34 Most Interesting Facts And Features Of Indian Constitution That Every Indian Should Know

We all celebrate 26th January every year as our Republic Day. It is one of the huge celebrating event in our country. 

We, being the loyal citizens of our country, know the reason behind the celebration. On 26th January 1950, the Constitution of India came into effect to administrate the country as a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic. 

Constitution is the foundational law of a country which ordains the fundamental principles on which the government (or the governance). It lays down the framework and principal functions of various organs of the government and its citizens. With the exception of the United Kingdom (U.K) almost all democratic countries possess a written Constitution. India also possesses an elaborate written Constitution which was enacted by a constituent assembly specifically set up for the purpose.

                                                                                                                                 

The constitution we have today has gone through a very interesting journey, thus, has many exciting facts that you must know. Below we have shared certain Most Interesting Facts And Features of the Constitution of India, please read them with keen interest as many of them could be asked in competitive exams. 

34 Most Interesting Facts And Features Of Indian Constitution That Every Indian Should Know

1.  The idea that India should have a Constitution was given by M N Roy, a pioneer of the communist movement in India. 

2. The original Constitution of India was not typeset or printed but was handwritten and calligraphed in both English and Hindi. Prem Behari Narain Raizada (Saxena) of Delhi wrote the entire constitution in a flowing italic style in the best calligraphic tradition of our country. He used 254 pen-holder nibs of NO.303 and devoted his six months to complete the writing.

He was allotted a room in Constitution House by the Government of India to execute the prominent work.

Instead of charging any kind of remuneration, he had asked permission to write his name on every page of the constitution and the name of his grandfather with his name on the last page.

3. The original copies of the Indian Constitution, written in Hindi and English, are kept in special helium-filled cases in the Library which is located in the Parliament of India. 

4. Our Constitution might not be one of the most recited scripts but is an example of hand crafted creativity.

This momentous task of accomplishing the art work in every page of Constitution was handed over to Acharya Nandalal Bose in Kala Bhawan, Shantiniketan  along with his students.

Nandalal Bose himself painted the major images and guided his students in designing other art work.

The most important page of Constitution “The Preamble”, also called as the face of Constitution, was decorated by Beohar Rammanohar Sinha, one of Nandalal Bose’s student.

5. Our Constitution came into force after a long expedition with Constituent Assembly.

The Constituent Assembly set Drafting Committee on 29th August 1947 to prepare a Draft Constitution under the chairmanship of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, also known as “Father of Indian Constitution”. Its others members were:

Diwan Bahadur Sir Narasimha Gopalaswami Ayyangar

K.M. Munshi

Sir Syed Muhammad Saadulla

N.Madhav Rao

D.P.Khaitan (T Krishnamachari, after Kahitan's Death in 1948)

6. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru presented an objective resolution on 13th December 1946 in the assembly. This resolution served as the guidelines for framing up the Constitution.

7. The Drafting Committee prepared the draft of the Constitution, which came out in the open in February 1948 to elicit the public opinion and reaction to it. The constituent assembly next meet in November 1948 when the provisions of the draft were considered and discussed in detail. 

8. The Assembly has discussed and passed 2473 amendments out of 7635 tabled. It took exactly two years, eleven months. and seventeen days for the Assembly in drafting the constitution.

9. The draft constitution was declared as passed on November 26th, 1949. 284 out of 299 members affixed their signature to the constitution.

On the same day the people of India in the constituent assembly adopted, enacted and gave to themselves this constitution. The date is therefore known as Constitution or National Law Day. 

The original constitution which was adopted on November 26th, 1949 consisted of a preamble, 395 articles and 8 schedules. 

The preamble was enacted after the entire constitution was already enacted. 

10. The provisions related to citizenship, elections, provisional parliament, temporary and transitional provisions and some articles such as 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 60, 324, 366, 367, 379, 380, 388, 391, 392 and 393 came into force on November 26th, 1949. The major part of the remaining constitution came into force on Jan 26th, 1950 which is considered as the commencement date and the Republic day.

