disorder as contemplated by Sec. 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The admitted facts are as under: