Cruelty against Husband – A brief analysis

The marital relationship between a husband and wife and is a mutual bond of trust and understanding. Though marriage isn’t gleeful and jubilant in all the cases, in some cases marriage becomes a stumbling block to happiness and peace of mind. Matrimonial matters demand trust, regard, respect, love, affection and belief.  Cruelty is one of the aspects that becomes a hamper against a happy marital relationship.

“Cruelty” is a word with much depth, and its definition may change according to different circumstances and situations. Cruelty, in general, is an inhuman treatment against any person. It may also include physical and mental sufferings. It cannot be assumed that cruelty can only be caused by violence or by giving mental trouble. Cruelty may differ from person to person and individual to individual, as observed in the case Sheldon vs. Sheldon, (1966 (2) All. ER 257). For each human cruelty is different. Someone may feel like a victim of cruelty when forced to do a work which they never wanted to do whereas in the same condition some other person may not feel the same.

Cruelty is not only against wife or women: it may be against male or husband, female, child, old-aged person, living animal etc. It is just that what kind of cruelty is recognized by the law. Cruelty in any marital relation may be of countless variety, it may be brutal or subtle. It may be done by the way of signs, gestures, words, unspoken signals or merely be silence. It may be caused by violence or non-violence. The character of parties, level of tolerance, and adjustment limit must also be taken into consideration. Cruelty will be established when the conduct itself is proved of admitted as held in the case Sobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi, (1988 (1) SCC 105).

Now the question arises that, what may amount to cruelty against husband? It is the duty of the court to take into consideration all the facts and circumstances of a case and also look at the physical and mental condition of the applicant as well as the victim to decide that the victim has been subject to cruelty or not. For a thing to fall under the category of cruelty under section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, it should create an apprehension in the mind of the other person that living with the other spouse may cause him/her mental or physical injury. Any willful unjustifiable conduct can be called cruelty which causes a problem for the other spouse. Cruelty also includes physical injuries and physical injuries can direct evidence whereas mental injury requires expert advice for corroboration. Mental cruelty is to be assessed bearing in mind the social status of the parties, their customs, traditions, their educational level, and the environment in which they live as stated in G.V.N. Kaneswara Rao vs. G. Jabilli (2002 (2) SCC 296).

In any state law is the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties. It is sad to see when there is a law made for any particular section of the society for their protection and later that law is used unreasonably. The laws which were made for the protection of women against the crimes committed against them is now used as a tool by the women to intensify and satisfy their personal hatred against men and his family members. Women are not only given protection under the law but also given a priority by presuming their statement to be bona fide and genuine. There are few grounds which may be taken up and it may be presumed that the husband and his innocent family members were subject to cruelty by the women, by using the laws which are meant for her protection to satisfy her personal enmity against them.

  • Misuse of the laws provided against the demand of dowry, under section 498-A of IPC.
  • Desertion by wife and to bring cohabitation to a complete end. Desertion means withdrawing from all matrimonial obligations as in case Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey (AIR 2002 SC 591).
  • Wife, choosing second marriage, even though the first one exists.
  • Wife threatening to commit suicide.
  • Abusing, insulting the husband and disrespecting on false grounds.
  • Adultery by the wife.
  • Lodging false FIRs and reports against husband and his family members.
  • Having extramarital affairs by the wife.
  • Accusing the husband to have extramarital affairs as observed in the case. Deepalakshmi Saehia Zingade v/s Sachi Rameshrao Zingade (AIR 2010 Bom 16).

Giving justification on the aforementioned grounds and making it obvious for the court to believe that the husband has been subjected to cruelty by wife, the husband can get the decree of divorce.




Yogricha Verma, a fourth-year law student at Amity Law School, Amity University Madhya Pradesh, is also a student of Company Secretary under ICSI. She is a student member of Indian National Bar Association (INBA) and Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb). Her native is Bhopal, India. She is also a freelancer and an artist and loves to do social works.

