2001 Supreme(SC) 704

2001(3) Supreme 403
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Rajasthan High Court)
D.P. Mohapatra and Brijesh Kumar, JJ.
Chetan Dass -Appellant
versus
Kamla Devi -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 14740 of 1996
Decided on 17-4-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R. Venkataramani, Sr. Advocate, Satya Mitra Garg, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Sudhir Mendiratta, Krishnanand Pandeya, Advocates.

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
A decree of divorce on the ground of marriage having been irretrievably broken cannot be granted in facts and circumstances of this case. It was rightly negatived by 1st Appellate Court. Moreover, it will not be appropriate to apply any submission of broken marriage as a straight jacket formula for grant of relief of divorce.

Headnote:(i) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-Section 13-Divorce petition by husband on ground of desertion and cruelty by wife-Dismissed by District Judge-Upheld by High Court-Evidence on record showing desertion was for sufficient cause and there was no cruelty-Whether findings of fact as recorded by two Courts below deserve to be disturbed in any manner? (No). (Paras 8 and 9)

       (ii) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-Sections 13 and 23(1)(a) & (b)-Divorce claimed by husband on ground that marriage have been irretrievably broken-Husband found guilty of adulterous conduct-Taking advantage of his own wrong-Whether entitled to divorce on said ground? (No)-Broken marriage whether a ground of divorce? (No)-Effect-Appeal dismissed with costs-Case law discussed.

       Held : The learned Appellate Court, in our view, rightly came to the conclusion that the relief could not be granted to the appellant by passing a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage on the ground that the marriage had broken down irretrievably. (Para 9)

       In the present case, the allegations of adulterous conduct of the appellant have been found to be correct and the courts below have recorded a finding to the same effect. In such circumstances, in our view, the provisions contained under Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act would be attracted and the appellant would not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Let the things be not misunderstood nor any permissiveness under the law be inferred, allowing an erring party who has been found to be so by recording of a finding of fact in judicial proceedings, that it would be quite easy to push and drive the spouse to corner and then brazenly take a plea of desertion on the part of the party suffering so long at the hands of the wrong-doer and walk away out of the matrimonial alliance on the ground that marriage has broken down. Lest the institution of marriage and the matrimonial bonds get fragile easily to be broken which may serve the purpose most welcome to the wrong-doer who, by heart, wished such an outcome by passing on the burden of his wrong-doing to the other party alleging her to be the deserter leading to the breaking point. In this case, we also find that the respondent is still prepared to live even at this stage of her life with the appellant but rightly on the condition that the appellant disassociates himself from Sosamma Thomas. There has been no cause of grievance or any allegation of objectionable behaviour by any one except the meek pleaput forward by the husband that she was dissatisfied with the living conditions at Kirawad and she wanted him to live in Vijaynagar. Such allegations have been found to be incorrect. She also lived in Ganganagar. Had only living in Kirawad been the problem, there was no occasion for her to be dissatisfied in living in Sriganganagar, at least none has been indicated by the appellant. In this case, the averments made in the petition for obtaining a decree for divorce, namely, desertion on the part of the wife without any reasonable cause have not been found to be correct. The petition was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. The defence of the respondent for having a justified reason to live away from the husband has been found to be correct. Behaviour of the appellant certainly falls in the category of misconduct on his part. In such circumstances, it is too much on his part to claim that he be given the advantage of his own wrong and be granted a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion on the part of his wife who is still prepared to live with him provided he snaps his relationship with the other woman. Similar offer had also been made on behalf of the appellant, which, we have already dealt in the earlier part of the Judgment. He perhaps prefers to snap relationship with the respondent rather than with Sosamma Thomas. A decree of divorce on the ground of marriage having been irretrievably broken cannot be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case as indicated above. In the result, the appeal has no merit and it is dismissed with costs which is assessed as Rs. 10,000/-. (Paras 18 to 21)

       Held also : Matrimonial matters are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship. It demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection with sufficient play for reasonable adjustments with the spouse. The relationship has to conform to the social norms as well. The matrimonial conduct has now come to be governed by Statute framed, keeping in view such norms and changed social order. It is sought to be controlled in the interest of the individuals as well as in broader perspective, for regulating matrimonial norms for making of a well knit, healthy and not a disturbed and porous society. Institution of marriage occupies an important place and role to play in the society, in general. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to apply any submission of "irretrievably broken marriage" as a straight jacket formula for grant of relief of divorce. This aspect has to be considered in the background of the other facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 13)