 Good afternoon, good afternoon. Good afternoon, friends. It's always a pleasure catching up to learn the nuances of law as a professional and as a student of law. Especially once you are being given the insights by a professional who has the knowledge or excellence and at the same time who has the practical experiences, what could be the law of divorce, et cetera. As we all know that divorce law in India is vast and to put it across in two sessions is quite challenging. But that's what they say that once you have a speaker who can put it across in an hour or so or two hours, it only shows that how you can funnel across the all issues in the right sense. And that's, they say it makes the difference between an ordinary and an extraordinary person. We all know in a broader sense that there are divorces with mutual consent, a contested divorce and a wide marriages. And what are the grounds on which you can have contested divorce, that is what are the various grounds as to whether it is cruelty, adultery, desertion, conversion, mental disorder, comical disease, renunciation of the world, et cetera. But what is the law on that? You may know the, as what is ordinarily said, we used to have a one judge out here and ordinarily the lawyers generally read the head notes and say, this is the law. He used to say, don't read the telegrams, telegrams can be deceptive, read the entire letter. In the same way once you can have the borderlines of what are the various grounds on which one can have the divorce because ordinarily once you, immediately once you join the law college itself, though it shouldn't be, but people do contact you to say, what could be the ground? I am quite disturbed, what are the way forwards? One may have the broader contours to decide on it, but what are the law and what are the things forward? In these circumstances, we requested, ma'am, Aruna Farswani, who's principal judge, family court, Thane, Mumbai, and they say that challenges in the metro cities are always different, especially during these testing times. And she had been kind enough to accede to our request and the way the participants are just logging in on the platform as well as on the different forum. And for the first time, we would like to share that though the topic is different, earlier we used to be only live on the Facebook, but this time we are also live on the YouTube as well as on the Instagram. Over to you ma'am and thank you for acceding to our request. Thank you for introducing me in your own good words. And I also thank for inviting me to join and share a little knowledge with my experience and discussing the broad parameters, which are basically affecting divorce, which is now becoming a parallel institution, I would say, with marriage. As marriages are also being performed, divorces are also increasing. I would first give a little background about marriage to come to divorce because until there's a marriage, there cannot be a divorce. So marriage in a broad sense, it would mean legal and social sanction to a union of a man and woman, which would accord them the status of husband and wife and then a legitimacy to their offsprings. Now marriage also includes legal rights and duties between the parties. It can be, I mean, legal and also social because marriage is a social institution. For Hindus, marriage is a sacrament. For Muslims, it's purely a contract and because a mayor is given by a man and the female accepts it in presence of two witnesses. For Parsis, also it's a contract but with a ceremony of Arshiwath. Amongst Jews, it is Kutaba. Christians also treated more as a contract than a sacrament. This marriage institution is a basic foundation of our civil society and both public and the state are interested in its stability. I would read a paragraph which has really impressed me which is from Nagin Kohli's case, the Supreme Court. Do you want me to give the citations right away or I can give it later on? I can share the citations in the WhatsApp group subsequently. Otherwise the audience will get distracted. You can give this, otherwise you can just give that caption. They can be shared with these citations later on. I can give the name of the parties and then... Yes, I have the citations with you. We will share it in the WhatsApp group. That would be nice because there are a lot of citations. That's what I'm saying. Otherwise there will be a very difficult to... about the differences whether they have to wear you or whether they have to drop down these citations. Absolutely. Thank you. I'm sorry for this interruption but it made the little things clear. Okay, Nagin Kohli's case, it has been expressed that the foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty Cubans, traveling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to be made in heaven. We always say marriages are made in heaven but now we add to it but broken on earth in quotes. A Danish proverb says that deaf husband and a blind woman always make a happy couple. Herbert Lewis Samuel has stated, I quote, it takes two to make a marriage, the success and only one to make a failure. The clashes are not only between the couples but it's among all the family members and all the other members. Experiences, like I earlier said, that cases for divorces are increasing in every court and this number is going far beyond. There are various causes which have been recognized by the legislature which would dissolve the marriages in court. There are personal laws like the Special Marriage Act, Hindu Marriage Act, Indian Divorce Act, Parsi Marriage Act, the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act which have recognized various matrimonial offenses for dissolution of marriage. I will take the common causes which are from all these acts and these causes are the most important causes which have been referred regularly to the courts. They are cruelty, desertion, adultery and mental ill-health. I have put the word mental ill-health but which basically is unsoundness of mind and mental disorder. These are some of these grounds amongst the other grounds. The other grounds can be change of religion, certain vanilla diseases. The man is not hurt for about seven years. In the other personal laws, there are many more other grounds which I will discuss in the second part of our session. At present, our Indian legislature for divorce is based on false theory. No party can take advantage of one own wrong. In the courts, the most common matrimonial offense which comes is alleged by the parties is cruelty. Now, what is cruelty? Cruelty basically means being cruel. There is no specific definition of cruelty quay matrimonial offense. For various judicial verdicts, we have got interpretations which have analyzed and explained as to what constitutes cruelty. In Bagat's case, it has been stated what is inferred as cruelty in a case may not be the same in another case. It can differ from person to person. It can differ from house to house. It can differ from individual to individual. Each case would be different. A particular conduct which may amount to cruelty in one case may not be the same in other because of different set of circumstances and different factors. Cruelty cannot be specifically defined. It relates to the conduct of one spouse with the other. Cruelty for the purpose of the act means where one spouse has so treated the other and manifested such feelings towards the other spouse so as to have inflicted bodily injury or to have injured mental health. It means physical as well as mental. Now this can be intentional or unintentional. This has to be gathered from the evidence on record. The instances alleged and all have to be clubbed together and then a reasonable inference can be drawn that the behavior of the spouse is such and it comes under the concept of cruelty. A lot of greed in Gaulin's case has expressed that as far as matrimonial affairs are concerned, one is not dealing with objective standard. It is not a matrimonial offense to fall below a standard of a reasonable man or woman but it is a particular man and a particular woman. Since the conduct of human beings is considered the same, generally are not similar among the human beings. There is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. The legal concept of cruelty and the kind of degree of cruelty necessary to amount to matrimonial offense has not been defined. In Ravi Kumar's case, cruelty in matrimonial cases can be of infinite variety. It may be subtle or even brutal. It may be by gestures or by words. When at times it can be physical or in any other form. It may be just an attitude or an approach in silence. In such situations, all these factors cumulatively considered and then analyzed whether it amounts to cruelty. Therefore, cruelty as an offense can be in indefinite varieties. In each case, the physical and mental conditions of the parties need to be considered. As all quarrels have to be weighed accordingly to determine the concept of cruelty. Nearly because there are allegations and counter allegations, a degree of divorce cannot follow. The same need to be considered in the context which they are made. Even a mere delay in disposing of the divorce proceedings by itself is not a ground. We know that in every court, the proceedings are pending for a long period of time. Every time some application or the other delays the main proceedings. There are numerous witnesses to be examined. There are times when the councillors have to be done to the parties to either reconcile or mutually settle the matters. So therefore, this long period of the proceedings pending