The Guise of Climate change and Protectionist Trade Laws

Protectionism involves any attempt by a country to impose restrictions on trade in goods and services. Countries resort to protectionism in ways that are not obvious and meddle with the forces of a free market (demand and supply) for the benefit of their domestic economy.

Protectionism is illegal under the WTO rules; but developed countries, with support from radical green NGOs (funded by them), have adopted restrictive trade policies on the ground of environmental concerns with respect to their trade with developing countries.

Green NGOs originally emerged as influential agencies in identifying environmental and health hazardous products, produced or manufactured by humans, but now are being used by developed countries to safeguard their business interest under the guise of environmental issues.[1]

To stop the entry of products from developing countries to compete with their domestic products, restrictive environmental compliance for all kind of products- Agri, Auto, Electrical and Electronics etc, are put in place, which are very difficult for developing countries to meet due to non-availability of high technology and cost-effectiveness.

Radical green NGOs and monopoly-rent-seeking businesses have partnered with governments for imposing statutes and regulations to demonize certain products and use discriminatory double standards. For example, EU and U.S. regulations have unjustifiably categorized a number of agricultural production methods as “illegal” or a “threat to biodiversity.”

Trade restrictive measures by the U.S. and E.U. on the production of forestry products, GMOs, palm oil and many other traded products in the developing countries hinder future job creation, and higher living standards as tens of millions of men and women rely on the jobs and economic growth that export industries provide.

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) funded by EU countries and by dozens of green NGOs, was established to promote the responsible management of the world’s forests. FSC certification has now become a scheme that disproportionately protects the interests of Western paper producers to the detriment of the developing world.

FSC certification requires producers to provide meticulously updated management plans and monitor forest conditions. The technologically advanced West faces far fewer hurdles in complying with the standards that it lays down than the still-developing African and Asian Counties.

The lack of FSC certification can impair the image of a company’s products across the board other than the fact that complying with these requirements makes the otherwise cheap foreign products less competitive in the market.[2] 

Links between the Green NGOs and their allies in the governments of developed countries points undoubtedly towards mala fide intentions of developed countries. Environmental groups and other NGOs have formed alliances with European Commission directorates, U.S. government agencies, and U.S. and European agribusinesses. European Commission gave more than 66 million to environmental NGOs between 1998 and 2009 and about 600,000 to WWF Europe in 2009.[3] The campaigns of these NGOs, may not directly support Europe’s domestic industries, but undoubtedly helps to shame their foreign competitors.

U.S. federal government has imposed a ban on import of illegal timber and timber products by way of amendments to the Lacey Act[4]. The regulations impose more barriers to the entry into the U.S. market in the name of environment protection. These new compliance requirements assert that the same economic and technological advancement in the Western world are the norm in the developing world. The expensive due diligence requirements put developing-world competitors, at a distinct disadvantage as they will lose their competitive advantage because of cheaper labour and more widely available resources.

Ironically, homegrown U.S. wood products will not be subject to these new requirements, which means that the U.S. Congress has de facto subsidized domestic timber-related products.[5]

At present, it appears that measures taken by developed countries to tackle climate change has definitely a protectionist purpose and has been adversely affecting the business interest of developing countries.

WTO has to ensure that green protectionism is put in check and only those policies which safeguard the business interests of all stakeholders are allowed for governance of free international trade.

[1] The Heritage Foundation,“Green Protectionism“, August 11, 2010, at

[2] Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine, “Which Wood Should We Buy?” The Daily Green, April 1, 2010, at (November 18, 2010).

[3] Ooi Tee Ching, “Billion-Dollar Trade War Fuels Vegetable Oil Politics,” Business Times, October 23, 2010, at (November 18, 2010).

[4] The Lacey Act, 16 U.S. Code §§ 3371–3378 (2010).

[5] International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement, “Recent Amendments to U.S. Lacy Act Should Help Protect Forests Worldwide,” October 23, 2008, at (November 18, 2010).




