N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane
Cruelty in matrimonial cases must be proved on a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt; but condoned cruelty bars relief unless later revived.
Facts
The husband, Dr Dastane, sought judicial separation on the ground of cruelty, citing his wife's sustained abuse, threats (to burn the house, to make him lose his job), tearing of the mangalsutra and other conduct. The wife denied cruelty and pleaded provocation; the spouses had continued normal sexual life and a child was conceived after the alleged acts. The lower courts and High Court applied a 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard and rejected the claim.
Issues
- What is the standard of proof for cruelty in matrimonial proceedings under the Act
- Whether the wife's conduct amounted to cruelty under Section 10(1)(b)
- Whether the husband had condoned the cruelty under Section 23(1)(b)
Arguments
The husband argued the wife's persistent abuse and threats caused reasonable apprehension that it was harmful to live with her, warranting judicial separation. The wife argued her conduct was provoked, did not reach cruelty, and in any event had been condoned by continued cohabitation and marital intercourse.
Held
The Court held that proceedings under the Act are civil, so 'satisfied' in Section 23 means satisfied on a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt; the High Court erred in applying the criminal standard. Cruelty under Section 10(1)(b) requires conduct causing reasonable apprehension that it is harmful or injurious to live together — a lower threshold than the English 'danger to life, limb or health' — and the wife's conduct did amount to cruelty. However, the resumption of normal sexual life amounted to condonation (forgiveness plus restoration), and her later conduct, viewed against the husband's own provocative accusations of insanity, did not revive the condoned cruelty. The appeal was dismissed.
Ratio decidendi
The standard of proof in matrimonial proceedings is preponderance of probabilities; cruelty is judged by its effect on the particular complaining spouse; and condonation under Section 23(1)(b) is conditional forgiveness coupled with restoration, revivable by a fresh matrimonial offence.
Significance
Landmark on three points — civil standard of proof in matrimonial cases, the statutory (subjective-effect) meaning of cruelty, and the doctrine of condonation/revival; foundational precedent later built upon by Samar Ghosh and the mental-cruelty jurisprudence.
Related
Test yourself on Family Law. Application-level MCQs with instant scoring.
Source: /Users/tiwari/Documents/All Law Books/raw/Hindu law/CHAPTER-14-N-G-Dastane-v-S-Dastane.md