11. Pandit Nehru was the first to sign the Constitution's calligraphic copies and members from Madras followed him. After the last member had signed the books, Rajendra Prasad decided that he, too, must do so. But, rather than signing behind the last signatory, he inserted his name in the small space between the last line of the text and Nehru's signature.

12. It was a raining cats and dogs outside the parliament, the day constitution was signed, and this was considered to be a good omen by the assembly members.

13. And finally on 26th January, 1950 , the Constitution became fully effective. At a ceremony held in Rashtrapathi Bhavan's Durbar Hall, Governor General Rajagopalachari solemnly proclaimed India as a “Sovereign, Democratic Republic”. And  thus we celebrated our First Republic Day.

Through its unprecedented abolition of untouchability, the Constitution serves as a powerful emancipation proclamation ending centuries of caste-based discrimination and social exclusion. 

14. The date 26th January was especially selected since it was the anniversary of “Purna Swaraj Day” (26th January 1930); the day Indian congress seeded the fight for complete Independence and hoisted the Indian national flag for the first time. 

15. Our Republic day is celebrated for 3 days. Beating the retreat marks the end of the celebration on January 29. 

16. The Indian Constitution is the longest written Constitution of any sovereign  country in the world with 25 parts containing 448 articles and 12 schedules, 5 appendices (originally it contained 395 articles in 22 parts and 8 schedules at the time of commencement). The Indian Constitution has a total of 117,369 words in its English language version.

17. The Preamble to our Constitution was inspired by the Preamble to the

Constitution of the United States of America, which starts with the sentence "We the people".

18. Our Constitution makers took inspiration from various other Constitutions while drafting the one for our country, which is why the Indian Constitution is often called a bag of borrowings. 

The Indian Constitution draws bits and pieces from other world constitutions like:

A. Irish Constitution – Directive principles have been derived from the Irish constitution.

B. British Constitution – Parliamentary form of government with a cabinet system having accountability to the lower House and parliamentary privileges.

C. US Constitution – Fundamental rights, the Supreme Court, the post of  Vice-President.

D. Canadian Constitution – The Federal system, union-state relations and distribution of powers between the union and the states.

E. Australian Constitution – The concurrent list, provision of trade and commerce.

F. German (Weimer) Constitution – Emergency provisions.   

G. French Constitution - The concepts of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. 

H. Japan Constitution - The law on which the Supreme Court functions.

19. The Indian Constitution has also been hailed as one of the world's best Constitution because in 62 years of its adoption, it had been amended only 94 times. As of now, our Constitution has undergone a total of 101 amendments.

20. The Part III of the Constitution of India describes the ‘Fundamental Rights’ that guarantee civil freedom to all the citizens of India to allow them to live in peace and harmony.

There are six fundamental rights mentioned in the Constitution.

Right to Equality: Equality before the law. No partiality based on race, religion, caste, creed, gender, or place of birth.

Right to Freedom: Right to speech and expression, to assemble peacefully or to form an association, to move freely throughout the territory of India, to life and liberty, reside and settle in any part of India etc.

Right to Freedom of Religion: Freedom of conscience and profession, to run religious affairs and to give religious instructions in certain institutions.

Right against Exploitation: Banning of forced labor and prohibition of employment of children in perilous jobs.

Cultural and Educational Rights: Preservation of language and culture of minorities and right of minorities to establish educational institutions.

Right to Constitutional Remedy: To move the courts for issuance of writs & explains the writs of Habeas corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, Certiorari.

21. Interestingly, in the beginning, the Right to Property was also one of the fundamental rights. The Article 31 of our constitution said that, "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." However, the 44th Amendment, in 1978, deleted it.

22. Indian constitution constitutes the Directive Principles of State Policy which contain the broad directives or guidelines to be followed by the State while establishing policies and laws.