in court, it by itself cannot be a ground. There has to be some extraordinary material on record other than the admitted material to grant to us if there is no full trial. Now, this concept can see various colors. Physical, mental, social, economical and you can go on and on with it. So what would be the standard of proof one would ask oneself? The standard of proof required to establish a proof of cruelty is on preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubts as in criminal proceedings. The law has been developing in time to time with the person as the time goes by. In modern times the duties and responsibilities have seen a tremendous change. There are varying degree from house to house and person to person. It also depends upon the lifestyles of the couple what they are accustomed to, their economical, social conditions, their culture, education level, traditions and last things. The human values to which they attach importance. So slowly, slowly there are so many factors coming in which finally have to be analyzed to consider the conduct of the parties. Now prior to the amendment of the Hindu marriage act 1976, the spouses had to establish cruelty as such a cause which would bring a reasonable apprehension in the mind that would be harmful or injurious to live with the other spouse. But after the amendment, the spouse has only to establish cruelty on the probabilities. Now if you take the case of physical cruelty is the question of fact and degree. There may be a case where the conduct complaint of itself is bad enough and Percy unlawful or illegal. Taking the case of demand of dowry. Percy it's illegal under the law and due to demand not being fulfilled we very often see and hear about the ill treatment given to the woman. In these types of cases where it is itself bad and Percy unlawful or illegal cruelty is established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting inmeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty. Even a single act of violence which is of gravest nature and inexcusable satisfies the test of cruelty. Wife is not a chattel to be beaten at the wins and fancies of a man. It is not necessary to prove cruelty that there must be many incidents of beating. Some incidents if established are more than sufficient. This was observed in Deepavanti Roy's case. A mere plea of the spouse that the other spouse has caused cruelty by using filthy and abusive language cannot be accepted as proved and established. It is expected that the spouse would give particulars. As earlier stated by me you have to club the instances and incidences together. So these are those particulars which have to be given. Those are the instances and incidences which would from which an inference can be drawn that yes this can be amounted to cruelty. The allegation should not only be pleaded but proved and those pleaded allegations must give a rise to apprehension that the conduct amounts to physical or mental cruelty. Specific instances of cruelty must be pleaded. Allegations do not spell out special instances or make such allegations of cruelty which if considered cumulatively lead to apprehension in the mind that it would be harmful to reside with the other spouse. This has been observed in Vishnu Shankar Pandey's case. So any spouse seeking divorce on the conduct of each other resulting in petty quarrels is not a ground for divorce. Though might have resulted in physical or mental ailments. In Jay Nanda's case the mere fact that the parties are unhappy because of some usual wear and tear or due to some feelings in the temper would not be sufficient to spell out a case of cruelty. The allegation cannot be disrupted merely because of different temperaments of spouses. The effect of temperament must ordinarily be accepted for better overs. In Vanita Saxena it has been held that mental cruelty will not depend upon the numerical count of such incidents or only on the continuous course of conduct but one has to really go by the intensity and stigmatic impact of it when meted out even once and the effect of it on the mental attitude necessary for maintaining a conducive matrimonial. If any imputations against the character of any spouse is alleged either by the wife or the husband without any foundations and the same is based on mere suspicion such baseless allegations of illicit relationship amounts to mental cruelty if not proved ordinary instances of cruel sorry ordinary instances of quarrels does not amount to cruelty for example wife adopting dominating attitude and spending extravagantly or going frequently to a parent's house this was considered in Tappan Chakraborty's case husband had alleged that the wife was quarrelsome with neighbors friends and with visitors she also went to his workplace and deeming him in presence of other co-workers and students it was found by the trial court and upheld by the supreme court there was not sufficient evidence to prove the allegations which were pleaded on the other hand a criminal complaint was lodged by the wife and the husband was acquitted in the said proceedings on that ground the husband had not approached the court alleging mental cruelty but with regard to her behaviour this was considered by the supreme court in Magniash I will find it a little difficult because it is a South Indian name Magniash Kari case this is the latest judgement in 2020 now here the court held that the allegations were not proved and therefore the husband was not entitled for it allegations levelled by husband against wife which are totally vague and tribal in nature and occasional outburst by the spouse or use of offensive language once in a while cannot be termed as cruelty this was considered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Aota Singh's case the threats given by the wife that she will put an end to her own life or she will make the husband lose his job and have the matter published in the newspapers persistent abuses and insults heard at the husband and his parents are all of so great as the conduct of the wife would impale the husband's mental agony his job satisfaction and reputation this is the most famous case the Dastanesh case where the court held that this conduct and behaviour of the wife would amount to cruelty threats of committing suicide may also amount to cruelty Pankaj Mahajan's case where the husband had resorted to unnatural sexual sorry in the case of Vinit Joglaker where the husband had resorted to unnatural sexual relationship with his wife against her will the court held it amounts to cruelty on the other hand when the wife refuses to have sex and did not cooperate for a long period of time she did not perform her matrimonial duties the court held in Joseph's case that these acts of the wife amounted to cruelty refusing to have sexual intercourse for a considerable period of time by the wife would amount to cruelty to the husband Vidya Vishwanathan's case in Ashok Kumar Singh's case the Supreme Court observed where the husband is proved to be important and not capable of giving sexual satisfaction to the wife or vice versa it amounts to cruelty mental torture to wife cannot be brushed aside lightly on the ground that there was no physical violence this was considered in S. J. Kumar's case cruelty however has to be distinguished from ordinary wear and tear of marital life it cannot be decided on the basis of sensitivity of a person it has to be adhered on the basis of the course of conduct which would in general be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other spouse it has to touch the pitch of severity even if the allegations are left to be proved it would show that the sensitivity of the wife with respect to the conduct of the husband which could not be termed more than ordinary and ordinary wear and tear of the family life this is again discussed by the Supreme Court in Savitri Pandey's case so to constitute cruelty the conduct complained or should be grave and beating so as to draw the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be reasonably be expected to live with the respondent it must be more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of marital life again this is the observation of the Supreme Court in Narendra's case it was observed where a wife constantly persuaded the husband to separate from his family and live with her and to only live with her is not an act of cruelty the apex court has held that Hindustan has only a marital but legal obligations to take care and maintain his parents when they become old in normal circumstances the wife is expected to be with the family of the husband as she becomes integral part of the family and without any justifiable strong reason if she insists that the husband should live separately from his family then that would amount to cruelty in the case of Srinivas Rao again the Supreme Court has held that piling of police complaints by itself does not amount to cruelty but if the allegations are proved to be false then it would amount to cruelty very often in the cases a complaint filed by the wife under section 498 in that trial when it is proved that the allegations are false then this is considered that this false allegations are not been established it amounts to cruelty to the husband because many times he is arrested, he is in the jail for no reason so this is one ground also which can be considered by the court for dissolution of matter making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his relatives in the pleadings, in the complaints issuing notices or in use items which may have adverse effects in Liu Shri