Tanvi Singh is a fourth-year Law student pursuing B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.) at Gujarat National Law University. Tanvi believes that deductions and deliberations must be made sincerely based on well-researched information. Her academic interests are in the field of International Trade Law, Law and Economics, Contracts and Arbitration.

The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – An analysis

Goods and Services Tax

Tax is the financial charge imposed by the Government on income, commodity, or activity. As we know, there are two types of tax – Direct tax, and Indirect tax. A direct tax is one where the burden of the tax is directly on the payer e.g., income tax, wealth tax etc. Indirect tax is paid by the person other than the person who utilises the product or service e.g. Excise duty, Custom duty, Service tax, Sales tax, Value added tax and recently GST – Goods and Service Tax in India.

GST is mainly followed on the TCS guideline – tax collection at source.

Goods and Service Tax in India

Earlier, more than 150 countries already had GST except in India. A reform swayed in the Indian economy and in its tax laws since 30th June to 1st July 2017 when the Indian Government decided to introduce GST to the citizens of the country.

Goods and Service tax is an indirect tax levied on the goods and services bought by the consumers. It is a single detailed and multi-oriented tax that will undermine all the other small indirect taxes like the excise duty, custom duty, service tax and etc.

The thought of proposing GST Act in India was not something new. This thought was initially proposed in the year 2000 under the leadership of the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee but it never came to fruition. Nevertheless, it was again introduced in 2016 as a Bill by the Lower House of the Parliament i.e., the Lok Sabha and passed on to the Upper House i.e., Rajya Sabha for its assent. After the bill was passed by both the Houses, President Pranab Mukherjee signed the bill and gave assent to it. This time the new reform was brought under the leadership of current Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the leader of the BJP party who holds maximum seats in the Lok Sabha. The GST council, and the current finance minister, and the leader of the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley presides over the GST matters. Finally, after the Bill was passed by the Parliament it has now become a GST Act, 2017.

Coming to the Goods and Service Tax, it has been divided into three kinds –

  • CGST – Revenue collected by the Central Government.
  • SGST – Revenue collected by the State Government for intra-state sales.
  • IGST – Revenue collected by the Central Government for inter-state sales.

The new GST rates in India are 0%, 5%, 12%, 18% and the highest rate being 28%. As a matter of fact, there will be no GST on the sale and purchase of securities. It will continue to be governed by  Securities Transaction Tax (STT).

The Government of India finally enacted the new Act in the Sixty-eighth year of the Republic of India. The Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 thus came into force. It is an Act to make a provision for levy and collection of tax on intra-state supply of goods or services or both by the Central Government and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

GST Bill

The Constitution amends both the Centre and the State to levy GST. This would subsume various indirect taxes of both Centre and States into one. After this new tax reformation, there would be a Centre level GST and State level GST.

Changes in GST Law

GST law is applicable to the whole country except Jammu and Kashmir. According to GST law, if the buyer fails to pay the service provider, then the input tax credit availed by the buyer would be disallowed. Then he has to pay the ITC with interest. The time period for this is 180 days. Even, if the payment is made after 180 days the ITC will be allowed to pay. This provision includes both to services and goods. The GST law included “Actionable claims” in the definition of “goods”. It explains in the Act that the actionable claims other than the betting, gambling and lottery would not be treated as a supply of goods nor of services. Thus, GST would be applicable on gambling, lottery and betting but not on other “actionable claims.”

Benefits of GST

GST has been introduced to simplify the other small indirect taxes and comply into one. In short, it is the funnelling down of multiple small tax structures into one. It would reduce the burden of heavy lengthy taxation process. This basically divides the taxation into the manufacturing process and the services. GST would be charged at the final destination of consumption and not before that. This would be a great step forward to the country’s development as it will reduce the economic complexities and somewhat prevent corruption.

GST would benefit the individuals and companies as the price of certain products would decrease resulting more consumption of them and hence more production by the companies. Although, petroleum products, alcohol, and electricity do not fall under GST till now. The biggest advantage is the reduction of the tax burden imposed on the administrative system of our country. It would benefit the GDP of the country and positively affect the Indian economy.

