CASE COMMENT

RANI NARASIMHA SASTRY Vs. RANI SUNEELA RANI

(CIVIL APPEAL NO.8871 OF 2019)

Submitted to-

Aruna Venkat

Faculty, Family Law-I

Submitted by-

Vedika Singh

II Sem, I Year

2019-5LLB-113

NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad

0
 Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................2

THE CASE.................................................................................................................................3

FACTS...................................................................................................................................3

JUDGMENT..........................................................................................................................5

ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................6

CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................9

1
 INTRODUCTION

No civilization can exist without marriage. The basic foundation of the family is the
institution of marriage which is important for any cultured and civilized society. Although we
are taking long leaps in terms of technology and globalization with the growing times, yet the
mentality of the people with respect to women has not changed much in India. Such mentality
is chained by orthodox traditions, beliefs and superstitions because of which women are
being exploited socially, physically, sexually, economically and psychology from time
immemorial. The most common evil that women face is the cruelty in their matrimonial
relations which makes her life hell. Although in the present time, it has received attention of
legislature and judiciary because of the increasing number of such cases, a great difficulty is
posed to define such term when human conduct is so invariable and thus case-to-case basis
analysis is required. Also, there are so many factors like upbringing, social background,
status of parties in society, mental attitude and education which contribute a lot to the
tolerance capacity of party. And, such problem aggravates when it is required to be assessed
in relation to the acts or behaviour of husband and wife.

2
 THE CASE

FACTS
The case of Rani Narasimha Sastry v Rani Suneela Rani reached the Supreme Court of India
through appeal when the Hight Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana
and the State of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the appeal to the Trial Court’s decision. The
Appellant had approached the court with respect to asking for the dissolution of marriage
with the respondent under section 13(1) (i-a) and (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The appellant and the respondent got married on 14 th August, 2005 at Annavaram Sri Veera
Venkata Sathyanarayana Swamy Temple of East Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh. After
marriage they lived together until 17th January, 2007 and thereafter, they have been living
separately for more than 10 years. Also, the wife had filed an F.I.R. against the husband and
her sister-in-law in 2007 and the charges were framed against them under section 498-A of
I.P.C. and the appellant was tried by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyderabad. The
decision was pending when the appellant had approached the trial court for the dissolution of
marriage. The trial court in appellant’s case had taken up four points for determination of
which the essential two were-

“1) Whether the petitioner established and proved that the respondent treated the petitioner
with cruelty?

2) Whether the petitioner established and proved that the respondent has been incurable
unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermediately from mental disorder?”

Here, the court with respect to the second point had established that as the respondent was
working as Sanskrit Lecturer, the submission of the appellant that she was suffering
continuously or intermediately from mental disorder is of no merit. And, also with respect to
the first point as the case against the husband was pending in Cyderabad court, the trial court
refused to rely on the said allegation while determining that whether it constituted cruelty
against the husband or not and decided the case against him. Later, the court of Metropolitan
Magistrate decided the case in the favour of husband whereby acquitting him of the charges
under section 498-A IPC stating that- “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case and after careful scrutiny of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, it is the
considered view of this court that both the complainant and the accused seem to come from

3
respectable families from a respectable community, both are well educated, well brought up
but has developed hat-redness towards each other and the relationship between them is
already estranged and it is in irretrievable breakage of marriage perhaps and probably due to
some egoistic problems that their hat-redness went to the extent of throwing mud on each
other before the courts as complainant alleged in her complaint that the accused is trying to
marry one Valli ,the sister’s daughter and as per the suggestion given by the accused to
complainant during her cross examination the accused is alleging illicit relationship between
the wife and some other and egoistic problem turned into pervertism against each other
adding bitterness further to see the bad of each other. However, in the present case against the
accused, the prosecution has failed to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt against the
accused for the offence punishable u/s. 498A IPC.”

Even the decision was in favour of the husband, the High Court while deciding the matter of
the husband on appeal stated that- “Merely because the respondent has sought for
maintenance or has filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A of IPC, they cannot be said to be valid grounds for holding that such a
recourse adopted by the respondent amounts to cruelty.” And thus, upheld the trial court’s
decision. Later, the husband appealed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court arguing that the court
below has erred in law in rejecting the application.

4
 JUDGMENT

The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled in favour of the appellant, thus, dissolving the marriage
under section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court upheld the trial court’s
decision with respect to the second point whereby rejecting the claim of mental illness of the
wife by the husband. Thus, the court had to consider only whether the ground for divorce
under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act has been made or not. The court accepted that allegations,
accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant constitutes mental cruelty
and thus a ground for divorce under the section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act by referring to the case
of Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate Vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate 1. In the above observation of
the high court that mere filing of the complaint against the petitioner under the Section 13(1)
(i-a) of the Act does not amount to cruelty, the Supreme Court did not approve of this
observation. It stated that it is true that anyone can file complaint or lodge FIR for redressal
of his or her grievances and merely doing that cannot be ipso facto termed as cruelty but
when a person undergoes a trial and is afterwards acquitted of the allegation made against
him by the wife, it cannot be agreed to that no cruelty has been meted on the husband. And
also, the parties have been living separately for more than a decade now, after living only for
18 months together. Thus, it concluded the discussion by allowing the appeal of the appellant
and granting the decree of divorce.

