Comprehension
“Such assertions of illicit relationship made by a spouse have been held to be acts of cruelty by the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate (MANU/ SC/0316/2003:(2003) 6 SCC 334). While deliberating on the accusations of unchastity and extra-marital relationships levelled by the husband, the Apex Court observed that such allegations constitute grave assault on the character, honour, reputation and health of the wife and amount to the worst form of cruelty. Such assertions made in the Written Statement or suggested in the course of cross-examination, being of a quality, which cause mental pain, agony and suffering are sufficient by itself to amount to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law
Placing reliance on this judgement, the Supreme Court, in Nagendra v. K. Meena (MANU/ SC/1180/2016:(2016) 9 SCC 455), observed that unsubstantiated allegations of the extra-marital affair with the maid levelled by the wife against the husband, amount to cruelty. When there is a complete lack of evidence to suggest such an affair, the baseless and reckless allegations are serious actions which can be a cause for mental cruelty warranting a decree of divorce. Making such serious allegations against the respondent/husband again amounts to cruelty as has been held in Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur (MANU/SC/1023/2004:(2005) SCCR 65) and Harminder Kaur v. Major M.S. Brar (II (1992) DMC 431).
In view of above discussion and settled position of law, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Additional District Judge in its well-reasoned judgment of 16.07.2005 has rightly concluded that the appellant/wife had treated the respondent/husband with physical and mental cruelty entitling him to divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955”. [Extract from Saroj v. Suraj Mal decided on October 31, 2023 by Delhi High Court, MANU/ DE/7461/2023]
Placing reliance on this judgement, the Supreme Court, in Nagendra v. K. Meena (MANU/ SC/1180/2016:(2016) 9 SCC 455), observed that unsubstantiated allegations of the extra-marital affair with the maid levelled by the wife against the husband, amount to cruelty. When there is a complete lack of evidence to suggest such an affair, the baseless and reckless allegations are serious actions which can be a cause for mental cruelty warranting a decree of divorce. Making such serious allegations against the respondent/husband again amounts to cruelty as has been held in Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur (MANU/SC/1023/2004:(2005) SCCR 65) and Harminder Kaur v. Major M.S. Brar (II (1992) DMC 431).
In view of above discussion and settled position of law, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Additional District Judge in its well-reasoned judgment of 16.07.2005 has rightly concluded that the appellant/wife had treated the respondent/husband with physical and mental cruelty entitling him to divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955”. [Extract from Saroj v. Suraj Mal decided on October 31, 2023 by Delhi High Court, MANU/ DE/7461/2023]
Question: 1
What does the Supreme Court consider as the worst form of cruelty in matrimonial law, based on the provided para?
What does the Supreme Court consider as the worst form of cruelty in matrimonial law, based on the provided para?
Updated On: Nov 7, 2024
- Allegations which lack evidence and affects reputation of a spouse
- Allegations which could cause mental pain and agony.
- Unsubstantiated allegations of unchastity and extra-marital relationships
- Wrong allegations made in written statement or suggested in the course of examination
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The Supreme Court has held that baseless allegations of unchastity and extra-
marital relationships constitute the worst form of cruelty in matrimonial disputes, as they
severely harm the reputation and dignity of the spouse.
The correct option is (C): Unsubstantiated allegations of unchastity and extra-marital relationships
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
In the case of Nagendra v. K. Meena, the Supreme Court of India concluded that:
In the case of Nagendra v. K. Meena, the Supreme Court of India concluded that:
Updated On: Nov 7, 2024
- Unsubstantiated allegations of an extra-marital affair with the maid by the wife are evidence of the character of the wife and hence divorce can be granted.
- Baseless and reckless allegations of an extra-marital affair with the maid by the wife cannot be accepted and can be considered as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Lack of evidence in the case of an extra-marital affair with the maid is inconclusive
- The husband’s actions are irrelevant in determining cruelty. When there is a complete lack of evidence to suggest an affair a decree of divorce can be granted.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
In Nagendra v. K. Meena, the Court held that baseless accusations regarding extra-
marital affairs constitute cruelty and can be grounds for divorce.
