Who carries the burden to prove cruelty in Dastane?

The petitioner carries the burden. The party who asserts a fact must prove it. The husband had to prove cruelty under Section 10(1)(b) HMA.

Did the Supreme Court find cruelty on facts?

Yes, the conduct—threats of self-harm, arson, job loss, and persistent insults—amounted to cruelty affecting safety and mental peace.

What is condonation under Section 23(1)(b)?

Condonation is forgiveness of the matrimonial offence, restoring normal relations. Courts must consider it even if not pleaded.

Was condonation proved in this case?

Yes. The couple resumed normal marital life, including sexual relations, which showed forgiveness, so the cruelty ground failed.

What was the final outcome?

Appeal dismissed. Though cruelty was proved, it was condoned and there was no fresh offence to revive the cause of action.

Which HMA provisions were discussed?

Sections 10(1)(b), 12(1)(c), and 13(1)(iii) were pleaded; the Supreme Court addressed judicial separation on cruelty and condonation (Section 23(1)(b)).

N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (AIR 1975 SC 1534)

Cruelty, burden of proof, and condonation under the Hindu Marriage Act — easy, classroom-style explainer.

Supreme Court of India Year: 1975 Bench: 3-Judge Citation: AIR 1975 SC 1534 Family Law 8 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi India Published: October 31, 2025 Slug: ng-dastane-v-s-dastane-1975-air-sc-1534

Quick Summary

Core idea: The petitioner must prove cruelty. Here, the wife’s conduct did amount to cruelty. But the husband condoned it by resuming normal married life. No new serious misconduct followed. So, no judicial separation.

Burden: Lies on the party who asserts cruelty.
Cruelty found: Threats of self-harm, arson, job loss; constant abuses.
Condonation: Forgiveness + restoration of normal relations bars relief unless fresh offence revives it.

Issues

Does the burden of proving cruelty rest on the petitioner?
On the facts, did the respondent-wife commit cruelty justifying judicial separation?
Must condonation under Section 23(1)(b) be pleaded to be considered?

Rules

Burden principle: The party who affirms a fact must prove it. So the petitioner must prove cruelty under Section 10(1)(b) HMA.
Condonation — Section 23(1)(b): Courts must consider it even if not pleaded. Condonation = forgiveness + restoration of normal marital life.
Other pleaded provisions: Section 12(1)(c); Section 13(1)(iii) — finally not in issue before the SC.

Facts (Timeline)

Marriage (13 May 1956): Parties married after letters from wife’s father disclosed past mental health issues and treatment.

1960: Marital strain. Frequent quarrels. Wife had fits of temper; harsh words about husband and family.

Threats & Insults: Threats of suicide, setting house on fire, ruining husband’s job; nightly abuses; incidents admitted in part.

Pleadings: Husband sought (i) annulment — fraud (S.12(1)(c)); (ii) divorce — unsound mind (S.13(1)(iii)); (iii) judicial separation — cruelty (S.10(1)(b)).

Lower Courts: Trial court found cruelty → judicial separation. District Court & High Court set aside relief. SC granted limited leave on cruelty.

Before SC: Only cruelty and condonation questions remained; fraud and unsound mind findings stood against husband.

Timeline illustration for Dastane v. Dastane

Arguments

Appellant / Husband

Conduct = cruelty: threats, serious insults, and violence towards child.
Reasonable fear to live with wife; relief under Section 10(1)(b).
Condonation not made out; later behaviour did not fully restore marital peace.

Respondent / Wife

Denied cruelty serious enough for legal relief.
Even if cruelty occurred, husband condoned by normal cohabitation.
No fresh grave offence to revive old cruelty after condonation.

Judgment

Issue 1 — Burden: The burden is on the petitioner who alleges cruelty. He must prove it.

Issue 2 — Cruelty: On facts, the wife’s behaviour did amount to cruelty: threats of suicide and arson, threats to job, persistent abuses lowering safety and mental peace.

Issue 3 — Condonation: Court must examine condonation suo motu under Section 23(1)(b). Here, normal marital relations (including sexual relations) showed forgiveness and reinstatement. No subsequent grave misconduct to revive the cause. Appeal dismissed.

Gavel over statute book symbolizing Supreme Court judgment

Ratio (Legal Principle)

Burden: The spouse alleging cruelty must prove it.

Condonation: Forgiveness + restoration of marital life bars relief unless a fresh grave offence revives the ground. Courts must examine condonation even if not pleaded (S.23(1)(b)).

Why It Matters

Evidence focus: Parties must bring clear proof of cruelty, not just disagreements.
Second chance rule: Once forgiven and normal life resumes, old cruelty cannot be reused unless there is new serious misconduct.
Judicial duty: Courts independently check condonation to prevent unfair relief.

Key Takeaways

Petitioner proves cruelty — burden does not shift by itself.
Serious threats + persistent insults = legal cruelty.
Condonation can defeat relief even if not pleaded.
Need fresh grave act to revive condoned cruelty.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “P-C-C-R” — Prove cruelty → may be Cruel → check Condonation → need Revival by fresh offence.

Prove: Petitioner must prove cruelty with reliable evidence.
Check: Did parties resume normal married life?
Revive: Any fresh grave act after condonation? If no → no relief.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Is judicial separation justified on cruelty?	Section 10(1)(b): petitioner must prove cruelty; Section 23(1)(b): court must consider condonation.	Conduct = cruelty; but parties returned to normal marital relations, indicating forgiveness.	No relief: cruelty condoned; no new offence to revive.
Who bears the burden?	General rule: burden lies on the party who asserts.	Husband alleged cruelty → he had to prove it, which he did.	Burden discharged, but condonation blocked decree.

Glossary

Cruelty: Behaviour causing serious mental/physical suffering. Must be grave and weighty.
Condonation: Forgiving the offence and restoring normal marriage; subject to no fresh grave offence.
Revival: When a new grave offence after condonation reopens the earlier ground.