1982 Supreme(Kar) 4
Karnataka High Court
Judges : G.N.Sabhahtt,A.K.Laxmeshwar
GREGORY JOSEPH SALVADOR PAIS - Appellant
Versus
MELBA DOLORES PAIS - Respondent
Misc. First Appeal 1001 Of 1978
Decided On : 01/05/1982
The court clarified the standard of proof required in matrimonial cases and interpreted the legal principles of 'cruelty', 'condonation', and 'connivance' under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.
Headnote:
Cruelty - Matrimonial Dispute - Indian Divorce Act, 1869, Ss. 22, 23, 41 - The court discussed the grounds for judicial separation and custody of children under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The court interpreted the term 'cruelty' and established the standard of proof required in matrimonial cases. The court also considered the principles of condonation and connivance in the context of matrimonial offences.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a wife, sought judicial separation and custody of children, alleging mental and physical cruelty by the respondent, her husband. The respondent denied the allegations and asserted that the petitioner condoned the alleged cruelty. The trial court granted the decree for judicial separation and directed custody of one child to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found in favor of the petitioner, holding that she proved the acts of cruelty justifying judicial separation. The court also dismissed the respondent's claim of condonation, considering subsequent acts of cruelty and non-payment of alimony as evidence of revived cruelty.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was treated with cruelty by the respondent. 2. Whether the petitioner had condoned the cruelty of the respondent. 3. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court require interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the standard of proof required in matrimonial cases is by preponderance of probabilities. It interpreted the term 'cruelty' as conduct causing danger to life, limb, or health, and discussed the principles of condonation and connivance in matrimonial offences.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision to grant judicial separation and custody of children to the petitioner.
( 1 ) THIS Appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-5-1978 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Bangalore, in Matrimonial Case No. 10 of 1973, on his file, allowing the petition of the wife Mrs. Melba Dolores Pais for j udicial separation and for custody of children, instituted Under Ss. 22 and 23 read with S. 41 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, (here in after referred to as the Act ).
( 2 ) THE relevant petition averments in brief are as follows: the petitioner and the respondent in the petition are Indian Christians. They were married on 21-8-19,61 in h1flagres Church. Mangalore, and. they last resided together at 25a, Magrath road, Civil station, Bangalore. They have three sons born out of wedlock. The Petitioner and the respondent were not known to each other prior to their marriage. The engagement ceremony in respect of the marriage look place on 21-8-1961. Since marriage, their life has not been smooth and happy. The in-laws of the petitioner did not take kindly to her, They ill-treated her, the respondent Joining with them it, is The ease of the petitioner that since marriage, she has been subjected to both mental and physical cruelty at the bands of the respondent. After marriage, the respondent left to Kuwait. The petitioner joined in Oct. 16. The sisters of the respondent were living with them at Kuwait. The respondent was addicted to heavy drinking and was behaving cruelly with the petitioner and was beating her without or reason. The trouble aggravated in the year 1962 when It* Petitioner was expecting bye first child and was in a delicate state of health. The. respondent's sister got upset for no reason and confirmed cry and respondent blared the Petitioner for that and forced her ask forgiveness is of his sister. The in-laws were living with the petitioner a-ad the workload of the Petitioner increased very much and though she requested her husband to take her to a separate residence, he refused to do so. The petitioner wife. for India on 30-4-1962 for confinement and the respondent insisted that she should, for confinement go to his mother's house instead of going to her mother's hoist. Fever after the birth of the first son when The respondent came to India, he. Frequently quarreled with tile Petitioner and made her life desirable The Petitioner went back to Kuwait in, Dec 1962 and the respondent, continued to drink heavily and 4real her cruelly and that made her live in perpetual fear jeopardising her health. On 23-12-1974, when the respondent fell t received a letter from his sister regarding money matter, be. was 1. 1psp1 and, attacked the petitioner by banging her head against the wall, and strangling tier, and, but for the intervention of a friend who was present then. she would have lost her life. The brother of the petitioner was sent for and then the respondent behaved as if nothing had transpired and. after his departure, the respondent got the petitioner to pack all her clothes and brought a can of petrol and threatened to set fire to it and burn The same During the years 1965, 1966 and 1967, the same cruel treatment w as Incited (nit to her by she respondent, even thereafter, when the petitioner came to India. the respondent was writing 1hrealening letters and was not sending remittances lo. the petitioner; she had come to India in early 1970. She had to struggle to maintain herself and her children. in spite of the fact that the respondent was getting a tat salary of Rs. 6,250/- per month, tax-free. The respondent came to India in 1971. He believed in witchcraft and he engaged the service of one Britto and began to act as per his instructions. Oil 21-12-1971, the respondent as usual got heavily drunk. locked himself in the bathroom for not less than five hours and broke everything he could lay his hands upon and attempted to commit suicide. The petitioner's younger brother visa sent for and he induced the Respondent to come out; the responden