case the Supreme Court found that the wife was making wild allegations about the conspiracy in the family of her husband to get him remarried for the greed of dowry she put her husband in an embarrassing situation including his father who was also his guru from which he took music lessons wife showed immense dislike to his sadhana in music and exhibiting indifference and content to the tradition of teacher and disciple spectrum of this fact was held in cruelty the other classes which can be considered are now wife was forced to abort her pregnancy against her will this also amounts to cruelty on the other hand if the abortion by the wife without the consent I think I am back on the other hand the abortion by the wife without the consent of the husband and without his knowledge would amount to cruelty to the husband this was one of the exhaustive incident and registration given by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sama Ghosh case it is also held by the Supreme Court in Suman Kapoor's case also there are times when the husband takes a lot of loans and the creditors keep visiting the house this disturbs and harasses the woman of the house and the children I had a case before me where a wife had filed a petition for divorce saying that the husband was into some business of trading in second hand cars and he initially did well in his business but there after the passage of time he started losing in his business then after he again started some other business now in the meantime he had taken a lot of loans so what he did was he would take his wife from one place to the other and they would keep shifting their residences he went to the extent of they went away to Dubai they stayed with his sister there she conceived so she wanted to come back to India for her delivery now even in Dubai he could not get a proper job so he again started doing something with loans he could not repay so the creditors started knocking the doors he made an effort to come to India in an illegal way in that process he and his wife both were arrested but his wife after a month or so was released because she was pregnant but the husband was behind bars there after somehow he was released and he also came to India now this woman had no home in India so she had to go to Bangalore where his parents were staying there also she was not accepted then he told her to go and stay with his some lady friend she stayed there nothing happened ultimately she came to her parents house for delivery which was in Bombay, Thane after the delivery she thought she will have to do something to meet her two ends she did some course she started working now this man came back from Dubai because he was released and started staying with her at her parents house again shifting from one place to the other was going on with the child and ultimately they settled down in Thane in a rental premises he had to do something to earn he again started the business which he was used to that is the trading of cars with the business of dealing in other aspects now in this whole process he again as he was an habitual person taking loans he got into again taking the loans and as usual he could not repay the loans what he did it he would go out of the house and send the creditors to the wife she had to face the music of all his dismissed deeds and the ultimate last straw was when one of the creditors told that they had a daughter that the daughter should be sold to pay off their growth and this was something which I mean nobody would accept with this last straw she just saw to it that she moved out of those rental premises went back to her parents house and filed a petition for a divorce the man did not come to the court and ultimately I granted her the divorce because if this man is in the habit and all the time taking creditors and then does not even have the audacity of meeting and facing those creditors and this poor woman and the daughter has to face all these sorts of things so that marriage was good all this act and conduct of the husband I held that it amount to cruelty even when the husbands take loan in the name of their wives and they are not being able to repay the sum this also would amount to cruelty this has been held by in the case of Shreemati Manpreet Varma in another instance which has been discussed in the case of Raj Talreja by the Supreme Court a wife filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty the wife alleged reckless defamatory and false allegations against the husband his family members and colleagues thereby lowering their reputation all the allegations were found to be patently false this conduct of the wife alleging false allegations against the husband they said it amounts to cruelty newly wedded husband suffering from cancer hearing ailment and infertility now suppression of these facts which came to light on the day of the marriage the court held, the madrasa court held that it is a shock, pain and sorrow and a continuous mental agony to the wife because her future is very uncertain with such type of men the other thing would be reckless defamatory and false accusations against the spouse his family members and colleagues would lower the reputation in the eyes of his peers scandalous allegations by wife against husband again this is something similar to what earlier Supreme Court in the case of Raj Dalreja that all these allegations against all the family members repeatedly being done amounts to cruelty this was held in Rajan Vasanth Revankar case by Bombay High Court so these illustrations broadly give us this view that what exactly would amount to cruelty after analyzing the conduct now in a matrimonial relationship absence of mutual respect and understanding between the spouses which affecting their relationship and often leads to various outburst of behavior of the spouses which can also amount to cruelty this was in Ravi Kumar's case in Suman Singh case there was been sought on some isolated incidents LH2 would be having occurred long past prior to the filing of the petition and that too have been condoned due to the compromising behavior of the parties cannot constitute an act of cruelty now in this case it was that the husband had filed a petition for divorce and he alleged certain acts of the wife which were at the time of their marriage and they have cohabited for several years together they had two children from the marriage and the court said that now after so many years of marriage and living together it means of condon for all those acts so those acts cannot be considered as cruelty the acts have to be recurring nature continuing one and that should be approximated to the filing of petition there are times when we have proceedings where the other spouse refuses to participate in the proceedings in spite of the notice being served now if the marriage is considering the other allegations of the petitioner the marriage is almost dead then this itself would constitute cruelty this was considered in the case of Sukhdena Das case unwarranted indifference to the victims health sorry victims health callows neglect extreme bullishness deliberate refusal to cooperate and calculated harassment in matters touching the household and children of the marriage and any ill treatment of a grave and serious character may be element which would entitle the spouse to a relief when the cumulative effect of the conduct viewed drawing an influence of cruelty a husband knowing that he is suffering from vulnerable disease insist against the will of the wife who knows his condition in having sexual intercourse may be guilty of legal cruelty a persist course of dishonesty criminal convictions which creates such reasonable apprehension to the other spouse may well amount to cruelty drinking per se is not cruelty but persistent drunkness after that the conduct which is inflicting pain and misery to the other spouse will amount to cruelty such drunkness coupled with the other act of ill treatment as it is usually may be a factor of cruelty now on Vanita Saxena's case Supreme Court observed that unsoundness of mind as a cause for cruelty can be there unsoundness of mind is an independent separate ground which we will discuss later this conduct of a spouse due to suffering from unsoundness of mind will amount to cruelty the spouse may not know that his acts are wrong due to his mental health but if the conduct is grave it does amount to cruelty in such situation it is not to punish the spouse but to protect the other spouse from future in this case the husband with a mental disorder the case of paranoid schizophrenia and due to this suffering of mental disorder he was not able to have sexual relations with the wife which led to non-complimation of marriage the court felt that this act itself amounts to mental cruelty to the wife the parties were living for 17 years separately while they were living together the husband also made an attempt to commit suicide now this conduct of the wife was only discovered by her after the marriage that he was under constant treatment and observations of the different doctors which was even prior to marriage the doctors who were examined as medical witnesses and medical documents which were as evidence brought on record it all established that he was suffering from mental disorder at the same time the husband did not step into the box to submit himself for cross-examination and neither the wife was cross-examined therefore her evidence went uncontrollable she gave various specific instances of cruelty and the court held that it was harmful for her to live with the husband so her future