Followed / Affirmed Treatment:

Kanthy Balavendram VS S. Harry - 1953 0 Supreme(Mad) 242: Constitution of impotency.

Explanation: The case law appears to be a foundational constitutional provision or principle, which typically remains authoritative unless explicitly overruled. No indication of subsequent treatment is provided.

Samar Ghosh VS Jaya Ghosh - 2007 3 Supreme 26: Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. 2. Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. 3. Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.

Explanation: The detailed description suggests this is a considered legal principle or guideline, likely still valid unless explicitly overturned. No evidence from the list indicates it has been overruled or criticized.

Distinguished / Clarified Treatment:

None explicitly indicated. The list does not include language suggesting these cases have been distinguished or clarified in later rulings.

Uncertain / Ambiguous Treatment:

Both cases lack references to subsequent judicial treatment, citations, or commentary that clarify whether they have been affirmed, criticized, or overruled. Therefore, their current legal standing remains uncertain based on the provided data.