The correct option is (B): Baseless and reckless allegations of an extra-marital affair with the maid by the wife cannot be accepted and can be considered as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
In the case of Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, what action is considered as cruelty against the respondent/husband ?
In the case of Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, what action is considered as cruelty against the respondent/husband ?
Updated On: Nov 7, 2024
- Any serious allegation, which cannot be proved with evidence
- Any unsubstantiated allegations, which cannot be considered as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- Physical or mental violence, which can be considered as cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Allegations of the unproved extra-marital affair.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
In Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, allegations of an unproven extra-marital affair were
considered as cruelty, adversely impacting the dignity and peace of the spouse.
The correct option is (D): Allegations of the unproved extra-marital affair.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
Based on the above passage, give the reason why the Supreme Court in the mentioned para concluded that the appellant/wife treated the respondent/husband with cruelty?
Based on the above passage, give the reason why the Supreme Court in the mentioned para concluded that the appellant/wife treated the respondent/husband with cruelty?
Updated On: Nov 7, 2024
- Her actions before the court fit in the meaning of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, 1955
- It is a settled position of law that unsubstantiated serious allegations amount to cruelty.
- Under the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law, not only physical violence but causing mental agony is a matrimonial offence.
- There is lack of evidence for the allegations made by wife.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The Court found that making unsubstantiated allegations of infidelity constitutes
cruelty, aligning with established legal principles under matrimonial law.
The correct option is (B): It is a settled position of law that unsubstantiated serious allegations amount to cruelty.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
According to the Supreme Court’s observations in the provided para, what did the court emphasize regarding the quality of allegations related to unchastity and extra-marital relationships?
According to the Supreme Court’s observations in the provided para, what did the court emphasize regarding the quality of allegations related to unchastity and extra-marital relationships?
Updated On: Nov 7, 2024
- False allegations of unchastity and extra-marital relationships is a ground for divorce
- They are one of the factors in determining cruelty.
- They constitute a grave assault on the character, honour, and reputation of the spouse.
- They should only be considered if proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The Court has underscored that baseless allegations regarding unchastity or extra-
marital affairs are significant factors in establishing cruelty under matrimonial law.
The correct option is (B): They are one of the factors in determining cruelty.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on Family Laws
- As per the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which of the following statement is false?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Family Laws
- In relation to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 match the following and identify correct answer:Select the correct option:
(A) Conditions for a Hindu Marriage (i) Section 13 (B) Registration of Hindu Marriage (ii) Section 10 (C) Judicial Separation (iii) Section 5 (D) Divorce (iv) Section 8 - AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Family Laws
- An order for the maintenance of wives, children and parents is provided under which Section of BNSS, 2023?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Family Laws
- As per to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, sapinda relationship with reference to any person extends as far as:
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Family Laws
- Which of the following statements is correct, as per Section 44 of BSA, 2023?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Family Laws
View More Questions
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
- The Companies Act, 2013 does not deal with insolvency and bankruptcy when the companies are unable to pay their debts or the aspects relating to the revival and rehabilitation of the companies and their winding up if revival and rehabilitation is not possible. In principle, it cannot be doubted that the cases of revival or winding up of the company on the ground of insolvency and inability to pay debts are different from cases where companies are wound up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013. The two situations are not identical. Under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013, even a running and financially sound company can also be wound up for the reasons in clauses (a) to (e). The reasons and grounds for winding up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013 are vastly different from the reasons and grounds for the revival and rehabilitation scheme as envisaged under the IBC. The two enactments deal with two distinct situations and in our opinion, they cannot be equated when we examine whether there is discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For the revival and rehabilitation of the companies, certain sacrifices are required from all quarters, including the workmen. In case of insolvent companies, for the sake of survival and regeneration, everyone, including the secured creditors and the Central and State Government, are required to make sacrifices. The workmen also have a stake and benefit from the revival of the company, and therefore unless it is found that the sacrifices envisaged for the workmen, which certainly form a separate class, are onerous and burdensome so as to be manifestly unjust and arbitrary, we will not set aside the legislation,solely on the ground that some or marginal sacrifice is to be made by the workers. We would also reject the argument that to find out whether there was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or whether the right to life under Article 21 Constitution of India was infringed, we must word by word examine the waterfall mechanism envisaged under the Companies Act, 2013, where the company is wound up in terms of grounds (a) to (e) of Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013; and the rights of the workmen when the insolvent company is sought to be revived, rehabilitated or wound up under the Code. The grounds and situations in the context of the objective and purpose of the two enactments are entirely different.