was considered that it is not going to help her lead a happy marital life and considering that all the aspects including the humanity they dissolved the marriage in Rajesh Kumar's case of Punjab and Haryana it was held that vague and general allegations are completed and no particular or specific instances are alleged not any evidence to support the allegations are produced that the respondent wife is overly attached to her parents or she does not know basic cooking she is rude to him and she does not amount to cruelty they can be said to be tribal issues which may and do arise between the spouses in their normal marital day to day living and occasional outbursts by a spouse or use of offensive language once in a while cannot be termed as cruelty even a petition filed by the wife under the domestic violence act would not constitute cruelty for instance I will again narrate now these are various instances which have been observed by various high courts like attending late night parties by the wife we are not sending wife to a parental house these things do not amount to cruelty the wife spends more time at her parents house and does not return in time to the matrimonial house these are all tribal issues the husband may be irritated but not an act of cruelty demand of wife to go for shopping or have better cosmetics these acts also are in the normal wear and tear of mind very often the husband's stubborn attitude and over expectations from the wife which are not in accordance with her dignity with her dignity and personality the husband cannot claim until cruelty again nearly because the wife does not cook good meals she does not do household work, washing clothes she is quarrelsome on petty issues these cannot be the components of cruelty in summer goshe the Supreme Court has analyzed definitions from various dictionaries the entire legal judgements, I mean the legal views of the various courts including their own court and then finally came out with certain illustrations about 14 illustrations they have expressed I am not reading all the 14 illustrations but which they have said that if these acts are there now now this judgement is giving a little change in the view of the Supreme Court so what would amount to cruelty any act out of jealousy may not be there but certain acts which are unilaterally taken by either of the spouse may amount to cruelty like going for an abortion not having illicit relations any act which would create anguish which would not be in a very peaceful atmosphere of the house this would all amount to cruelty I will not discuss but these illustrations which are opined they have themselves said that these are not exhaustive decisions they are some of them and they are not exhaustive they have also further observed that the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static it is bound to change the passage of time the impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system etc the concept of mental cruelty would change the straight jacket formula on fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty thereafter there were more illustrations which were added to the Supreme Court case by the Supreme Court they have given those illustrations like making unsound incident defamatory allegations against the spouse or relatives in the pleadings or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse effect on the business prospect of the job of the spouse and filing repeatedly false complaints and cases in court against the spouse I would like to share an interesting observation of Honourable Justice Sri Kailash Gambit in the case of Suman Khanna his lordship has observed that parents should not become uninvited judges in the problems of their daughters reference to context of the case it has been further held that parents instead of putting out the fire have fuelled and fanned it now very often we have seen at least my experience tells me that when the matters are before the court the woman always has been saying I mean sorry the man always been saying that this woman is only listening to her mother we don't want her to keep any contact with her parents now that is also an extreme step but the interference of the parents in the modern times is being one of the causes which will now be considered for dissolution of marriage it will come slowly I mean with the passage of time this is being happening in most of the matters interference can be to counsel the couple interference can be to sort out their disputes and misunderstandings but if it is adding fuel to the fire then I think that is going to really burn out the relationship this concept of cruelty would definitely naturally be changing ma'am sorry to disturb just keep the papers slightly away once you are shuffling then the noise comes off because of the adjacent to the speaker sorry come again I didn't get you the paper ma'am once you turn off the pages to give the citations it is near to the speaker the noise comes off slightly keep the pages slightly ok ok so I was discussing about this parent interference and now with the concept of you know changing thinking of the young generation the social and economic lifestyles of the human beings the concept of cruelty will also be changing it cannot remain static and therefore no straight jacket formula one cannot categorize the cruel conduct nor can we compartmentalize every act has to be judged in relation to its attended circumstances and mental conditions of the party it's a debatable subject in different courts and in different courts in different illustrations explaining the meaning whilst analyzing the conduct of a spouse which could constitute cruelty various aspects are considered like the human nature and the changing social concepts and standard of living in Shobarani's case again the Supreme Court has observed that among human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty new type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behavior capacity or incompatibility to tolerate the conduct complained of Lord Denning in Sheldon's case has stated that the categories of cruelty are not closed this itself the statement totally gives us the concept of cruelty would change with the time various circumstances are to be considered and most important is the human mind the human conduct and the human mind which would give rise to the circumstances and considering their education values their social structure, economic status and all those things and then say whether this would really be amounting to cruelty to the other spouse now I would also like to state here that as times are changing we are shifting from the false theory to a little breakdown of marriage theory and I think this would be a most realistic approach once the married relations are broken and there is no emotional bond the ties only on paper then it needs to be dissolved you can't force couples to live together and therefore even when a decree under restitution of conjugal rights is passed and the couples do not live together you can't force them the decree is of no consequences because ultimately the punishment to the decree if not obeyed is to attach the property of the husband there is nothing else so how does it help you know to reunite the couple and therefore it's the human mind it started from Navin Kohli's case where the expression of a little breakdown of marriage has been considered as a ground for divorce but there are some jurists who have expressed the intention that introduction of this ground as it would throw wide open the doors to litigants who would create more problems than solving them the law commission of India in its 71st report has dealt with the concept of a little breakdown of marriage it has mentioned about it it has stated that restricting the ground of divorce to a particular matrimonial disability causes injustice to those cases where in situation parties are not at fault or in a situation marriage cannot survive in reality the marriage is dead a shell out of which the substance is gone no emotional bonds their essence of marriage is disappeared in such cases there is no reason to keep the marriage alive on paper this would be the right solution to dissolve the marriage as the marriage has really been needed to be broken down well this ground is still not available to the trial court and the high court to discuss I mean to dissolve the marriage but yes coupled with some other ground the court can decide this matter now this has been held in the case of Anil Kumar Jain's case that only the supreme court Article 142 can dissolve this marriage on this ground there are many more judicial pronouncements on the theory of a little breakdown of marriage they have been discussed and mostly in all the supreme court cases normally I mean this ground is also discussed by the high courts but these supreme court judgments are literally trying to state that now time has come to consider this ground also in the case of Jordan Dingesh Vee Bhagat, Savitri Pandey, Geetha Moolik Vishnudath Sharma, Arshinivas Kumar and lately in 2020 Munish Kakkar's case soon I have tried to give you various illustrations which have been analyzed and by the various courts and which have given us the directions and the indications that these acts can amount to cruelty in certain facts and circumstances of the case but it still says each case is different it depends upon each case what would amount to cruelty to a particular to the concerns spouse the conduct and behavior cannot be considered only on a particular instance which has been given or on the illustrations given by the