SUBJECT:

FAMILY LAW I

1ST INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

IRAC ANALYSIS
P.V. PRAKASH VS. R. BINDU

Name: Sannidhi Mahesh Sawant

Division: B
PRN: 22010126181
Course: 2nd Year, BBA. LLB. (Hons.)

1|P a g e Family Law I Assignment 1 PRN 22010126181

Batch: 2022-2027

CASE ANALYSIS

TITLE1:

Appellant: P. V. PRAKASH

V.

Respondent: R. BINDU

Bench/Coram: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & JUSTICE P.D.

RAJAN

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/25TH SRAVANA, 1935

Mat.Appeal.No. 324 of 2013 (C)

Citation- 2013 SCC OnLine Ker 15973

1
P. V. Prakash v. R. Bindu., 2013 SCC OnLine Ker 15973.

2|P a g e Family Law I Assignment 1 PRN 22010126181

FACTS:

1. Mr. Prakash (husband) and Mrs. Bindu (wife) are children of brothers who were in love
and got married after 10 years. After discernment from family, their marriage was still
solemnized in 2001 at Guruvayoor.

2. The wife eventually gave birth to female twins. The couple’s relationship got strained
during 2008 and the children started residing in her parental house.

3. The husband filed a decree for divorce urging grounds under the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, its Section 13 (1) (i) & (ia)2. The husband alleged the wife of living in adultery and
being responsible for cruelty of mental form towards the husband.

4. In 2013, the Family Court declined the accusation of wife for adultery but gathered
through evidence that the wife was responsible for cruelty towards the husband. The High
Court of Kerala held that he was entitled to divorce on grounds of mental cruelty instead
of judicial separation.

ISSUES IN THE DISPUTE:

1. Whether the wife was responsible for cruelty towards the husband?

2. Whether there was adultery?

3. Whether the husband was entitled to a divorce on the grounds of cruelty?

RULE:

Provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955:

1. Section 103

2
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, § 13 (1) (i) & (ia), No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India).

3|P a g e Family Law I Assignment 1 PRN 22010126181

 2. Section 13 (1) (i) & (ia)4

CONTENTION & RATIONALE (REASONING)

PETITIONER

1. The Family Court accepted that the wife’s attitude was cruel to the husband and he was
entitled to be granted a decree of divorce. The Court analyzed that the husband started
receiving anonymous phone calls from a person who claimed to have an illicit
relationship with his wife when he was employed in Saudi Arabia.

2. The Petitioner claimed that the caller revealed that he resided near the wife and some
private matters which took place in their bedroom such that only the husband and wife
knew.

3. The Court also took into account the outgoing calls to a specific number which the
Respondent had no valid explanation to. In addition to this, after many fights, the wife
stayed at her mother’s house. The high telephone bills were complained of by the wife’s
brother when she resided with them.

4. Petitioners presented details about the nature of messages and revealed the wife’s
relationship with Respondent No. 2. The wife lied about being just friends with the
alleged illicit relationship.

5. The husband claimed to have been caused great mental agony, pain and disgrace. After
continuous Court proceedings, it was eventually revealed that the wife was in the illicit

3
10. Judicial separation. —1 [(1) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnised before or after the
commencement of this Act, may present a petition praying for a decree for judicial separation on any of the
grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 13, and in the case of a wife also on any of the grounds
specified in sub-section (2) thereof, as grounds on which a petition for divorce might have been presented.] (2)
Where a decree for judicial separation has been passed, it shall no longer be obligatory for the petitioner to
cohabit with the respondent, but the court may, on the application by petition of either party and on being
satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition, rescind the decree if it considers it just and
reasonable to do so.
4
13. Divorce. — (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may,
on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground
that the other party
(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his
or her spouse; or
(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty.

4|P a g e Family Law I Assignment 1 PRN 22010126181

 relationship since school, and it continued till after marriage as well leading to an
adulterous affair.

RESPONDENT

6. The counsel for the Respondent pleaded no cruelty except for a few phone calls. The
Respondents claimed that there was no evidence with the alleged man for adultery but the
Petitioner had foisted allegations against her just for a divorce.