(Extracted, with edits and revision, from the judgement in Moser Baer Karamchari Union Thr. President Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Union of India and Ors, 2023 SCC Online SC 547)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Company Law
- Ahmadi, J. (as he then was) speaking for himself and Punchhi, J., endorsed the recommendations in the following words-The time is ripe for taking stock of the working of the various Tribunals set up in the country after the insertion of Articles 323-A and 323-B in the Constitution. After the incorporation of these two articles, Acts have been enacted where-under tribunals have been constituted for dispensation of justice. Sufficient time has passed, and experience gained in these last few years for taking stock of the situation with a view to finding out if they have served the purpose and objectives for which they were constituted. Complaints have been heard in regard to the functioning of other tribunals as well and it is time that a body like the Law Commission of India has a comprehensive look-in with a view to suggesting measures for their improved functioning. That body can also suggest changes in the different statutes and evolve a model on the basis whereof tribunals may be constituted or reconstituted with a view to ensuring greater independence. An intensive and extensive study needs to be undertaken by the Law Commission in regard to the Constitution of tribunals under various statutes with a view to ensuring their independence so that the public confidence in such tribunals may increase and the quality of their performance may improve.
Before parting with the case, it is necessary to express our anguish over the ineffectiveness of the alternative mechanism devised for judicial review. The judicial review and remedy are the fundamental rights of the citizens. The dispensation of justice by the tribunal is much to be desired.
(Extracted with Edits from R.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1993 (4) SCC 119)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
- The elements of tort of negligence consist in – (a) duty of care; (b) duty is owed to the plaintiff; (c) the duty has been carelessly breached. Negligence does not entail liability unless the exacts a duty in the given circumstances to observe care. Duty is an obligation recognised by law to avoid conduct fraught with unreasonable risk of damage to others. The question whether duty exists in a particular situation involves determination of law. Hence, three ingredients are necessary for the existence of a duty of care: (i) foreseeability of the damage, (ii) proximity of relationship between the parties; and (iii) whether it is “just, fair and reasonable” that the law should impose a duty of care. In Caparo Industries Plc. v. Dickman, 1990 2AC 605, the court held that breach of duty is concerned with the standard of care that ought to have been adopted in the circumstances and whether the defendant’s conduct fell below that standard i.e., whether he was careless.
The court while quoting Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, 1997 stated that as a tort, negligence consists of legal duty to take care and breach of that duty. Duty determines whether the type of loss suffered by the plaintiff in the particular way in which to occurred can ever be actionable. The division of negligence into duty, breach and consequent damage is convenient for the purpose of exposition but it can be confusing because the issues will often overlap. The process of determining a breach of duty involves three steps: First, it is necessary to ascertain the qualities of the reasonable person, given the qualities attributed to him, would have taken in the circumstances. The factors that are permissible to take into account in this regard are prescribed by law, but the amount of care that the reasonable person would have taken is a question of fact. Thirdly, it must be determined whether the defendant took less care than the reasonable person would have taken.