Flaws of GST

The introduction of GST in the Indian economy has not been spared from criticism by the citizens. As human beings we know we are resistant to change and any change initially is not well likely taken by anyone. So, the same scenario is with the goods and service tax. GST is a whole new reform in the tax structure of the country. People would take time to understand and accept this system.

Real estate prices would likely go higher by 8%. Services like telecom, restaurants would likely charge higher tax rate. The division of tax between the Centre and States could create conflicts. It would also lead to additional compliance cost for small and medium enterprises for registration and tax filing purposes. The consumers might have to pay extra for the increasing operational costs by a certain amount.

Certain factors:

  • The GST would be governed by five GST laws namely CGST law, UTGST law, IGST law, SGST law and GST Compensation law. The levy of GST can commence only after the GST law has been enacted.
  • GST would be charged at the destination point i.e. at the consumption level.
  • Import of goods would be charged under IGST i.e., inter-state supplies along with the custom duties.
  • Exports would be zero-rated.
  • Taxpayers with an annual turnover of Rs 20 lakhs (for special category states it is Rs 10 lakhs as mentioned in 279A of the Constitution) would be exempt from GST.
  • GST has a system of input tax credit which would allow the sellers to claim the tax already paid, so the final liability on the end consumer gets decreased.

The motive of GST is “One nation, one tax.”




Somanka is a fifth-year law student pursuing BA LLB in Calcutta University. She’s also pursuing a diploma course in Entrepreneurship and Business Laws. After interning in various law firms in Calcutta High Court and gaining experiences about the practicalities of legal practice, she’s now keen to test her theories. An enthusiast and diligent worker, she’s also a good researcher and writer.


9 things to look for when hiring a Personal Injury Lawyer



For more details check out the following infographic on “9 Things To Look For When Hiring A Personal Injury Lawyer” shared by thelalawfirm.




Luis Avila is a lawyer by profession specialized in trial work and personal injury law in Southern California. He has experience of more than thirty years in thelalawfirm.


Intellectual Property Rights: Problems and Privilieges

The Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) have gained worldwide prominence since the TRIPS agreement of 1995, which mandated that all the WTO-member countries accord to uniform patent laws. India is also a signatory of the TRIPS agreement and as such has to follow all the guidelines set down by it.

On one hand, IPRs is a boon for creators and innovators, but on the other hand, it is a bane for the less privileged, who have to bear the added costs of such exclusive products. In India, the less privileged, which includes illiterate and poor people, now have to face commodification of their skills, knowledge and products, due to the global patent regime unleashed since 1995. Hence, it is important to consider how the patent laws have impacted their innate occupations and life-essentials.

Problems with Indian Patent System

In the years from 2005 to 2012, only 59,998 patents were filed by Indian residents.[1] Compare this to China where over 2 million patents were filed by Chinese residents in the same period of time. The reason for this disparity is not the lack of expertise or creativity amongst us. However, we Indians relatively lack the basic awareness, resources and infrastructure which will help us in asserting our intellectual property rights.

In India, most of the products are patented by government-sponsored educational institutes and foreign multinational companies. We do not see many patents originating from individuals like an ITI (Industrial Training Institute) trained mechanic or electrician. Even if someone is able to invent a product, the multinationals, with their large purses, purchase such innovations. The individual inventors also, willingly or unwillingly, sell their patents to multinationals because of their financial considerations.

There are very many people whose creativeness goes unnoticed because they lack patent expertise or lack the funds required to hire expensive patent drafting services of lawyers or due to general unawareness regarding the patent laws in India. Poorly drafted patents also make it difficult for the Indian Patent Office to find suitable applications to grant the patent. In such a scenario, it would be better for individual innovators if the government could establish special patent offices for them, just like the consumer courts, where the patent granting process could be more speedy, easy and efficient.

