ivil Appeal No 384 of 1977
From the Judgment and Order dated 18111974 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No 258 of 1974
AK Ganguli RP Srivastava P Parmeswaran and Miss A 425 Subhashini for the Appellant
Mrs Rani Chhabra for the Respondent
The following Order of the Court was delivered SUPREME COURT EDITORIAL NOTE Facts of the case The respondent MA Chowdhary was appointed as a Staff Artist in All India Radio Bombay under an agreement execut ed by him with the Director General of All India Radio
The agreement was for three years
On the expiry of three years the respondent was re employed and his contract was renewed on yearly basis up to 30th November 1964
Thereafter he was re employed on a five years  contract
On November 2 1967 the Government of India passed an order stating that Staff Artists should be allowed to remain in service upto the age of 55 years
Accordingly a clause was added to the agreement executed by the respondent stipulating that the respondent shall remain in service upto December 31 1985 on which date he was to attain the age of 55 years
Clause 4v of the agreement however provided that the respondent s service will be liable to be terminat ed on 6 months  notice on either side
In due course the respondent was transferred to All India Radio Varanasi
The Assistant Station Director of All India Radio Varanasi issued a notice dated 5th October 1970 intimating the respondent that his services would stand terminated on the expiry of 6 months from 5th October 1970 in accordance with clause 4v of the agreement
The respondent challenged the validity of the aforesaid termination notice by Writ Petition filed in the High Court of Allahabad
The learned Single Judge held that having regard to the service conditions it must be held that the respondent was holding a civil post  and as such was entitled to the protection of Articles 3112 and 16 of the Constitution and that inasmuch as persons junior to him had been retained in service the Appointing Authority in termi nating his services had violated Article 16 of the Constitu tion
On these grounds the notice of termination of the respondent s service was held bad and quashed
426 In appeal the Division Bench held that in view of clauses 1 to 4 of the Agreement it is apparent that the Government in consideration of a monthly salary controls the nature and manner of work assigned to the staff artists that the Government had complete control over the respond ent s work and manner and method of doing the work which was supervised by the higher authorities that the relation ship between the respondent and the appellant was clearly of a master and servant and the respondent was therefore holding a civil post  within the meaning of Article 3111 of the Constitution
The authority to terminate the respond ent s service on 6 months  notice emanated from the contract but nonetheless it has the effect of violating Article 3111 of the Constitution
It must comply with Article 3112 otherwise the termination would be a removal from service within the meaning of Article 3112 and in viola tion of its provisions
The Division Bench held that the notice of termination was void and rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal of the Union of India
ORDER Shri AK Ganguli Learned Counsel for the Union of India submits that Article 311 of the Constitution is ap plicable to the Staff Artists of the All India Radio
We are of the view that the statement made on behalf of the Govern ment represents the true legal position because the Staff Artists are holding civil posts under the Government
In view of the above statement this appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Special Appeal No 258 of 1974 which has also taken the view that article 311 is applicable to those Staff Artists has to be dis missed
This appeal is accordingly dismissed
No costs
HSK Appeal dis missed


Summary:
 The appellant wife a post graduate in biological sciences married the respondent husband a medical doctor on December 19 1982
Soon after relations between them became bitter
Ultimately the appellant wife moved the court for divorce on the ground of cruelty
Her main complaint was about the dowry demanded by the husband or his parents
The trial court rejected the appellant s case on the ground that there was no satisfactory evidence that the demands were such as to border on harassment
The High Court also rejected her case and held that the appellant appeared to be hypersensitive and imagined too much and too unnatural things that the demand for money had to be viewed from a proper angle and that there was nothing wrong in the respondent who was a doctor asking his rich wife to spare some money
Allowing the appeal by special leave  HELD 11 In order to curb the evil practice of dowry the Parliament enacted the prohibiting the giving or taking of dowry
But as the pernicious practice continued in some communities the Dowry Prohibition Amendment Act 1984 was enac 1011 ted with considerable changes in the parent Act
Likewise the Indian Penal Code 1860 was amended by introducing an entirely new offence with regard to criminal jurisdiction
Section 498A was introduced providing for punishment to the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty
1015F H new dimension has been given to the concept of cruelty
Explanation to section 498A of the Indian Penal Code provides that any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or likely to cause grave injury or danger to life limb or health whether mental or physical of the woman and harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security would constitute cruelty
1016E F 12 Cruelty simpliciter is a ground for divorce under section 13 of the 
However the word cruelty  has not been defined
Indeed it could not have been defined
It has been used in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations
It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other
The cruelty may be mental or physical intentional or unintentional
If it is physical the Court will have no problem to determine it
It is a question of fact and degree
If it is mental the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment and the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other
Ultimately it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse
There may however be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal
Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered
In such cases the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted
1013E H 1014A 13 The matrimonial conduct which constitutes cruelty as a ground for dissolution of marriage if not admitted requires to be proved on the preponderance of probabilities as in civil cases and not beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases
1016G 14 Evidence as to harassment to the wife to meet any unlawful demand for money is necessary to constitute cruelty in criminal law
This is the requirement of the offence of cruelty defined under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
It is not so under section 131i a of the Hindu 1012 Marriage Act 1955
The cruelty need not be only intentional wilful or deliberate
It is not necessary to prove the intention in matrimonial offence
From the context and the set up in which the words cruelty  has been used in section 131i a intention is not a necessary element in cruelty
That word has to be understood in the ordinary sense of the term in matrimonial affairs
If the intention to harm harass or hurt could be inferred by the nature of the conduct or brutal act complained or cruelty could be easily established
But the absence of intention should not make any difference in the case if by ordinary sense in human affairs the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty
The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been deliberate or wilful ill treatment
1020F H 1021A C 15 The matrimonial duties and responsibilities are of varying degrees from house to house or person to person
Therefore when a spouse makes complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations the Court should not search for standard in life
In matrimonial cases the Court is not concerned with the ideals in family life
It has only to understand the spouses concerned as nature made them and consider their particular grievance
1014BF Sheldon vs Sheldon  259 Gollins vs Gollins  1972 and Narayan Ganesh Dastane vs Sucheta Narayan Dastane  1978 referred to