NOT TONIGHT, HONEY . . .

 

 

Arecent Supreme Court judgment defining “refusal of sex” as mental cruelty, as a ground to seek divorce may have far-reaching implications as the court ruled that both the husband and the wife can be equally responsible for break up of their marriage. The definition came as the court annulled the marriage of estranged couple Samar and Jaya in which the latter had unilaterally aborted the child she was carrying. The court ruled that, “given human complexities courts can only review married life as a whole”. Underlining its own limitations, the court also said, “no court can ever give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty”. The verdict has a silver lining as well. Making both the partners responsible for ‘mental cruelty’, the judgment says that undergoing sterlisation without the consent of the spouse or not having physical relations without any valid reason and studied neglect can all fall within the ambit of the definition. The court also said that such instances only when perpetrated for a fairly long period of time can amount to cruelty and that isolated instances cannot and should not be considered as a ground for divorce.

The verdict has evoked different reactions from various quarters. Rajya Sabha member Najma Heptulla told TSI, "We need to address some social and psychological problems of married couples and the SC decision is a positive step towards this." But, Supreme Court lawyer Rani Jethmalani differs, "In a patriarchal society, such laws protect womens' rights. The court has no business to change that".

The judgment is significant as several family laws in the country have been branded as being severely biased against men. The Supreme Court too has noted the misuse of the Dowry Act (especially Section 498A) by unscrupulous women. In the maligned legal landscape, such a balancing act would be a welcome change.