1
Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate Vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334.

5
 ANALYSIS

Analysing the above facts and scenarios, the author of this project would like to put forth the
following contention i.e. how the distinguishment between matrimonial cruelty under
criminal law and matrimonial cruelty under civil law creates difference in the standard of
proof required in order to avail of the appropriate remedies. Under criminal law, the
aggrieved party gets the remedy in form of punishment or fine awarded to the accused if
proved guilty under section 498-A IPC whereas under civil law, the person gets civil
remedies in the forms of divorce, judicial separation and maintenance under section 13(1) (i-
a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty. Although in both the civil and
criminal law, the burden of proof is on the party who affirms the existence of a particular set
of facts, yet difference with respect to standard of proof is established in the case of C.
Veerudu Vs. State of A.P.2- “It is enough if cruelty is proved by preponderance of
probabilities in civil law while in criminal trials the conduct of cruelty has to be proved
beyond all reasonable doubt.” Such distinction is made in furtherance of what purpose such
provisions serve. As the main purpose of the law is to save the institution of marriage and
prevent the couples from taking hasty decisions just because of the wear and tear of marital
life or petty arguments, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for provisions like judicial
separation where on the order of court they live separately and thus, may reconcile in some
time and also rescinding of such decree of judicial separation and also like a “fair trial rule”
kind provision under the Act.3 Whereas in criminal law, the punitive action is taken and thus,
once proved guilty one is awarded a particular punishment for the offence. But as from time
immemorial, women have been prey to male dominance in the society and have always been
considered a chattel to their husbands. So, with growing times, certain laws and acts were
formed in order to uplift the so-called weaker section of the society i.e. women. But here
again, even if such provisions are made, the different standards of proof makes it difficult for
them to prove cruelty under criminal law because of such a “beyond reasonable doubt”
doctrine but at the same time, it becomes easy to prove cruelty in case of civil remedy where
only preponderance of probabilities is taken into account and thus facilitates the process of

2
C. Veerudu Vs. State of A.P., (1989) CR. L.J. NOC 52(A.P.).
3
Section 14 as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, of 1976, lays that no marriage may be
dissolved unless period of one year has elapsed since the solemnization of the marriage, though in the case of
exceptional hardship to the petitioner or exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent, the marriage may
be dissolved earlier.

6
getting divorce or judicial separation decrees. But what if the wife does not want to severe the
marital ties but only want the punitive action against husband for the cruelty meted out
against her? So, in case of A. Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur 4, the court pointed out that “In
delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The
concept, a proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to
civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of
husband and wife.” Thus, in the case which is being analysed in this project, although the
court established that cruelty existed by referring to the case of Vijayakumar Ramchandra
Bhate5 that “The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments,
accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written
statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1)
(i-a) of the Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared
that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person
outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship is a grave assault on the
character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of
perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and
judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty,
sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being
allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course of
examination and by way of cross- examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come
to be firmly laid down by this Court. We find that they are of such quality, magnitude and
consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated
concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the
wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live
with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial
home impossible.” The court acquitted the accused just because she could not prove the
existence of the offence beyond reasonable doubt and said that if she had asked for the
remedy under the section 13(1) (i-a) of the HMA, 1955, she could have applied for it.
Whereas, the court allowed the appeal of the husband and granted the decree of divorce on
the ground of cruelty as it was already proved that allegations and accusations of grave nature
from both the sides were there, so in order to get relief in form of the divorce, the husband
had to just make the case in his favour by bringing the argument that as the wife could not

4
A. Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22.
5
Supra note 1.

7
prove cruelty under section 498-A IPC and after undergoing trials, at last he was acquitted
only, it was he against whom cruelty had been meted out and thus, the decree of divorce
should be granted in his favour. So, clearly, the distinction of standard of proof in both laws
favoured the appellant over the respondent.

8
 CONCLUSION

The legislatures have played their role in enacting laws and acts for different situations that
exist with respect to the matrimonial offence of cruelty and have come up with different
kinds of remedies for it. But this concept of cruelty still poses a great difficulty of problems
in terms of the word “cruelty” not being defined anywhere and thus courts have to judge all
the cases on individual basis by looking at the facts and circumstances of all such cases, and
the standard of proof to be met is different for the person ascertaining the existence of such
facts in civil law and in criminal law and many others. This social evil is deeply engrained in
the society and despite such protective legislative and judicial measures, we have a long way
to go in order to uplift the status of the women in the society. Despite the jurisprudential
growth of the concept of cruelty, it still remains a concern in matrimonial relations because of
its prevalence in the forms of social, economic, legislative deficiencies and some procedural
disabilities. It is high time that we think about this problem seriously and come up with
immediate and effective measures in order to curb such social phenomenon.