effects court or the high court but the trial court has to consider overall cumulatively the entire matrimonial life and also the entire lifestyle of the couple before we say yes this amounts to cruelty with this I have given my various aspects of cruelty from this I go to the other ground because we are discussing not one ground today we are discussing four grounds the four common grounds I now go to adultery adultery is not by the word a ground for dissolution of marriage it has not been used in any of the sections in any of the laws the sections read as after solemnization of marriage had voluntarily sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse in other words it can be said extra marital sex now prior to the amendment in the Hindu marriage act of 1976 the words were living in adultery but after the amendment it has come even a solitary instance of sexual intercourse with the other spouse other than the spouse married spouse is sufficient for the degree of divorce mere allegations of adultery without any details is not sufficient mere suspicion as to extra marital sex is not sufficient an attempt to commit adultery must be distinguished from adultery and will not by itself be sufficient for the relief first and foremost any petition which alleges and takes the ground of adultery has to make the adultery adulterer as a necessary party non-pleading the alleged adulterer would be hit by non-joinder of necessary party this is held in Rajesh Devi's case as late as in 2020 it has also been held earlier but even as late as in 2020 it has also been considered and it's good law now adultery by its very nature is a secret act direct evidence of an act of adultery is difficult the proof required is to be based on some sort of positive evidence superior to suspicion to prove factum of adultery direct evidence is not necessary it can be proved by oral documentary or circumstantial evidence for an inference to be drawn beyond reasonable doubt that opposite party had adulterous relationship with third person this view has been taken in Ernest John White case way back in 1958 by the Honourable Supreme Court it has also been taken by the various High Courts Bombay High Court in Deviani's case Sri Vastav's case by Alabad High Court Sanjupta's case by Orissa High Court now adultery is generally proved by presumptive proof which is based A. on circumstantial evidence B. evidence of non-ex and birth of the child C. contracting vernal diseases and D. confessions and admissions an attempt to commit adultery must be distinguished upon adultery and will not itself be sufficient for relief basically circumstantial evidence is not normally expected as an accepted rule the circumstances must not be universally indicated as characters of parties situations state of general manner and other delicate and slight incidental circumstances in themselves may be important in a particular case hence the general rule would be that the circumstances must be such that a reasonable man can come to a conclusion that there has an act of adultery committed proof must carry a higher degree of probability mere suspicion is not enough to avail a remedy under this section the mere fact that some male relative of the respondent had written some most important improper letters to the wife is not of itself sufficient to prove adultery this has been held in Chandramoini's case the presumption of legitimacy is highly favored by law it is necessary that proof of non-ex must be clear and satisfactory this is what the Supreme Court has observed in Venkateshwar Lukes hence the mere premature birth of child is not per se a ground of adultery the circumstances need to be established to prove adultery the birth of a child to the wife where there was no access to her by the husband during the possible period of conception shows no doubt adultery by wife but it must be satisfactorily established that the birth of the child was clearly as a result of adultery's intercourse proof of adultery must be of such character as to lead a reasonable man to conclude no other inference than the misconduct in the case of Om Prakash the Punjab in Haryana High Court has observed that keeping in view the provisions of section 112 of the evidence act the fact of non-ex can be established not merely by positive or direct evidence but it can be proved like any other physical act by any other physical act by evidence direct or circumstantial though as the presumption of legitimacy is highly favored by law it is therefore necessary that proof of nonness must be clear and satisfactorily under section 112 of the evidence act there is a presumption that a child is born within 280 days after the decision of marriage if the mother is not remarried when father refuses to undergo DNA test the husband would be disentited to dispute the patinity of the child this is what has been considered by the Supreme Court in Dwarka case now the issue about excess and non-excess is there always a thought comes for a DNA test the Supreme Court in the case of Nandlal's case has held that when it comes to patinity of the child DNA test prevails over the presumption of the conclusive proof under section 112 of the evidence act was enacted when there was no scientific advanced DNA test but now the advancement of science the result of DNA test is said to be scientifically accurate since the truth or fact has to be known there can be no room for presumption interest of justice is best served by ascertaining the truth the court should be furnished the best available science and not be left upon to bank on presumptions the court has discussed the distinction between the legal friction and presumption of fact and has finally held that in a situation in which the DNA test report is available though in conflict with the presumption of conclusive proof of legitimacy of the child under section 112 of the evidence act this test will prevail in the circumstances which are also being considered which do not amount to extra marital amount to adultery that is nearly going to pictures dining in a hotel with a third party without evidence of affection behavior between parties would not necessarily lead to this guilt when the husband makes allocation of non-excess and birth of the child and alleged leaving the matrimonial home by wife the allegation of non-excess and leaving of matrimonial home by the wife should not be accepted without collaborated testimony of the complainant this is observed in the Kismata case by the Supreme Court Bombay High Court has opined in the case of A versus B that the evidence of detectives has to be accepted with caution and unless there is some collaboration it is harder to accept the evidence of such agency in total it is very easy to levy allegations of adultery but to substantiate with such allegations reasonable and cognate evidence has to be produced being seen is not required the important requirement is date and time it should come on record so that the person who is alleged to have indulged for adultery can have the opportunity to defend the space and explain the same therefore adultery as an offense is not easy to establish it is with the circumstances it is to be established with non-ex non-ex can be going in a test report direct proof is very difficult but it has to be something where the evidence is such that a normal person would also consider yes these circumstances will lead to establish that the act of adultery has been committed it is only then it can be said that the spouse is has committed this offense and is guilty of the offense so from this I go to the next aspect that is basically the condonation of the offenses it is the cruelty and adultery which are the two offenses which legally are being discussed which can be condoned condonation of offenses under section 23 to be of the Hindu marriage act has specified cruelty and adultery the Hindu marriage act has not defined condonation the general accepted definition would be meaning would be forgiveness and restoration with knowledge of all material facts it is regarded as forgiveness express or implied for a breach of a matrimonial offense with an implied condition that it would not be repeated Dastanes case reference has been made to the offense of cruelty which has been examined and the doctrine of condonation has been explained that it means forgiveness of matrimonial offense and restoration of offending spouse to the same position as he or she occupied before the offense was committed to constitute condonation therefore there have to be two things forgiveness and restoration the parties to lead a normal sexual life even after the series of acts of cruelty by one spouse is a proof that the other has condoned the cruelty the Supreme Court has further observed that though intercourse is not necessary ingredient of condonation in many judicial pronouncements it has been seen that when the couple cohabits are blessed with a child after the act of cruelty then the doctrine of condonation is inferred it is also said reconciliation is a test of condonation if the husband wife have started cohabiting between them after the knowledge of the act of adultery the petition on the ground of adultery is rejected this is in Chandramohini Srivastav's case but if the offending spouse continues to indulge in adultery then there cannot be condonation cohabitation with one's wife against will does not amount to condonation of act of cruelty committed earlier by her husband this is Dita Kishore's case in Avinash Eknot Nikhaldi's case an undertaking given for a good conduct by wife condonation in such circumstances