Marriage & divorce

Definition of mental cruelty is a daunting task. Judges have refrained from defining it. The reason is, as the court rightly points out, “the concept of cruelty differs from person to person, depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system.” Some systems permit reasonable chastisement of a refractory wife. Apparently that is not regarded as cruelty. Who decides what is reasonable chastisement? Obviously the husband!

Whilst recognising that no uniform standard can be laid down for determining mental cruelty, the judgment, after an elaborate and thorough analysis of the case law in the UK, US, Australia, Canada and, of course, India, has enumerated 14 illustrative instances. One interesting and also controversial instance is, “if a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty”. Another illustrative instance of mental cruelty is “an unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for a considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason”. This is problematic and can lead to litigation. What constitutes considerable period? What is a valid reason? Another example mentioned is the unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have a child from the marriage. That is inadequate. To my mind the decision should also be unreasonable. The judgment makes fascinating reading and will surely contribute to the development of matrimonial law in our country.

Cricket blues

Apart from horse-riding and table-tennis, cricket was the other sport of which I had some idea and enjoyed the game. The pentangulars in Bombay at the Barbourne stadium were most enjoyable. I have vivid memories of the handsome Mushtaq Ali, opening for the Muslim team with his stylish strokes and Mohammad Nissar blazing down the pitch with his deadly fast bowling. Then there were the veterans of the Hindu Team: Vijay Merchant and Lala Amarnath. The most exciting cricket matches were between St. Xavier’s and Elphinstone College. Polly Umrigar was in the Xavier’s team. Elphinstone had Dattu Phadkar and Madhav Mantri. Poetic talent was much in evidence during the match in the shape of spontaneous rhymes and colourful couplets synchronising with the fall of an important Elphinstonian wicket or a hard-hitting sixer by Polly for Xavier’s. Those were the days.

I do not watch cricket, nor read about it nor discuss it any more. Regrettably it has been commercialised, criminalised and politicised as recent events have shown. I was sorely disappointed like others by the shabby performance of our boys in the World Cup series. But what disgusted me was the exhibition of extreme intolerance. One can understand slogans and banners expressing disappointment with poor performance by some players. However, damaging Dhoni’s property and the need to provide security escort to Sachin and Kumble in order to protect them from mob fury is too much. Alas, cricket is no longer cricket, a gentleman’s sport.