<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1975 (3) TMI 138 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178462</link>
    <description>Matrimonial proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act are civil in nature, so cruelty must be proved on a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. Cruelty under section 10(1)(b) is assessed by whether the conduct creates a reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the spouse; persistent abuse, threats and humiliation can satisfy that test. Condonation operates as conditional forgiveness and restoration of marital status, and may be inferred from continued cohabitation with normal marital relations. On the facts, cruelty was established but was held to have been condoned, and no sufficient subsequent conduct revived the original cause of action, so relief failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 13:22:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=415536" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (3) TMI 138 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178462</link>
      <description>Matrimonial proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act are civil in nature, so cruelty must be proved on a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. Cruelty under section 10(1)(b) is assessed by whether the conduct creates a reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the spouse; persistent abuse, threats and humiliation can satisfy that test. Condonation operates as conditional forgiveness and restoration of marital status, and may be inferred from continued cohabitation with normal marital relations. On the facts, cruelty was established but was held to have been condoned, and no sufficient subsequent conduct revived the original cause of action, so relief failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178462</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>