would always be subject to implied conditions that offending spouse would not commit a fresh matrimonial offense either of the same variety or as the one condoned or of any other variety the undertaking need not be complied fresh petition for divorce can be filed even then can rely upon the circumstances which were committed by the wife in the first round of in this case the husband at first filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty where he had alleged certain allegations against the wife thereafter they compromised the wife gave an undertaking that she will not misbehave but she did not abide by the undertaking with her behavior and then the husband again filed a second petition for dissolution of marriage in those circumstances the court held that the husband could again go back to the old instances which he has alleged against the wife which would amount to cruelty as per him at the same time we also have resjudicator now resjudicator would be when when there is a decision given on the allegations in this case there was no decision given and the wife had gone back to her old behavior but in resjudicator if already decisions are given I am just giving you the basic principle then you cannot come back with the same allegations the definition would be a couple forgives each other forgets the past starts a fresh life restore their marital relationship live a normal happy marital life or live a normal life as a husband and wife then the acts are condoned now this can be only as cruelty acts or adultery acts these acts have to be knowing that these acts have been committed they still want to save the marriage and continue their life and that is why they say it is condonation from here I go to the next ground desertion now word desertion refers to abandonment or giving up it means intentional abandonment of one spouse by the other without his or her consent and without reasonable cause therefore four conditions need to be fulfilled there should be a factum of separation but there is a condition precedent that it should be two years which is a statutory requirement the most important is the intention to bring the marital life to an end and last without consent of the other spouse and without reasonable cause the first two conditions are assertion for the deserting spouse and the last two are for the deserting spouse the question of desertion is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case and those facts have to be viewed as to the purpose which it is revealed by those facts or by the conduct and expressions of intention both anterior and subsequent to the actual acts of separation this has been carried viewed by the supreme court in sanat kumar agarwal's case it can also be said total reputation of the matrimonial obligations desertion need not be withdrawal from a place but it is withdrawal from state of things it therefore means withdrawing from the matrimonial obligations that is not permitting or allowing and facilitating the cohabitation between the parties it is not a single act complete in itself it is a continuous course of conduct to be determined under the facts and circumstances of each case if a spouse abundance the other in a state of temporary passions for example anger or disgust without intending permanently to see his cohabitation it will not amount to desertion this is the view in sabitri pande's case by the apex court the explanation to this section of desertion has widened the definition it also includes willful neglect of the petitioning spouse by the respondent one effect of including willful neglect in the meaning of desertion is that willful neglect of a spouse by the other is sufficient to establish abandonment or expulsion conduct and amounts to prove of animus descendee that is by consent bringing an end to the marital ties on the part of the letter willful neglect to maintain the wife without reasonable cause would be desertion it is a conscious disregard of the matrimonial obligations and duties desertion for the purpose of a decree commences as soon as animus descendee co-exist with physical separation it is not necessary that they should commence at the same time de facto separation may commence without the necessary animus and later the spouse may decide to leave his or her partner permanently it is from that point of time from where the period of desertion shall be counted this has been considered in Nita's case if a deserting spouse takes advantage of the period and later decides to return to the deserted spouse by a bona fide intention to resume cohabitation before the statutory period lapse or immediately thereafter and the deserted spouse without reasonable cause refuses to accept the offer of then it would be the latter would be a desert in desertion and not the former this has been considered in Bipin Chandra's case this concept was further elaborated in Lakshman Uttamchand Kriplani's case and Rohini Kumari's case in the said case it has been held that desertion does not imply only on a separate residence and separate living but it is also necessary that there must be determination to put an end to the matrimonial relationship in Lakshman's case inference it has been held that the inference may be drawn from certain acts which may not in any other case be capable of leading to an inference that it is to say that the facts have to be viewed as to the purpose revealed by those acts or by the conduct and expression of intention both earlier and subsequent to the actual acts of separation desertion is a continuous offense and hence the fact of separation and animus descending should be continued during the entire statutory period of two years immediately the presentation of the petition mere abounding the matrimonial house may not amount to desertion unless it is shown that the desertion spouse had intended to permanently bring the marital ties to an end with a consent and reasonable cause if the spouse is living separately because of his or her job or without any intention to bring marital relationship to an end it would not amount to desertion the factum of separation is there but the intention is not there again if a spouse abundance the other in a state of temporary passion or anger without intention to bring an end to the marriage it would not amount to desertion this is Shobhan Singh case in a case where a husband was in army he did not take his wife to the place of his posting wife decided not to stay with his parents and she resided with her parents this will also not infer desertion this was in Vikash Sharma's case there is another concept which is considered in desertion that is the rule of constructive desertion this is well established that a spouse may be guilty of such misconduct as would render the continuance of matrimony relation so unbearable that the other spouse feels compelled to leave the matrimony house and in such situation it is the former who is the deserter and not the letter this is observed by the Bombay High Court in Mr. X versus Mrs. Y's case if one considers that there is no difference between a husband who leave his wife with an intention to bring an end to cohabitation and a husband who was with an intention by his misconduct compels his wife to leave the matrimony house thereby brings an end to cohabitation but there is a small rider the misconduct must be grave and convincing and not on petty issues which are in the normal wear and tear of matrimony life therefore who leaves the house first is not important it is basically the intention which is very important to consider the concept of desertion where there is demand of money from the wife she withdraws from the society of the husband it cannot be said she is withdrawn without reasonable cost but where there is no such demand and the wife does not respond to the efforts of her husband to fetch her back even his notices then such circumstances support the allegation of desertion desertion can also be proved while the spouses are living under one roof if the petitioner himself or herself refuse cohabitation with the other respondent then there is desertion petitioner must show that he or she are not taking advantage of one's own wrong if proved that petitioner did not permit cohabitation for consumption of merit in absence of cohabitation for consumption of merit petitioner entitled for a divorce decree on the ground of desertion this is the opinion of the supreme court in Savitri Pandey's case now another instance if the wife is living with the parents with the permission of her husband it is not desertion wife even when there are conditions of terror created for her and she has left the matrimonial home again it is not desertion which can be claimed by the husband when the husband makes several allegations on the character and chastity of his wife who is forced to leave the house it cannot be said she is deserted she has deserted the husband the principle of constructive desertion is applicable in all these instances if the husband is living in adultery wife has a good cause to live separately it does not fall in the ambit of desertion husband has performed second marriage and his himself force the wife out of the matrimonial house no relief of desertion can be given to the husband wife goes to her parents house for delivery with the intention to return to the matrimonial house after the delivery the conduct of the husband is considered that he does not visit the nursing home he neglects the child and the mother he treats them with cruelty he does not make any financial arrangements for them he does not even bother to go and fetch the