7. The Respondent claimed the Petitioner to be selfish and not liking her relatives. She also
claimed that there was no maintenance to her or their children provided by the husband.

8. With detailed cross-examination and evaluation of the evidence, it was subjected to not
discrediting the Petitioner’s testimony. Nor to conclude that the Respondent fabricated a
case to dissolve the marriage as alleged by the Respondent.

Cruelty

The expression “cruelty” has not been defined in the Act. It maye be of many forms but
the given scenario addresses its physical form. To make the case for cruelty, the bench
cited the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh5 where the court undertook a broader
interpretation of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (ia). The case for cruelty is not determined
by certain and specific violent acts, rather the entire matrimonial relationship must be
taken into account which may include aggressive reproaches, taunts and accusations.

ANALYSIS OF THE DECISION:

1. As the case’s major contention is whether divorce is to be granted or not, the High Court
has utilized the circumstances and the factors encircling the relationship of husband and
wife. In the case of mental cruelty like in this case, unlike physical cruelty, it is difficult
to lay down a precise definition or an exhaustive description of the circumstances.

5
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511

5|P a g e Family Law I Assignment 1 PRN 22010126181

2. As such inflicts immeasurable mental agony and torture to constitute cruelty destroying
the mental peace as under Section 106 of the Act, which provides for judicial separation of
the married couple on reasonable grounds.

3. The court also carefully analyses problems of humankind and psychological changes
which are borne in the mind before the petition for divorce to be successful. It is upon the
Court here to gather from the instances like adultery, continuous calling from strangers,
evidence of sensitive information of the couple to be known to a third party and high
phone bills.

4. Such ‘pith of severity’ has been touched upon by the Court to weigh the gravity of the
situation. It is seen such conduct would not be reasonably expected to be tolerated.
Although it is reasonable that every dispute, trivial irritation and quarrel of a nuptial life
may or may not constitute cruelty.

5. At the backdrop of this case, considering the wife was involved in adultery which
constituted reasonable grounds for the husband to not reside with her on legal and
legitimate grounds of mental torture and cruelty. It is of an unfounded variety which shall
constitute the factors which make the Court deem it necessary to grant the divorce.

JUDICIAL APPROACH:

1. The ground of mental cruelty and standard of proof that came up for consideration was
based on the Apex Court’s decision in Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur7. As held in this case,
the expression, ‘cruelty’ is undefined in the Act but it can be both physical or mental. For
leading to the dissolution of marriage, it can be defined as one that is willful and
unjustified as it caused danger to life, bodily or mental, limb or health or appearing to be
of an apprehensive danger.

2. This question of proving cruelty by the court heavily relies upon the norms of marital ties
of the society, social values, customs, status, environment. It need not be physical and is

6
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, § 10, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India).
7
Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur., (2005) (1) KLT 26.

6|P a g e Family Law I Assignment 1 PRN 22010126181

 usually drawn by the treatment of the spouse causing apprehension in his/her mental
welfare amounting to mental cruelty as also ruled in Russel v. Russel8.

3. This heavily depends on the relationship of the particular man and wife as decided in
Dastane v. Dastane9 and the conduct which could destroy delicate relationships like
marriage.

4. Cruelty is derived by the court to be derived from direct evidence. In the absence of direct
evidence, the courts have probed into the mental process and such disputes. The Court has
no problem in determining physical cruelty as it is proved and admitted as held in the case
of Sobh Rani v. Madhukar Reddi10.

5. The Court constituted the cruelty as ‘grave and weighty’ enough to conclude that it
cannot be reasonably expected from the spouse to live with the other spouse. It must
establish something graver than ‘ordinary wear and tear of married life’ as upheld in the
Supreme Court judgement of Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey.11

LEGISLATURE’S APPROACH:

1. The Kerala High Court has set aside the judgement of the Family Court for judicial
separation. The marriage that was solemnized was to be stand dissolved by a decree of
divorce as demanded by the facts of the case in relation to the Act and its provisions.

