2nd Year B.A., LL. B (Div.

- D) – Semester-III

Family Laws I Internal Assessment-I Case Commentary

NAME – SHANTUN PRASAD GAUTAM

DIVISION - D

PRN - 21010125307
COURSE - BA LL.B.(H)
BATCH - 2021-2026

1
CITATION
(2007) 4 SCC 511

BENCH
Hon’ble Justice B.N. Agrawal

Hon’ble Justice P.P. Naolekar

Hon’ble Justice Dalveer Bhandari

RELEVANT PROVISIONS
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

FACTS OF SAMAR GHOSH VS JAYA GHOSH CASE

 The appellant, Samar Ghosh, married the respondent, Jaya Ghosh, on December 13,
1984, in Calcutta, under the Special Marriage Act of 1954.
 Both parties are 'IAS' employees. The respondent was divorced and had a female kid
from their previous marriage, and the court granted her custody of that child.
 Just after the marriage, the respondent chose not to have a kid for two years and also
refused to enable the appellant to communicate with her child. After one year of
marriage, the appellant became unwell for an extended period of time.
 During this time, respondent, without regard for the health of the appellant, left him alone
and proceeded to visit her brother, who was working in Bareilly.
 Appellant was alone in a residential area, and there was no one in Calcutta who could
watch after him. Appellant was transferred two years after leaving Calcutta, but due to
bad health, he was sent back, and they began living together again, this time with solid
relationships.
 There was a servant chef who resided with them, but the cook was subsequently
removed, and the appellant now had to take meals from outside because the respondent
was solely used to preparing his own meals.
 There was a moment when the appellant felt insulted when respondent shouted at him in
front of the appellant's servant. They began living apart from that point forward.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
 Whether or not the respondent was cruel?
 Is the appellant eligible for a divorce decree? 2
CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES APPELLANT- 

 The appellant claimed that the respondent denied cohabitation and that the respondent
alone chose to have a child.

 Furthermore, the respondent had no concern for the petitioner during his protracted
sickness, and shaming the appellant is an act of mental cruelty.
 That the petitioner and respondent have been living apart for over sixteen years and have
had no interactions since then.
REPSONDENT
 The respondent claimed that she never mentioned not having a kid after two years of
marriage.
 The appellant began living with the respondent, thereby condoning maltreatment. She
further stated that not preparing the food for the petitioner does not constitute mental
cruelty.
 That no incident occurred in which she humiliated her spouse in front of a servant.

SAMAR GHOSH v. JAYA GHOSH RATIO DECIDENDI CASE

  Using diverse cases, the Supreme Court thoroughly clarifies the idea of cruelty. Mental
cruelty is a mental condition.
 According to the Supreme Court, "no universal test can possibly lead to the determination
of mental cruelty." According to the Court, "there can be no straightjacket formula or
defined criteria for deciding In a marital case, there is mental cruelty. Simple
irritations, quarrels, and regular wear and tear of marital life that occur on a daily
basis are insufficient grounds for divorce."
 The Supreme Court ruled that "the High Court's methodology in determining this dispute
was far from adequate."
 However, the Court ruled that an individual's reluctance to cohabit for grounds other than
physical disability or justifiable reasons amounted to mental cruelty.
 The court also ruled that having a decision made by the wife or husband to not have a
child after the marriage amounted to cruelty.
DECISION IN SAMAR GHOSH VS JAYA GHOSH

3
  On December 19, 1996, the District Judge granted the decree order of divorce in favour
of the petitioner, concluding that the facts of refusal to cohabit with the plaintiff and her
individual decision not to have children after marriage involve mental cruelty to the
plaintiff, and the marriage between the parties was dissolved.

 Respondent then filed an appeal against the decision to the Division Bench of the High
Court, where the order was reversed on the grounds that petitioner's charges of mental
cruelty had not been proven. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled on the appeal.
APPEAL
 The Supreme Court's judgement on appeal said that the High Court committed a
significant error in reversing the District Judge's verdict, and so the Apex Court set aside
the order of the High Court and reinstated the learned District Judge's decree of mental
cruelty.

References:

 http://roundup.manupatra.in/asp/displayart.aspx?itemid=11289#:~:text=In%20the
%20case%20of%20Samar,may%20lead%20to%20mental%20cruelty.
 https://www.barandbench.com/news/irretrievable-breakdown-of-marriage-nothing-
remains-in-this-marriage-supreme-court-invokes-article-142-to-grant-divorce
 https://www.barandbench.com/news/irretrievable-breakdown-of-marriage-nothing-
remains-in-this-marriage-supreme-court-invokes-article-142-to-grant-divorce
 Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, MANU/SC/1386/2007