Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur Case (Simple Case Brief)

Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur Case

“Marriages are meant in heaven” is a universal saying. It is the social institution that has the social, religious and spiritual binding as per Hindu traditions. It is a social norm and a very sacred one, one of the Zanskar among sixteen sanskaras of Hindu tradition. It_is_a_bond of Love,affection ,care & meeting_up of souls. It is very much sacred in the Hindu philosophy with the aspect of “Moksha” for a Hindu Birth and Rebirth, Progeny and Karma.

The Concept of Marriage is changing day by day now. It has now become the concept of Contract marriages. Marriage is always a Union of two souls and it’s a compliment that is missing to a length these days.

Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur Case

Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur Case [1]case, Brought into light an educated pedigree of healthcare professionals fighting on the bittering matrimonial relationship.

This case (Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur Case) brought into light the concept of cruelty, which is not defined anywhere. This was basically a tale of two medical professionals into a nuptial relationship blessed with two children. They were into a Love Marriage which happened in the year 1978 and were of different religions. Appellant here was a husband, who was claiming his wife cruelty after 18 years of marriage and a victim of mental cruelty and desertion.

The Appellant husband was a reputed person and owned a reputed hospital in the city of nawabs and the wife too was practising in the same hospital. Appellant husband claimed wife’s behaviour as obnoxious, humiliating and amounting to mental cruelty and socially not acceptable. He was seeking a mutual divorce on grounds of two years separation and no cohabitation without unnecessary trifles whereas Respondent wife denied all allegations and told it is normal wear and tear of the marital relationship and wanted a discussion-based resort to the problem. (Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur Case)

This marital relationship was in a juxtaposition wherein the appellant was wanting the divorce and the respondent wanted to reconcile. A petition was filed by the Appellant husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955[2], before Family Courts, Hyderabad. The family court found that the unfounded allegations on the respondent to be true and her behaviour led to mental agony to the respondent but keeping in view the welfare of children, gave the decree for judicial separation. Parallelly, an Injunction was filed against the respondent not to practise in the hospital and also civil detention till the divorce decree is granted.  Refer : G.V.N. Kameswara Rao v. G. Jabilli

[3]Lots of Affidavits and appeals counter appeals were made from both sides, High Court too was erroneous with respect to giving judgement against the appellant and giving relief to the respondent as she challenged the legality of the decree of judicial separation and also denied the Mental cruelty and agony caused to the appellant and said there’s NO smell and Ingredient of Cruelty.

References from respondents on denial to cruelty were made to the case of  S hanumant Rao vs S Ramani [4]for what amounts to Cruelty.

In the words of Apex court, the entire concept of Cruelty was very precise and comprehensive. Cruelty is not only Physical or cannot be touched or felt always. It can be mental and psychological cruelty too. Cruelty can be one of the causes of dissolution of marriage which may be wilful and unjustifiable conduct and cause harm to a person, body, mind and reputation. With perspective from Matrimony cases, the frequency of cruelty has to be looked into with the perspective of social norms as it’s quite a dynamic institution and keeps changing. Marriage is a delicate relationship and the principle of Beyond reasonable doubts does not apply to civil matters.

Physical cruelty has direct evidence but mental cruelty does not have direct evidence it has to be probed to understand the damage. In Section 10 of HMA,[5] Mental cruelty might lead to disturbance of mental peace of the other parties.

Marriage is an institution wherein tolerance, adjustment and respect for each other are key ingredients. Trifling issues and petty reasons should not be raised to destroy the essence of marriage. After all, it is a matter of humans and cannot be dealt with harsh measures but a balance of sensitivity and technicality. As ideals don’t bring issues to matrimonial courts, Refer to Dastane vs Dastane.

Well in the above case of Jayachandra and aneel kaur, the Apex court was of the view that respondent-wife has caused or resorted to mental cruelty to the appellant and caused the mental cruelty as her actions speak louder than her words like injunctions, maintenance in spite of being a professional doctor, caveats filed that too on wrong address etc. The high court failed to examine the evidence which was close to sufficiency to mental cruelty by the respondent towards the appellant. The decree was made in favour of the Appellant and was granted a divorce.

In today’s society Marriage has its own pros and cons. Its_has_to demarcate and strike_a_balance to maintain its sanctity & integrity. There is no perfection but needs a stringent legal procedure for pulling a string to the misuse of the laws as well as to get over with long agony due to legal procedures.


SCC Online
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

[1] “A. Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur on 2 December 2004.”

[2] “Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Indian Kanoon.”

[3] “G.V.N Kameswara Rao v. G. Jabilli . | Supreme Court Of India ….”

[4] “S.Hanumantha Rao vs S.Ramani on 31 ….”

[5] “Section 10 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Indian Kanoon.”

Leave a Comment