Opinion Matrimonial and judicial cruelty
Cruelty is a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The problem is that this Act does not define cruelty.....
Cruelty is a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The problem is that this Act does not define cruelty. A bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Sathasivam and Ganguly in a recent illuminating judgment has dealt with this vexed problem. Justice Ganguly,speaking for the Court,rightly points out that cruelty in matrimonial cases can be of infinite variety. It may be subtle or even brutal and may be by gestures and words. It may take the form of violence. At times,it may be just an attitude or an approach. Again,the alleged cruelty may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions,their culture and human values to which they attach importance. In a realistic vein,the Bench approving the observations of Lord Reid in a House of Lords judgment ruled that in matrimonial cruelty cases there is no presumption that the parties are reasonable people because it is hard to imagine any cruelty case ever arising if both the spouses think and behave as reasonable people.
Thereafter follows a wholesome caveat: We,the judges and lawyers,therefore,should not import our own notions of life. We may not go in parallel with them. There may be a generation gap between us and the parties. One passage in this elegantly penned judgmentsilence in some situation may amount to crueltyis puzzling. When a spouse is ranting and shrieking,silence is the best option,otherwise there would be endless vociferous recriminations which would certainly add to noise pollution. There is real silence when a human being withdraws from the noise in order to find peace in his inner sanctuary.
Incidentally,silence can be cruel when a judge hearing a case maintains a monastic silence with the inscrutable face of the sphinx. Counsel has no clue about what the judge is thinking,whether he has understood counsels submissions or they have passed him by. Should counsel repeat his or her arguments or keep silent like the judge? A cruel predicament indeed and an instance of subtle judicial cruelty.
Well done,Obama
It is impossible for any US President to fulfill all the hopes and aspirations of the electorate who thumpingly voted him to office. Obama is facing criticism and his ratings are said to have dropped. This should not blind us to his commitment to principles and human rights. The detention centres at Guantanamo Bay were grossly violative of human dignity. Obamas decision to dismantle them was indeed courageous considering its implications for US security. Some of the detenus who have been freed are believed to have rejoined terrorist groups. But these are the risks which a liberal administration has to take and the price one has to pay for democracy and commitment to basic human rights. Obamas meeting with the Dalai Lama despite Chinese protests again testifies to his courage and his sympathy for the Tibetan people,whose religious and cultural rights have been severely curtailed in Tibet by the Chinese administration. Obamas decision is in refreshing contrast to the pusillanimous attitude of other political leaders who do not welcome the Dalai Lama apprehending hostile Chinese reaction and reprisals. It is forgotten that the Chinese treat cowards with contempt.
Homoeopathy works
A parliamentary committee has recommended that Britain should end its state funding for homoeopathic treatment because so-called evidence shows homoeopathy is not efficacious. Sheer nonsense. Numerous persons including the Prince of Wales believe that homoeopathy is an age-old form of treatment for a wide range of ills. The Princes Foundation for Integrated Health cited a detailed study which proved that homoeopathic remedies worked effectively. I can testify that homoeopathic medicines taken at the right time are very efficacious in preventing cold and cough.
Another reason given for rejecting homoeopathy is that its central concepts do not accord with modern science. These critics and sceptics should remember Hamlets rejoinder to Horatio,There are more things in heaven and earth; than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Share