23. It is a unique feature of the Indian Constitution that it makes the citizens duties a part of the basic law of the land. 

24. The Constitution of India establishes a parliamentary from of Government both at the Center and in the States.

25. Unlike the federal Constitutions of the USA and Australia the Indian Constitution lays down provisions relating to the Governmental machinery not only in the Center but also in the States.

26. Indian Constitution though written is sufficiently flexible.

27. The Indian Constitution provides an independent judiciary which acts as guardian of liberties and fundamental rights of citizens. Constitution ensures that Judiciary is free of government influence to have a legitimate and authentic decision making. Therefore a number of provisions has been made in the Constitution to ensure independence of judiciary.

28. The Indian Constitution has special reservation of seats for the Scheduled Casts and Tribes in public appointments and educational institutions in the Union and State Legislatures.

29. The Indian Constitution is "for the people" and "by the people". Constitution does not draws its authority from parliament, Prime minister or President. Constitution draws its authority from "the people" and has been promulgated "in the name of people"

30. The Indian Constitution unlike other federal Constitutions provides for a single unified judiciary with the Supreme Court at the Apex, the High Courts in the middle and the Subordinate Courts at the bottom.

31. The Constitution of India adopted a balance between American system of judicial supremacy and the British principle of Parliamentary supremacy.

33. Under the Indian Constitution every adult above 18 years of age has been given the right to elect representatives for the legislature without prescribing any qualification based either on sex, property education or the like.

34. An outstanding feature of the Constitution is Panchayati Raj. The idea for organizing village Panchayats was provided in the Constitution under Article 40 of Part 4 which received Constitutional legitimacy through the 73rd Amendment to the Indian Constitution.

In this article, we have shared few important facts of our Constitution that should be known by you being a citizen of this country.

If you liked the article and found it informative, kindly share it with you friends.

Read More

Role Of Power Of Attorney Holder To Give Evidence Or Deposition By Power Of Attorney Holder On Behalf Of The Principal In Civil Cases - The Principles Formulated In Landmark Judgments

Legal Maxim 'Qui facit per alium, facit per se' is the substratum of law relating to agency and power of attorney, which means "He who acts through another does  the  act  himself." The same principle is expounded  in section 2 of The Power of Attorney Act, 1982.   

                                                               

Due to busy schedule, or inability as a result of sickness, old age, or staying abroad, it becomes more necessary for a person or principal to depend on others for getting his things done. Owing to this reason, the power of attorney is now playing vital role.

What is a power-of-attorney ?

A power-of­-attorney is a written contract establishing a relationship between a principal and a special kind of agent, allowing that agent to act on the principal’s behalf.

Wharton has defined power of attorney as “a writing given and made by one person authorizing another, who, in such case is called the attorney of the person (or donee of the power), appointing him to do any lawful act in the stead of that person, as to receive rent, debt to make appearance and application in court, before an officer of registration and the like. It may be either general or special i.e. to do all acts or to do some particular act”.

Role Of Power Of Attorney Holder To Give Evidence Or Deposition By Power Of Attorney Holder On Behalf Of The Principal In Civil Cases - The Principles Formulated In Landmark Judgments :-

Order 3, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, empowers the holder of power of attorney to "act" on behalf of the principal.

Order 3 Rule 1 of The Civil Procedure Code runs as under

Appearances, etc., may be In person, by recognized agent or by pleader.- Any appearance, application or act in or to any court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf:

Provided that any such appearance shall, if the court so directs, be made by the party in person.

Order 3 Rule 2 of The Civil Procedure Code runs as under

Recognized agents.- The recognized agents of parties by whom such appearance, applications and acts may be made or done are –

(a)  persons holding powers of attorney, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties;

(b) persons carrying on trade or business for and in the names of parties not resident ‘ within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected with such trade or business only, where no other agent is expressly authorized to make and do such appearances, applications and acts

While deposition of evidence is required to be given by the witness itself, given the fact that evidence and knowledge of facts is a facet personal to the individual, in certain circumstances the law allows deposition of evidence by the witness through a person authorized in this regard. This, however, is not a general rule but a rule of exception wherein a power of attorney holder is allowed to depose before a court in proceedings required to be attended by the witness. Being a deviation from the norm, naturally different rules of appreciating such evidence are required to be observed.