wife now in this situation the wife has a just cause for living separately but the husband cannot claim desertion it cannot be said that she has deserted him this is the view in Ramchandra Lambas case the question of desertion is a matter of imprints to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case and those facts have to be viewed as a purpose which is revealed and those facts are by conduct my expressions of intent both interior and expert this I have already been saying so therefore to constitute desertion firstly there should be cohabitation by the parties it's an essential in a valid manner there can be no desertion without previous cohabitation between the parties the basis for this theory is built upon the recognized position of law in matrimonial matters that no one can desert who does not actively or willfully bring an end the existing state of cohabitation now we always have been seeing that petitions for divorce are filed on grounds of cruelty and desertion both grounds are taken simultaneously now the same conduct could constitute a charge of constructive desertion and could also be an element of charge of cruelty very often the facts are misled the petitioner has to prove both the grounds petitioner also has to establish that he or she is not taking advantage of one's own wrong to conclude desertion is not withdrawing from a place but from the state of the matrimonial obligations it is not specific act but a course of conduct which exists independently of its duration but as a fact on which a petitioner for divorce may be formed it is not a single act but which in itself is complete and each case will depend upon its own facts and circumstances so the most important factors for the ground of desertion is the intention of the party to bring the marital ties to an end it can be living under the one roof it can be living separately but until that intention is there it cannot be said that the one spouse has deserted the other spouse or it the principle of constructive desertion where like the wife is compelled to live separately now if she is compelled to live separately she cannot be thrown with the offence of desertion it is not she who has deserted it is the husband who has been deserting her it is he who does not want her back I have one more ground Mr. Vikas should I continue should I continue there is one more ground about the webinar which we are holding on the next Thursday we can take it on that part okay because that was the incurable of unsigned mind which I thought I could have completed today but I know how much time it will take about 10-15 minutes I am not going to take then we can complete this so that we can complete these four important aspects yes ma'am it's fine okay and the last which is one of the most important cause matrimonial offence is incurable of unsound mind now this every personal law has been considering this section I mean this ground and this section itself says that the that this unsound of mind it should be incurable incurable the expression incurable of unsound mind as used in matrimonial causes act in 1950 in the act of 1950 it was considered in weissall's case and it has been observed that in deciding whether a person is incredible of unsound mind the test would be whether by reasons of his mental condition is capable of managing his own offence and if not act whether he can hope to be restored to a state in which he will be able to do so the capacity to be required is that of a reasonable person in karthika chandra's case calcutta high court has observed the mental disorder must be of such degree which makes it impossible for the marriage to continue a person who is incapable of managing himself and his offence including the problem of society and of married wife can be said to a person of unsound mind all mental abnormalities are not recognized as grounds for grant of divorce some are curable the unsoundness of mind and mental disorder require assessment of the degree of the mental disorder the degree should be of such an extent that the other spouse seeking relief cannot be reasonably expected to live with it the burden is upon the spouse claiming these facts this is considered by the supreme court in ram narayan gupta's case this case has been basically a very important case in consideration of this section that is the unsoundness of mind and the court has expressed various views on the subject a person who can understand his affairs though is fable minded and a person of dull intellect is not a person of unsound mind oversensitiveness of mind can also not be equated with unsoundness of mind in alka sharma's case a person suffering from schizophrenia will start showing progressive deterioration in the level of performance at work the behavior would be inappropriate strange and odd in a case where a wife's conduct is such that she unites in the presence of family members she suffers from similar other acts a kind of schizophrenia from which she suffers husband is entitled to a ticket in ti hari kumar naidu's case it has been held that when the evidence is available with the petitioner the refusal of the respondent for medical examination by doctors may lead to adverse influence in a case where the wife denied the illness and refused treatment it was held that the husband is entitled for dissolution of marriage in sudhi cycle's case it was held that even a certificate of doctor may not be sufficient to prove mental disorder in usha gupta's case it was considered that a few strong instances indicating short temper and somewhat erratic behavior on the part of the spouse may not amount to his or suffering continuously or from mental disorder this is another very important case which is late good law that is sharda's case the supreme court in the said case has held that the court has the power to order a person to undergo medical test such order would not violate the right of personal liberty under article 21 in spite of the order the spouse refuses to go for medical examination then the court can draw an adverse influence the basic concern of the court is to find out as to whether a person who is said to be mentally ill could defend himself properly or not whether the spouse requires a treatment or not can be found out only when he is properly examined by the qualified psychiatrist it may not be necessary for the spouse to submit himself for any blood test or pathological test the apex court has concluded three points matrimonial court has power to order a person to undergo medical test passing such order does not violate article 21 such power of the court should be exercised if there is strong prima facie case that there is sufficient material before the court then in talochian's case it has been held that the material fact of the wife being a patient of schizophrenia was not disclosed to the husband before marriage it would amount to matrimonial fraud and therefore he was entitled to the decree again I go back to Ram ryan's case where the court has held that the court should be cautioned of the section and of section 13 1 I3 that is the Hindu marriage act they have been referring it does not make a mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify dissolution of marriage so they say that only there should be a sufficient degree only the allegation that the other spouse is suffering from mental disorder is not enough it has to show that the degree is so grave that the spouse complainant spouse cannot continue to live the marriage life in vanita saksena's case the court has held in which I would give a little background of this case was the husband was suffering from schizophrenia though the wife knew him prior to marriage but this fact was not known to her after marriage he discovered that he is being suffering from different mental disorders he is a schizophrenia patient he is you know not being able to consummate marriage he has made an attempt to commit suicide so all these acts which were being done she was you know at the instance of the mother of the husband you know the husband would beat her when she complained to the mother of the mother in law the mother you should tolerate all these things so then the court felt that the court has in fact discussed what is schizophrenia what are you know the medical evidence to be considered it has discussed about the disease and what should be known about it it has said that schizophrenia is one of the most damaging of all mental disorders it causes its victim to lose touch with reality they often begin to hear see or feel things that aren't really there that is hallucinations or become convinced of things that simply aren't true that is delusions in the paranoid form of this disorder they develop delusions of percukation or personal grandeur the first signs of paranoid schizophrenia usually suffer between the age of 15 and 34 there is no cure but the disorder can be controlled with medications several attacks may require hospitalization but psychotic lacks insight has the whole of his personality disordered by illness and constructs a false environment of his subjective experience psychotic symptoms include hallucinations hearing voices or seeing things these symptoms occur during acute or psychotic phases of the illness but may improve during periods of remission a patient may experience single psychotic episode during the course of the illness multiple psychotic episodes over a lifetime thereafter delusion is defined ideas of delusions or reference are not confined to schizophrenia but can occur in depressive illness and psychogenic reactions the causes of schizophrenia