(Extracts from Managing Director, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Deepti Singh and Ors., 2019 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Law of Torts
- Article 14 of the Constitution stipulates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Article 15(1) states that the State should not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Article 15(4) stipulates that nothing in Article 15 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Clause (1) of Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Clause (2) stipulates that no citizen shall be discriminated in or be ineligible for any employment or office under the State on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. Clause (4) of the provision states that nothing in Article 16 shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens, which in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The purpose of the equal opportunity principle in Article 16(1) and the reservation provision in Article 16(4) has emerged as a focal point of the jurisprudence on reservations in this Court. A discussion of the journey of the competing models of equality that the Court has espoused and their evolution over the course of the years is necessary to understand the constitutional vision on equality.
The impugned constitutional amendments by which Article 16 (4-A) and 16 (4-B) have been inserted, flow from Article 16 (4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16 (4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons which enables the State to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the state administration under article 335. Sub-categorization within a class is a constitutional requirement to secure substantive equality in the event that there is a distinction between two sections of a class; Sub-classification must not lead to the exclusion of one of the categories in the class. A model that provides sufficient opportunities to all categories of the class must be adopted; and Sub-classification among a class must be on a reasonable basis.
Justice Bela Trivedi opined, in dissent, that presidential list of scheduled castes notified under Article 341 cannot be altered by the States. Any change to this list can only be made by a law enacted by Parliament. Sub-classification, according to her would amount to tampering with the Presidential List and undermine the object Article 341, which aims to eliminate political influence in the SC-ST List. Further, she emphasised the importance of adhering to the rule of plain and literal interpretation. She mentions that any preferential treatment for a sub-class within the presidential list would deprive other classes within the same category of their benefits. In the absence of executive or legislative power, state lack the competence to sub-classify castes and the benefit reserved for all SCs. Allowing states to do so would constitute a colourable exercise of power, which is impermissible under law. Justice Trivedi concluded by affirming that affirmative action by States must remain within constitutional boundaries and held that the law laid down in E.V. Chinnaiah case was correct and should be upheld.
(Extract from The State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors. 2024 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
- The environmental rule of law, at a certain level, is a facet of the concept of the rule of law. But it includes specific features that are unique to environmental governance, features which are sui generis. The environmental rule of law seeks to create essential tools such as conceptual, procedural and institutional, to bring structure to the discourse on environmental protection. It does so to enhance our understanding of environmental challenges of how they have been shaped by humanity’s interface with nature in the past, how they continue to be affected by its engagement with nature in the present and the prospects for the future, if we were not to radically alter the course of destruction which humanity’s actions have charted.
The environmental rule of law seeks to facilitate a multi-disciplinary analysis of the nature and consequences of carbon footprints and in doing so it brings a shared understanding between science, regulatory decisions and policy perspectives in the field of environmental protection. It recognises that the “law” element in the environmental rule of law does not make the concept peculiarly the preserve of Lawyers and Judges. On the contrary, it seeks to draw within the fold all stakeholders in formulating strategies to deal with current challenges posed by environmental degradation, climate change and the destruction of habitats. The environmental rule of law seeks a unified understanding of these concepts. There are significant linkages between concepts such as sustainable development, the polluter pays principle etc. The universe of nature is indivisible and integrated. The state of the environment in one part of the earth affects and is fundamentally affected by what occurs in another part. Every element of the environment shares a symbiotic relationship with the others. It is this inseparable bond and connect which the environmental rule of law seeks to explore and understand in order to find solutions to the pressing problems which threaten the existence of humanity. The environmental rule of law is founded on the need to understand the consequences of our actions going beyond local, State and national boundaries. The rise in the oceans threatens not just maritime communities. The rise in temperatures, dilution of glaciers and growing desertification have consequences which go beyond the communities and creatures whose habitats are threatened. They affect the future survival of the entire eco-system. The environmental rule of law attempts to weave an understanding of the connections in the natural environment which make the issue of survival a unified challenge which confronts human societies everywhere.
(Extract from Pragnesh Shah v. Arunkumar Sharma (2022) 11 SCC 493 )- CLAT PG - 2025
- Environmental Law
View More Questions