The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mamatadevi Prafulla kumar Bhansali Vs. Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal and another 2005 (2) MhLj 1003 has held that if the power­ of ­attorney has personal knowledge about the transaction, then he can depose as a witness.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bashdeo Bhojwani Vs. Industrial Bank Ltd., [(2005) 2 SCC 217 =AIR 2005 SC 439 =2005 (3) CTC 128 (SC)], has held as follows

“ Order 3, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, empowers the holder of power of attorney to "act" on behalf of the principal. In our view the word "acts" employed in Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, confines only in respect of "acts" done by the power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument.”

“ The term "acts" would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power of attorney holder has rendered some "acts" in pursuance of power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined.”

“ In the case of Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan, 1986 2 WLN 713 (Raj) it was held that a general power of attorney holder can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party but he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party. He can only appear in his own capacity. No one can delegate the power to appear in witness box on behalf of himself. To appear in a witness box is altogether a different act. A general power of attorney holder cannot be allowed to appear as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff in the capacity of the plaintiff.”

“ The aforesaid judgment was quoted with the approval in the case of Ram Prasad v. Hari Narain – AIR 1998 Raj 185. It was held that the word "acts" used in Rule 2 of Order III of the CPC does not include the act of power of attorney holder to appear as a witness on behalf of a party. Power of attorney holder of a party can appear only as a witness in his personal capacity and whatever knowledge he has about the case he can state on oath but be cannot appear as a witness on behalf of the party in the capacity of that party. If the plaintiff is unable to appear in the court, a commission for recording his evidence may be issued under the relevant provisions of the CPC. ….” 

“ We hold that the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shambhu Dutt Shastri followed and reiterated in the case of Ramprasad is the correct view.”

In R.Arjunan v. Arunachala Gounder reported in 2007 (5) CTC 133 = 2006 (4) LW 520, it was held that in respect of acts committed with the personal knowledge, Power of Attorney cannot speak on behalf of the Principal. Therefore, I opined that it is not permissible to permit the Power of Attorney to represent the Principal to appear and adduce evidence, in respect of acts, which the Principal had personal knowledge of the same

In the case of Man Kaur Vs. Hartar Singh Sangha (2010) 10 SCC 512), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the position as to who should give evidence in  regard to matters involving personal knowledge as follows:

(a) An attorney holder, who has signed the plaint and instituted the suit, but has no personal knowledge of the transaction can  only give formal evidence about the validity of the power of attorney and the filing of the suit.

(b) If the attorney holder has done any act or handled any transactions, in pursuance of the power of attorney granted by the  principal, he may be examined as a witness to prove those acts or transactions. If the attorney holder alone has personal knowledge of such acts and transactions and not the principal, the attorney holder shall be examined, if those acts and transactions have to be proved.

(c) The attorney holder cannot depose or give evidence in place of his principal for the acts done by the principal or transactions or dealings of the principal, of  which principal alone has personal knowledge.

(d) Where the principal at no point of time  had personally handled or dealt with or participated in the transaction and has no  personal knowledge of the transaction, and where the entire transaction has been handled by an attorney holder, necessarily the attorney holder alone can give  evidence in regard to the transaction. This frequently happens in case of principals carrying on business through authorized managers/attorney holders or persons residing abroad managing their affairs through their attorney holders.

e) Where the entire transaction has been conducted through a particular attorney holder, the principal has to examine that attorney holder to prove the transaction, and not a different or subsequent attorney holder.

(f) Where different attorney holders had dealt with the matter at different stages of the transaction, if evidence has to be led as to what transpired at those different stages, all the attorney holders will have to be examined.