A country’s ability to research and innovate has been adjudged based on its ranking on the intellectual property index, a survey conducted by the United States’ Chamber of Commerce (USCC). India has consistently maintained a lowly rank in this ranking. A major problem cited by the index has been that of weak IPR infrastructure.[2]

India lacks patent examiners, both qualitatively and quantitatively, which leads to pendency and protracted application examination periods. Hence, it is necessary that the government proactively fill up the vacancies by appointing qualified people, especially those who have undergraduate or post-graduate degrees in the field of law or science, and in addition open more patent offices across India.

Further, we don’t have enough qualified lawyers and judges to protect innovations. In western countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, it is common for patent lawyers to have science and law degrees. To produce patent lawyers with similar qualifications, we must train more people in the skill of drafting and obtaining patents, especially engineering and science graduates.

IPR & the Less Privileged

In a developing country like India, the multitudes of less privileged people often find themselves in the dilemma of having to choose between an original, legal copy and a pirated, illegal copy. The less privileged, bound by their circumstances, lean towards the latter. Even the courts have stood by their side, as we have seen in the Delhi photocopy case.[3]

However, a right balance must be sought between the knowledge of the creators and the users of such knowledge. Users must respect the intellectual property rights of the creators, but in circumstances where basic human rights of food, shelter and clothing aren’t respected, it would be a travesty to. People will respect others’ rights when they are situated in a position to do so. But for that to happen we need to have holistic economic growth in our country.

It is important that food and medicines are available to all people at low costs. We have sui generis laws like The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 which were enacted to safeguard the rights of breeders as well as farmers.  But we have seen that over the years the Indian farmer has been dependent upon high-yielding seeds “patented” by companies like Monsanto.[4] Such kind of commodification of agriculture is hurting our farmers who have to purchase seeds from such multinational companies at a far higher price. Hence, the government must evaluate whether and up to what level has the PPVFR act of 2001 given impetus to farmer-led and farmer-centric research. There is also a need to evaluate whether the act has supported and fostered the small-scale seed industries and helped preserve the traditional knowledge of farmers.

Similar is the case with the pharmaceutical industry, where most of the Indian pharmaceutical companies are engaged in producing generic medicines which are available after the patent protections given to the original developer expires. All these years the pharmaceuticals industry has avoided investing in R&D on the back of relaxed IPR laws and significant government backing.

The generic medicine producing Indian pharmaceutical industry has been protected by section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 which prohibits ever-greening of patents.[5] But there is strong pressure on the Indian government to tighten the IPR laws in this regard from countries like the USA who wants to help its pharmaceutical industry by driving out competition from Indian firms. So, if in the future the government succumbs to such external pressure or decides to enter into an agreement like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which prescribes its members to harmonize their IPR laws to global standards, the pharmaceutical industry will be at loss, since it won’t have any original innovations of its own.

Increase in standards will also increase the costs of medicines. It will seriously affect the health of the less-privileged as they will not be able to afford the high prices of medicines set by the multinationals. A balance must be sought between IPR and creativity to stimulate research and development of vital medical technologies. As a first step towards this, the government could start competitive funding schemes to encourage speedy and cost-effective development of new medicines.

IPR is a necessity in the present age of globalisation. It is especially necessary for the preservation of traditional knowledge like those of the saree weavers in Pochampally, A.P. or the Kani tribal people in the tropical forests of southern-western India. Possessors of traditional knowledge are particularly more vulnerable to their products getting copied by firms in countries like China and in Southeast Asia. Their exploitation also stems from their penury, illiteracy and low social status. The government must suo moto take cognizance of such communities’ traditional knowledge and document it and help them in acquiring patents for their knowledge.

In India, it is important that right equilibrium must be sought between new patented technologies and people’s power to purchase those. The government must focus on fostering creativity among Indians through ingenious educational policies and inspire students to take risks and develop their innovative ideas. The government, through its “Start-Up India” campaign, could help such genuinely innovative ideas by providing financial backup.

[1] Dipti Jain, India’s Patent Problems, LIVE MINT, (November 24, 2014), available at (Last Visited on August 12, 2017)

[2] Maintaining a tricky balance on IPR, LIVE MINT, (February 14, 2017), available at (Last Visited on August 12, 2017)

[3] The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford and Ors. v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services and Anr., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5128.

