II - INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

CASE ANALYSIS

NAME :- SANKET MUDAKANNAVAR

DIVISION :- E

PRN :- 22010125468

SUBJECT :- FAMILY LAW - II

SEMESTER : - FOURTH

BATCH :- 2022-2027

TOPIC : - Case Analysis of GVN KAMESWARA RAO VS G JABHILI

1. Introduction

 The following case talks about Mental Cruelty being a reasonable ground for
divorce taking into consideration all aspects of the Hindu Marriage Act.

2. Facts of the case-

 The appellant is the spouse who fought for more than 15 years to end his
marriage to the respondent.

 He holds two doctorates, in mathematics from Andhra University and the

U.S., and worked in the U.S. during the relevant period.

 The respondent was a lecturer in Home Science in 1979. In 1979, the appellant
moved to India and advertised for a bride. The respondent's relatives
responded to the ad, and mutual deliberation resulted to the appellant and
respondent's marriage on 30.7.1979.

 After their marriage, the appellant moved to the U.S. After obtaining a visa
and completing other paperwork, the respondent was asked to join him which
she did in US after 6 months.

 Their marriage had problems from the start of their U.S. stay. Parties
occasionally fought.

 On 10.6.1981, Sandhya was born.

 The appellant, respondent, and their daughter Sandhya visited India in 1982,
but the appellant returned to the U.S. in November 1982 and the respondent
joined him in April 1983.

 In January 1985, the respondent and her daughter returned to India, and
tensions between the parties deepened.

 Ultimately, the appellant filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, saying that after their marriage, the respondent treated the
appellant cruelly.

3. Issues discussed- The major issues discussed here are

 Divorce

 Mental cruelty – Section 13 (1 a) of Hindu Marriage act

 Concept of Desertion
 4. Observations of the court-

What stood out –

 The appellate and respondents’ marriage had caused mental stress to them
both. Both of them along with their daughter returned to India in 1982. After
which the respondent refused to join the appellate back in the US. She didn’t
let the appellate interact with his daughter even via letters and blocked him
and his relatives from visiting her native place in Araku Valley where she was
residing, at that time. The Respondent claimed all of this to be false and
accused the appellate and his mother for beating her over using a blender to
grind pulses for breakfast. The respondent claims to be mistreated by them.

Judgement-
 The respondent challenged the proceedings, denied all the appellant's petition
charges, and counter-alleged that the appellant wrecked the marriage.

 Both sides called witnesses to bolster their claims.

 The judge decided that the respondent had treated the appellant with mental
cruelty and that the appellant was entitled to a divorce decree.

 This was challenged by the respondent before the Hon. High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, and the Division Bench reversed the Family Court's decision, holding
that the appellant was at fault and trying to take advantage of his own wrongs;
thus, he was not entitled to a decree in his favour under Section 23(1)(a) of the
Hindu Marriage Act.

5. CONCLUSION / OPINION OF THE STUDENT-

I believe that the right judgement was taken. Here are the points that I believe will
substantiate my point of view.

Events--

The appellant claimed that the respondent decided to marry after being convinced by
her siblings, and initially showed no interest to help the couple have a happy
marriage. She allegedly joined the appellant in the United States after a period of six
months and from the moment she arrived in the country, she frequently made a scene.
The appellant claimed that their poor relationship was well known among members of
the Indian community. He claimed that he had to perform all home chores alone with
the assistance of his brother Ravi, because the respondent was not doing any of them.
According to the appellant she used to insult him in front of his friends and guests,
and refused to share a bed with him, which caused him mental and bodily anguish.
All of these claims stated by the appellant in the petition were refuted by the
respondent. She attempted to place the responsibility at the door of the appellant, but
it is important to note that they have no evidence to support the claim that their
marriage was blissful. She claimed that the appellant had no desire to cohabitate with
the respondent and spent all of his time partying, watching TV, and playing cards
while entirely ignoring the respondent. According to the respondent, he used to treat
her like an invader. She further claimed that while being in labour pains, she did not
receive the required medical attention and was forced to deliver the baby prematurely
on her own.

Application of section 13(1) of the Hindu marriage act –

On a petition presented either by the husband or wife, the marriage could be dissolved
by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has, after the solemnization
of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty. 'Cruelty' is not defined in the Act.
The Hindu Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, changed some of its aspects.
Before the modification, under Section 10 , "cruelty" was given a wider definition by
adopting an adjectival phrase: "as to induce reasonable anxiety in the petitioner that
living with the other party will be hurtful or dangerous". By the Amendment Act of
1976, "cruelty" became a divorce basis under Section 13.

"Divorce (1) Any marriage solemnised before or after the Act's enactment may be
dissolved by a decree of divorce on the grounds that the other party
(I a) treated the petitioner with cruelty after the marriage was solemnised 1
The appellant cites numerous occurrences as harsh, but trivialities that are normal
wear and tear of marriage must be dismissed. I feel that, The Court must decide if the
counter-actions petitioner's constitute cruelty by considering their social rank,
conventions, traditions, and other factors. Considering the sanctity of marriages in
community life, the Court should assess whether the counter-conduct has made it
intolerable for the petitioner to suffer and living together impossible. Only then may
the Court declare cruelty on the part of the counter-petitioner.

Citation-
S. Hanumantha Rao vs S. Ramani2
V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat3

Appellant’s point of view-

The appellant's claim that his wife was unkind is based on multiple events. Their
marriage began in 1979 and was rocky. The appellant proved the respondent's
uncooperative attitude. The way the respondent treated the appellant when he visited
her sister's house in Araku Valley and the following filing of the criminal complaint,
in which the appellant was humiliated, show that she was not prepared to cooperate
with the appellant. Respondent's claim that appellant and his mother assaulted her is
weak. The bleeding damage on her hand was noted by the High Court, but would a
1
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/g-v-n-kameswara-rao-vs-g-jabilli
2
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/917877/
3
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1848484/
cautious person rush to the police station to have her husband and his mother detained
for too long? These examples show her behaviour while staying with the appellant.
Assessing the appellant's mental cruelty requires considering his status, education,
and environment. The appellant's police complaint and loss of reputation and standing
could have been devastating. The appellant says he hasn't had a conjugal contact with
the respondent since 1985, and she wasn't fulfilling her marital duties before then.

High court’s judgement-

The High Court stated that the appellant was guilty for many of the unhappy
situations, therefore he cannot take advantage of his own fault and the decree for
dissolution of marriage will be denied to him under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act. I disagree with the High Court's decision.

The ruling was based on the appellant's power of attorney for his brother-in-law,
Rama Rao, permitting him to seek divorce in 1982. The appellant acknowledges
signing the POA. According to the appellant, the respondent refused to return to the
U.S. after moving to India in 1982, so he executed a power of attorney.

However, he later learned that a power of attorney holder could not file an
application. From 1982, the appellant and respondent had a bad relationship and
considered divorce. Appellant didn't file in 1982. In his statement, the appellant
admitted that the respondent had a scrape. But neither the appellant nor his mother
caused the respondent any severe harm.

Overall summary/opinion-

I don't think Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act may be used to deny the
appellant relief. Various incidents in the evidence show that the relationship between
the parties was irretrievably broken, and because of the respondent's hostile attitude,
the appellant was subjected to traumatic experiences that can be termed 'cruelty' under
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The appellant is entitled to a divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage
Act. Any order of maintenance granted to the respondent will be unaffected by this
divorce decree. If the responder has any rights in the couple's shared assets, she is free
to enforce them – affirmed, costs should be shared.