(g) Where the law requires or contemplated the plaintiff or other party to a proceeding,  to establish or prove something with  reference to his state of mind' or ‘conduct’, normally the person concerned alone has to give evidence and not an attorney holder.

S. Kesari Hanuman Goud vs Anjum Jehan & Ors reported in 2013 (12) SCC 64, the Supreme Court held as follows:

It is a settled legal proposition that the power of attorney holder cannot depose in place of the principal. Provisions of Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC empower the holder of the power of attorney to “act” on behalf of the principal. The word “acts” employed therein is confined only to “acts” done by the power-of-attorney holder, in exercise of the power granted to him by virtue of the instrument. The term “acts”, would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. 

In other words, if the power-of-attorney holder has preferred any “acts” in pursuance of the power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for acts done by the principal, and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of a matter, as regards which, only the principal can have personal knowledge and in respect of which, the principal is entitled to be cross-examined. (See: Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1441;Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217; M/S Shankar Finance and Investment v. State of A.P & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 422; and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512).

Similarly in Narasimha vs. S.P.Sridhar, ILR 2014 Kar. 84 considered similar provisions and  observed thus:

" Parties to a suit or proceeding are permitted to give evidence within the limits prescribed by Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A Power-of-Attorney holder of a party can be examined as a witness like any other witness, if he is competent in law to testify to the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue in any suit or proceeding or of such other facts as are declared to be relevant under the provisions of the Evidence Act, if such facts are within his personal knowledge, but he cannot appear as a witness in the capacity of that party i.e., himself as the plaintiff or the defendant. "

When and to what extent a Power- of-Attorney holder could give evidence is explained by the Supreme Court in MAN KAUR vs. HARTAR SINGH SANGHA (2010) 10 SCC 512).

" Rules 1 and 2 of Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure are subject to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 and in particular Sections.32 & 33. Hence, a Power-of-Attorney holder, who is not an Advocate, cannot be placed on the same footing as an Advocate. A non-advocate cannot be permitted to address the court on behalf of a party on the strength of the Power-of-Attorney. For that purpose, the party has to seek the leave of the Court. Grant of such leave is governed by Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961."

Thus the power­-of-­attorney holder practically steps into the shoes of the  principal to perform all the acts on his behalf except right to plead unless permitted by the court, and  to depose about facts which are in exclusive knowledge of the principal. The principal is required to be very cautious while delegating such power, else result would be counterproductive.

Read More

8 Most Unusual Ground For Seeking Divorce - India Seen In Recent Times

Time changes, and so do people. Marriage being regarded as the inseparable union of two individuals is history. A spouse, now, may seek a decree of divorce from his/her co-partner, “if things are not going well”. however, the grounds for such a petition for divorce must be reasonable and most prominently, under the purview of law. 

Parties/spouses seeking divorce, sometimes, agree mutually for the same, therefore cutting the time of the proceedings in allotment of a decree of divorce in their favor. Though, the basic grounds for divorce are settled in the Acts such as:

1. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (strictly applicable to Hindus)

2. Indian Divorce Act, 1869

3. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights) Act, 1986 (strictly for Muslim women only)

4. Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939

5. Special Marriage Act, 1954.

Provisions in the above-mentioned Acts regarding ‘Divorce’ is more or less the same, consisting of the following basic grounds:

1. Cruelty

2. Adultery

3. Desertion

4. Venereal disease

5. Mental disorder

6. Impotency

7. Respondent not heard of being alive for a long period

8. Mutual Consent: Consent of both the spouses for attaining divorce.

8 Most Unusual Ground For Seeking Divorce - India Seen In Recent Times

1. 'Taking Loans In Wife's Name And Failed To Repay Them Amounts To Cruelty'- Uttarakhand High Court, Granted Divorce

The Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Manpreet Verma Vs Brij Verma (First Appeal No. 133 of 2017) allowed a wife’s plea for divorce on the ground of cruelty, noting that the husband had repeatedly taken loans on the wife’s name knowing well that she had no source of income, and had failed to repay them, putting her in trouble. 