[4] Harish Damodaran, GM technology: Trait fee war between Monsanto and Indian seed firms intensifies, THE INDIAN EXPRESS, (December 22, 2016), available at (Last visited on August 12, 2017)

[5] Section 3(d), Indian Patents Act, 1970.


Pratik Dixit


Law Student pursuing BA LLB (Hons) at NLSIU, Bangalore. Interested in social and political issues.


Misuse of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC, 2016 or referred as ‘Code’ in this article) is made with certain objectives which can be understood from the preamble of the code. It is rightly said that preamble is the key to open the minds of people who made it (it was mentioned in respect to constitution though)[1]. If the Preamble of IBC, 2016 is read in parts to understand the aims and objective of the code then some of them may be considered as mentioned below: –

  1. [To strengthen the reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate person, partnership firms and individuals and amend the laws relating to it.
  2. Maximization of value of assets by following a time-bound procedure.
  3. To promote entrepreneurship.
  4. Availability of credit.
  5. Also, the interests of all stakeholders are taken into consideration and alterations have been done in priority of payment of dues.
  6. Establishment of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India.][2]

The Code is divided into five parts where part II describes insolvency resolution and liquidation procedure for a corporate person. According to this, the insolvency petition can be filed by three categories of people- Operational Creditor, Financial Creditor, and Corporate Debtor himself, and then the further procedure follows. This whole mechanism is laid so that the companies which are in debt, pay it and if not possible to pay because of financial difficulties suffered, then insolvency procedure is initiated so that creditors do not suffer.

The real situation: – Creditors are given the right to file the insolvency petition with the intent that they do not suffer because of the inability of Corporate Debtor to pay the debt. But there have been several cases where Creditors file insolvency petition merely to recover their dues. This was the same case with the winding up petition. Statutory notice under section 433(e) of Companies Act, 1956 were to be issued followed by winding up petition filed if the same(notice) is not replied or defaulted amount was not paid. Winding up petition u/s 433(e) can be related to insolvency petition as both are filed when default in payment occurs.

It was in the case of Pawan Khaitan V. Rahul Commerce Private Limited that the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in Para 5 opined that “..the process of winding up could not be used as a tool for debt collection, it is not a debt collecting court.”[3]

Now, when analyzed with respect to the usage of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 out of the major applications filed, most of them are by creditors, operational and financial both, but for small amounts (in compare to debt recovery amount of banks) and only a few of them are by banks and other financial institution.

This also happens because the minimum amount of default is one lakh rupees.

Obviously, the courts/ NCLT adjudicate the matters on the basis of merit and then may admit, but Judiciary and all quasi-judicial bodies are already overburdened with cases and in that, petitions like this make it more difficult to adjudicate other important matters which may be required to be considered on a priority basis.

Conclusion:- To stop the misuse of the right given there should be certain set criteria to file a petition except for the monetary value of 1 lakh rupees.[4] Also, when the central Government has right to set the minimum value by the issue of notification in the official gazette then the appropriate amount should be set so that people do not use the Code and the machinery therein to recover their debt.

[1] In Re Berubari v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 845

[2] Preamble, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016-An Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for maximisation of value of assets of such persons, to promote entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balance the interests of all the stakeholders including alteration in the order of priority of payment of Government dues and to establish an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

[3] [2015]190 CompCase236 (cal)

[4] Section 4, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016- (1) This Part shall apply to matters relating to the insolvency and liquidation of corporate debtors where the minimum amount of the default is one lakh rupees:
Provided that the Central Government may, by notification, specify the minimum amount of default of higher value which shall not be more than one crore.




Mansi is a law student from Unitedworld School of Law. She has always believed that life is about challenging oneself and living outside one’s comfort zone. Be it music or national level examinations, her focus has always been on trying to develop herself holistically. A consistent high performer and student of the year, she wishes to use her knowledge to ensure justice for people who deserve it.