are still under debate a chemical imbalance in the brain seems to play a role but the reasons for the imbalance remain unclear if any family member is with the illness there is the possibility of the other becoming stress does not cause schizophrenia but can make the symptoms worse schizophrenia also defined as a chronic disabling mental illness characterized by psychomatic symptoms disordered thinking emotional blunting it generally develops in late and early adulthood initially symptoms gradually appear and include feeling of tense difficulty in concentrating difficulty in sleeping and social withdrawal so what is schizophrenia what are the causes the effects this has all been discussed in Vanita Saxena's case I am not reading everything because it will take a lot of time now in the case of Prathama Kumar Maithi that is the Kalkata High Court has held that mental disorder of the wife even if proved cannot by self warrant a degree of divorce it must further prove that it is of such nature that the husband is not expected to live with her that is what I earlier said the degree of the ailment in another case the Allahabad High Court has held that when it comes on record that the wife has improved her education qualification and is taking care of the children and apprehension of the husband that there is a danger to his life and children's life is not born out the court has held that inability to manage one's affairs is an essential attribute of an incurable unsound mind in Sher Singh's case and Hariana High Court has observed that the husband did not produce any medical evidence to prove that the wife was suffering from any mental disorder neither the doctor stated so though the husband alleged that the wife was mentally ill but he did not get her checked from any mental hospital the court held that the refusal to do household work or sleeping for a long time could not be mental illness to establish medical testimony is of considerable assistance there was a case where the husband filed a petition on the ground of mental disorder of the wife after 13 years of marriage he alleged that the wife took off the bridal garland on the marriage day she also drank entire milk without offering a portion thereof she refused to take food and was in the habit of drinking water with the turmeric powder she applied castor oil to her hair and bathed twice a day now these acts the court held that they cannot be a result of mental disorder this was considered by the Karnataka High Court in Jai Sudhakar's Shinoise case near mental disorder in itself could not be entitled for the relief under the act mental disorder of such a degree which is which would be impossible to lead a normal marital life or it's unreasonably to expect a person to continue to live life with the other spouse in such condition there is difference between mental stress and mental unsoundness if a spouse is unable to receive proper treatment or mental stress which would cause due to the conduct of the other spouse the mental strain would aggravate and affect the behavior of the spouse but it cannot be constituted as mental disorder therefore unsoundness of mind which is mental disorder it cannot be just with allegations the conduct of the party the medical evidence and finally the degree should be such that it satisfies that yes the complaining spouse cannot live with that person and therefore is entitled for dissolution of marriage lastly just two minutes to conclude I would just add one more aspect that is customary divorce not for a customary we have very in our country customary divorce in remote places or in rural areas common but the court does not recognize customary divorce until that is been proved now for a valid custom divorce it is observed that it should be long and it should be ancient it cannot be created by an agreement in Shubhash Chandra Sharma's case it was held that the petitioner required to lead cognate and convincing evidence to prove and substantiate the agreements made in the proceedings you know no evidence to show existence of any practice of customary divorce prevailing in community custom is defined by the court considering section 29 2 of the Hindu marriage act it is a rule which in particular family or a particular class of community in particular district has for long usage of time obtained and then it is opens the force of law it must be ancient certain reasonable then the court can consider that yes it is a customary divorce it has to be construed strictly and should be established by evidence this has been observed in the case of Shalini Dhanraj now I just wanted to give you this customary divorce because there have been cases where the parties enter into an agreement I mean they are misled they enter into an agreement and then they say yes I mean the marriage is dissolved but when they come to the court if their second marriage is in trouble and the party takes advantage that the first marriage is not dissolved legally and therefore declare my marriage as null and void so therefore this customary divorces cannot be considered per se until they have been established with a long period of time existing in their community district or society thank you Mr. because I think I have covered the first 3-4 important causes of dissolution of marriage I am sorry I have taken a long time only once the speaker takes the long time and he has explained all then we don't take the questions because they feel that the majority of the participants have understood the things rest up all lawyers are quite clever to the effect that we ask the query so that they can resolve the questions from the best person to be asked and even the students can do that but once there is a session which is explained elaborately with these legal provisions as well as how to proceed further so one is always actually glued with that and the participants being glued despite the fact that the office the others started or the professional the second part because they say that first in a lighter when they say that after 5.5.28 did the OPT tank for the lawyers during this pandemic I don't think there should be anything or you are all very active once you have to appear for the virtual courts the only issue is the cases which were pending prior to the lockdown they have not been taken up but virtual courts cases are being filed that's not the issue undoubtedly the filing is not to that extent but still it is there well we have a lot of filing and we are disposing of lot of my matters also through virtual recording of evidence etc recording of evidence but we are filing is going on and then we are disposing of mutual consent petitions convert petitions X party matters those matters are being taken that's what I am saying some of shoot of the litigation is not there let's assume there is no evidence and the civil vision for that closure of the evidence or some aspects are not being done and let's assume the final case has not been done in an MScT divorce then you are not filing red petition I don't think Pan India is yes of course like filing of the post are not there in the same way in a criminal case you are having the bails but you are not having the revision out of some order washing of the FIR that way that's my presumption those cases are being taken those cases are being taken in the district court yeah but I am saying the cross examination part closure 319 311 aspects the litigation which could make the lawyers move around that's not happening but some part of litigation is there a slow movement is there but they all say that they are all on the floodgates once the things become normal that you can't hold that so good days will begin from professional otherwise also for the society at large also let's assume there is a difference maybe it's not that mutual is always there with the flux of time with mediation process etc thinking of differences with time once you are coming to the court you find the child out there there is a difference between that you iron out the pieces so it has its own advantages in that way it's not that litigation you can settle the aspects like mediation 4, 5, 6 cases in one shot which cleared off we are not taking the questions as of now it's already around 6 so next session on the master class on law of divorce in India part 2 next Thursday again at 4pm ma'am has consented to give the second side as they say every coin has 2 sides we will see the second side of the coin not on that aspect not second side Mr. I am saying it's a consecutive law it's only in the lighter way I am saying it's not giving that I am only saying part 2 it's not even a sequel but it's a part 2 to have a more hang of that we have touched some view a 2D view has been seen 3D view will be seen on the next day we have the holistic view of the entire law of divorce so everyone we are quite happy that you are encouraging us to keep on doing the webinars sharing these are the practical aspects which help us to learn the nuances of the law tomorrow in that pursuit of our webinars the topic would be media trial by Mr. Justice who will be the former Chief Justice of Punjab and High Court along with him would be Mr. Atul Lakhanpal senior advocate and a former president of Punjab and High Court but it's a topic different we have kept the topic media on trial they are also on the scanner as to whether they can publish everything whether they are a spot free they can do everything so a different flip on a different topic media on trial so we will wait for all of you and thank you ma'am once again for giving the insightful session we are so happy and thank you