In this case the high court took note that the respondent (husband) is in habit of taking loans and he also took loan in the name of wife i.e. appellant and he also made her guarantor in some loans. He failed to repay his loans and as a result, appellant faced embarrassment. 

The Court observed that

" Taking of loan is neither an offence nor shameful act but failed to repay it may cause embarrassment, as lender comes to recover his loan by any means. It also maligns the reputation of a person is society. Appellant is a house wife. Respondent also took loan in the name of his wife / appellant and also made her guarantor. Appellant has no source of income and she was deserted by her husband. In such circumstance, it was very painful for her to live because she has no source of income but has to repay the loan."

And came to the conclusion that

" all the activities and conducts of the husband respondent are sufficient to establish the cruelty meted out by him to appellant-wife. " And accordingly Decree of divorce is granted.

2. Forcing Husband To Get Separated From His Parents, Amounts To ’Cruelty’ and a ground for divorce - Supreme Court Granted Divorce

The Supreme Court in Narendra Vs K.Meena (CIVIL APPEAL NO.3253 OF 2008) has held that persistent effort of the wife to constrain her husband to be separated from the family constitutes an act of ‘cruelty’ to grant divorce.

A bench of Justice AR Dave and Justice LN Rao also ruled that leveling false allegations against the husband - accusing him of extra-marital affair and repeated threats to commit suicide - is also a ground for divorce. 

The Supreme Court in this case observed that

"The Respondent wife wanted the Appellant to get separated from his family. The evidence shows that the family was virtually maintained from the income of the Appellant husband."

" It is not a common practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated from the parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife, especially when the son is the only earning member in the family."

" A son, brought up and given education by his parents, has a moral and legal obligation to take care and maintain the parents, when they become old and when they have either no income or have a meagre income."

" In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the family of the husband and normally without any justifiable strong reason, she would never insist that her husband should get separated from the family and live only with her. "

"  In the instant case, upon appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that merely for monetary considerations, the Respondent wife wanted to get her husband separated from his family. "

"The averment of the Respondent was to the effect that the income of the Appellant was also spent for maintaining his family. The said grievance of the Respondent is absolutely unjustified. A son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal in Indian culture and ethos. "

"There is no other reason for which the Respondent wanted the Appellant to be separated from the family the sole reason was to enjoy the income of the Appellant. "

The Court opined that

"In our opinion, normally, no husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income."

" The persistent members of the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband and in our opinion, the trial Court was right when it came to the conclusion that this constitutes an act of ‘cruelty’. "

The Supreme Court therefore granted divorce. 

3. Calling Wife "Kali Kaluti" Amounts To Cruelty - Punjab and Haryana High Court Granted Divorce. 

Source - This report

The Punjab and Haryana high court in Radha vs Kamal Singh (FAO-M-257 of 2015) has allowed a woman from Mahendergarh in Haryana to divorce her husband on the ground of maltreatment and cruelty. The court accepted her plea that she was compelled to stay away from her husband because he would often taunt her about her skin colour by calling her "Kali Kaluti" in front of other people for not preparing food for him and also had started demanding dowry  as a result of which appellant had to return to her parents' house. The father of the appellant had asked the respondent and his family members to reconcile the matter but they threatened to get the second marriage of the respondent solemnized.

The court reached at the conclusion that

"Wife has been able to establish that she was maltreated and treated shabbily as a result of which she was compelled to stay away from the matrimonial home," the court observed in its order given recently."The evidence produced on record is held to be good enough to arrive at a conclusion that the appellant was treated with mental and physical cruelty."

And accordingly, the marriage of the appellant - applicant wife with respondent is dissolved by a decree of divorce.

4. Wife’s False Allegations Of Infidelity Amounts To Cruelty - Delhi High Court Granted Divorce

The Delhi High Court in R Vs J (MAT.APP.NO. 62/2011) granted divorce to a man holding that his estranged wife’s false allegation of illicit relation between him and his widowed sister-in-law amounted to cruelty.