2. Envisioning of Section 13 (1) (ia) is broadly taken into account by the High Court by
considering the mental cruelty.12 The legislature with interpretation indicates that the
conduct of the wife renders it unreasonable for the husband to reside with her.

3. With the (ia) provision, the Court observed from the totality of evidence presented by the
Petitioner and Respondent. As the standard of proof legitimacy has come up from the
judgments previously mentioned which enshrines the provision of the Hindu Marriage

8
Russel v. Russel.,1897 AC 395.
9
Dastane v. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534.
10
Sobh Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121.
11
Savitri Pandey vs Prem Chandra Pandey., (2002) 2 SCC 73.
12
S. Hanumantha Rao v. S. Ramani., (1999) (3) SCC 620.

7|P a g e Family Law I Assignment 1 PRN 22010126181

 Act of 1955, totality of evidence approach becomes paramount when a conundrum of law
is raised in light of the facts amounting to ground for divorce.

4. Under Section 13 (1) (ia), ‘cruelty’ is construed as human conduct or behaviour, with
respect to matrimonial duties or obligations. It is interpreted as a series adversely
affecting one after the other based on the question of fact, law and its degree. The
legislature’s approach is heavily dependent on the facts and circumstances of the case,
applying the reasonability and proportionality rule.

5. The complaining spouse has reasonable apprehension as per the above provisions which
leads to present difficulties. In this situation, the conduct complained of is itself illegal,
unlawful and bad enough requiring minimal injurious effect to establish cruelty. Adultery
itself being a criminal offence at the time of judgement has material background,
circumstances and background to be examined to grant the decree of divorce.

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF CURRENT SITUATION AND

CONCLUSION:

1. Maintaining an illicit relationship cannot avoid vile consequences for the husband and
wife. As far as the grounds for cruelty have been raised in the judgement, it is a subsisting
and appropriate ground for the end of the marriage. Even then, the grounds have to be
juxtaposed with the relevant facts which lead up to the satisfaction of grounds for divorce
to avoid injustice or mistake.

2. It is evident that if there were no phone calls between the alleged and the wife, he would
not have got to know the intimate details between the husband and wife. Such instances
are very crucial and very the potential for mental agony constituting mental cruelty for the
husband. The Family Court failed to delve into such nitty-gritty in order to grant a decree
of divorce.

3. The Court has rightly concluded not only merely based on the facts and circumstances but
also considering the reasonable apprehension of danger to life, whether mental or

8|P a g e Family Law I Assignment 1 PRN 22010126181

 corporeal hurt. The concept of beyond reasonable doubts applied to criminal cases cannot
be applied to cases that are civil in nature as these are personal relationships between
husband and wife which are of delicate nature.

4. The degree of cruelty here is purely explicit based on the conduct leading to cruelty.
Adultery being a criminal offence at the time of judgment is unlawful enough to
constitute grave cruelty on the spouse leading to the reasonable need of a decree of
divorce.

5. What needs to be seen is the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty is to be found out
through tangible evidence. In cases where such becomes unavailable, the Courts deem it
necessary to probe into the mental process and the repercussions of such incidents that
come out in evidence. Such an evaluation makes matrimonial disputes different, unique as
well as complicated because two individuals are in a fragile spot.

9|P a g e Family Law I Assignment 1 PRN 22010126181

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Statutes:
 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, §13 (i-a), No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India)
 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, §13 (1) No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India)

Reports:
 Law Commission of India, 71st Report on The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-Irretrievable
Breakdown of Marriage as a Ground of Divorce
 Law Commission of India, 217th, Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage-another
ground for Divorce (2009) Law Com. No. 217

Articles:
 Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage as a Ground for Divorce, Loli Shukla, (2022) PL
June 62
 Srimati Basu, Spoils of Marriage : Irretrievable Breakdown and Matrimonial Property
in the Law Commission of India Reports, 6.2 JILS (2014-15) 22

Along with all cases mentioned in footnotes

*WORDS- 1508

10 | P a g e Family Law I Assignment 1 PRN 22010126181

 ATTACHMENT OF THE JUDGEMENT’S FIRST PAGE

11 | P a g e Family Law I Assignment 1 PRN 22010126181