The petitioner-husband sought the decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty against the respondent on the ground that the respondent-wife was extremely suspicious towards him and soon after the death of the petitioner’s brother in the respondent’s suspicious nature went beyond all reason and tolerance when the respondent started accusing the petitioner of having an affair with the widow of his brother. 

The respondent made such accusations not only in front of their children but also in front of his relatives, neighbours, police, friends and servants which resulted in feeling of deep anguish, disappointment and frustration in the petitioner. 

The continuous course of abuse and humiliating treatment was calculated to torture and render the life of the petitioner miserable, and the continuous unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of the respondent affected the physical and mental health of the petitioner. 

The wife, on the other hand, had vehemently opposed the assertions, and had pressed the same contentions of her husband having an extra-marital affair with his widowed sister-in-law.

Delhi high court opines that 

“This Court agrees with the finding of the learned Trial Court that the respondent/wife has failed to prove any illicit relationship between the petitioner/husband and his widowed sister-in-law. The respondent has leveled false allegations of an illicit relationship between the petitioner and his widowed sister-in-law in the written statement which clearly amounts to cruelty.”

On the basis of this the court reached at the conclusion that

“This Court agrees that the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty and the petitioner has neither condoned the acts of cruelty nor cohabited with the respondent. This Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. And accordingly divorce granted.” 

5. Spoilt Honeymoon, Cruelty To In Laws Ground For Divorce - Delhi High Court Granted Divorce

The Delhi High Court in Anu Seth Vs Sunil Seth(MAT.APP(F.C.)68/2015) granted divorce to the husband on the ground of a spoilt honeymoon and subjecting the husband and his family to "worst kind of mental cruelty" by leveling false accusations.

While allowing dissolution of their 12-year-old wedlock, it noted that the husband and wife returned with "bitter memories and a spoiled honeymoon" in which she had resisted consummation of marriage and tried her best to avoid him in the process. Not only that, she even threatened to commit suicide if he dare touch her body against her mood, willingness and consent.

"In the case of arranged marriages where both the spouses are in the age group of 30 plus, honeymoon period is the best time to know, understand and come close to each other. This case is an exception in the sense that just a day after the marriage the parties left for their honeymoon to Shimla and returned with bitter memories and a spoiled honeymoon." the court observed. 

"The husband was able to establish that during their honeymoon not only consummation of marriage was resisted by her, even thereafter causing embarrassment and humiliation  accusations have been made against him and his entire family. " The bench noted in its judgment 

The Court observed 

"It is a marriage which could not take off right from inception as the worst kind of mental cruelty was faced by the husband during his honeymoon and thereafter. All his efforts to save the marriage by arranging various meetings, visiting the parental home of the wife....could not save this marriage."

The Court opined that

" We are of the considered opinion that the conduct of the wife in the instant case was such that it was not possible for the husband to bear such type of cruelty." And accordingly divorce was granted. 

6.  'No Toilet At Home Amounts To Cruelty' - Family Court In Rajasthan Granted Divorce

Source - This report

A family court in Rajasthan’s Bhilawara district granted a woman divorce while ruling that having no toilet at home is cruelty to women.

The woman, who was married to a family in Atun village of Bhilwara district in 2011 had moved a divorce petition to the family court in 2015 on the grounds that the house of her husband didn’t have any toilet.

The woman had said in her application that when she told her in-laws about the difficulties she had to face while going to defecate in the open. But after repeated assurances, her husband and in laws failed to build a toilet and has been forcing her to defecate in the open. 

Due to the absence of a toilet in her marital home, the woman was living at her parent’s house for the last two years

Commenting on the ‘mental torture’ that women have to deal with while going to defecate in the open in absence of toilets in their homes, justice Rajendra Kumar Sharma termed it as a disgrace for the society.

“ Has it ever pained us that our mothers and sisters have to go to defecate in the open? Women in villages have to wait for dark to venture out in order to relieve and as a result has to bear with physical pain,” justice Sharma said in the judgment. 

The judgment further added that not having toilets in homes is a disgrace in the 21st century.

“ It is an irony that people who spend a lot of money on alcohol, tobacco and mobile phones, don’t have toilets in their homes,” the judgment read.

The court had also asked the family of the petitioner’s in-laws to provide evidence of toilet in their house which they failed to furnish.

The family court finding it amounts to cruelty to the wife granted divorce. 

7. Wife's Demand For Excessive Sex, Amounts To Cruelty - Family Court Granted Divorce

Source - This Report

A man, who sought separation from his wife alleging that she was aggressive and autocratic with an insatiable appetite for sex was granted divorce by a family court in Mumbai.

The husband alleged that she used to force him into having unnatural sex and whenever he tried to resist it, she would abuse him following which he had to succumb to her pressure and persistent demands.

He told the court that he worked in three shifts leaving him very tired, and even then he was compelled to satisfy her 'lust'.

The woman even went to the extent of threatening him that if her demands are not fulfilled, she will go to another man, without caring for his emotions and feelings, the court was told.

Even when he hospitalised for a stomach ache and operated for appendicitis and the doctors advised him to stay away from any physical relationship for a while, the wife kept up with her sexual demands, even as his health deteriorated for lack of rest, the petition submitted.

In the petition, he said that it was intolerable for him to bear any more atrocities and that he also apprehended danger to his life and limb.

He said his wife has made his life horrible with her "cruel behaviour" and her "excessive prank for sex" has made it difficult for him to live together with her under one roof.

Judge Rao allowed the petition and dissolved the man's marriage.

8. Not Allowing Wife To Wear Jeans Amounts To Cruelty - Family Court In Mumbai Granted Divorce

Source -This Report

Objecting to wife wearing kurta and jeans and forcing her to wear saree amounts to cruelty inflicted by husband and can be a ground to seek divorce, a family court in Mumbai has ruled.

The wife pleaded that after marriage in December 2010, her husband did not buy her any clothes and therefore she had purchased Kurta and Jeans from her salary earnings. However, the husband did not allow her to wear them, saying she should wear only sarees.

In her order was passed on June 24, Principal Judge of Family Court, Dr Laxmi Rao, granted divorce to the wife on the ground of cruelty as defined under section 27(1)(d) of Special Marriage Act, 1954.

"In view of the averments made in the petition which have gone unchallenged, it can be said that the petitioner has proved her case, hence, she can be granted divorce as prayed by her. Her plea that she was restrained from wearing jeans and Kurta amounts to cruelty as defined under the Act," the judge held

The wife further alleged that her husband and in-laws had asked her to bring Rs 1 lakh from her house or face dire consequences. They also asked her to quit her job but she had refused to toe their line.

The wife alleged that she was tortured and humiliated as a result of which she suffered mental depression and her life became miserable. She also alleged that her in-laws harassed her on one pretext or the other and warned that if she failed to bring dowry she would face dire consequences.

"I find that she has made out a case for divorce as contemplated under section 27(1)(d) of Special Marriage Act, which contemplates that a divorce can be granted if respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty," the judge observed. And therefore granted divorce.  

Thus the basic idea behind divorce is to refrain the spouses from unnecessary cohabiting together, when there is no affection left between them. It is better for two individuals to live apart peacefully than to live together violently. Though, the Acts regarding Marriages and Divorces are the result of the culture (mostly religious) prevailing in an area since a long time. The provisions in any of such Act are inscribed by way of ‘reasons’ coupled with a blend of ‘prevailing culture’ and ‘change in mindsets’ of people. That is to say, the amendments to the Acts must be done periodically, so as to upkeep the provisions of the same, so that the reasonability of the statutes remains intact and shall not be held on frivolous grounds.

Read More