Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.
V. Bhagat, Appellant
Versus
Mrs. D. Bhagat, Respondent.
I. A. No. 1 of 1993, in Civil Appeals No. 424 of 1987,
D/- 19-11-1993.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. G. L. Sanghi, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Ashok Grover, Advocate with him, for Appellant; Mr. Bawa Shiv Charan Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Kawaljit Kochhar and Mr. J. D. Jain, Advocates with him, for Respondent.
Hindu Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 - Section 10 (l)(b) and 13(l)(ia) - Hindu Marriage Act - Sued for divorce - Adulterous course - Mental cruelty - Cross-examination - Husband sued for divorce on ground that wife is guilty of adulterous course of life - Wife not only denied allegation – She attributed allegation to lack of mental equilibrium of husband - Husband then amended his petition he alleged a new ground for divorce viz., mental cruelty - According to him, allegations made in the written statement per se constitute cruelty which entitled him straightway to a divorce without going into original allegation of adultery - He is also relying upon certain questions put to him in cross-examination by counsel for respondent and said counsels explanatory statement made in that connection - Respondent was working in a Television Company at time of her marriage - After birth of a child she left job - Respondent started working again from year, onwards - To start with she was employed in a Travel Agency - Somewhere around petitioner began suspecting her of infidelity– Held, obvious conclusion is that she has resolved to live in agony only to make life a miserable-hell. for the petitioner as well - This type of callous attitude in context of facts of this case leaves no manner of doubt in Court mind that respondent is bent upon treating petitioner with mental-cruelty - It is abundantly clear that marriage between parties has broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of their coming together, or living together again - There must be really some extraordinary features to warrant grant of divorce on basis of pleadings (and other admitted material) without a full trial - Irretrievable break-down of marriage is not a ground by itself - But while scrutinising evidence on record to determine whether ground(s) alleged is made out and in determining relief to be granted, said circumstance can certainly be borne in mind - Petition for divorce H. M. Case No. pending in Delhi High Court is withdrawn to file of this Court and is allowed - Marriage between parties is dissolved - In circumstances, allegations levelled by petitioner against wife are held not proved - Honour and character of the respondent-wife stands vindicated - Petition allowed.
Key Points: - The divorce petition had remained pending for over 8 years, with repeated directions from the Supreme Court for expeditious disposal, yet the trial was not completed (!) (!) . - Mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) includes conduct that inflicts mental pain and suffering, making it impossible for the other party to live together (!) . - Cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional, and its determination depends on the nature of conduct, its impact, and all circumstances of the case (!) (!) . - Allegations that one party is a mental patient, suffers from paranoid disorder, and that their family has a streak of insanity, when made formally in court and cross-examination, can constitute mental cruelty (!) (!) . - Where the marriage is irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility of reconciliation, the Court may take the unusual step of granting divorce on the basis of pleadings without full trial (!) (!) . - A spouse is entitled to defend themselves against unfounded allegations, but such defence must not cross the line into mental cruelty by making baseless assertions that cause mental pain and anguish (!) (!) . - The Court clarified that Section 13(1)(ia) uses the words "treated the petitioner with cruelty" without defining cruelty, and the term must be understood in the ordinary sense in matrimonial affairs (!) . - In the facts of this case, the allegations and conduct were such that the marriage had effectively broken down, and granting divorce was a fit and proper resolution (!) (!) . - There was no order as to costs in the case (!) . - The petition for divorce was ultimately allowed, and the marriage was dissolved (!) .
Judgment
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY J. - This is an unusual case calling for an unusual solution. The husband sued for divorce on the ground that the wife is guilty of adulterous course of life. The wife not only denied the allegation -she attributed the allegation to lack of mental equilibrium of the husband. The husband then amended his petition; he alleged a new ground for divorce viz., mental cruelty. According to him, the allegations made in the written statement per se constitute cruelty which entitled him straightway to a divorce without going into the original allegation of adultery. He is also relying upon certain questions put to him in cross-examination by the counsel for the respondent and the said counsels explanatory statement made in that connection. We may elaborate.
2. The petitioner-applicant, Shri V. Bhagat is an Advocate practising in this Court and Delhi High Court. He is now aged about 55 years. The respondent-wife is working at present as the Vice-President of I.T.D.C.. a Public Sector Corporation. She is aged about 50 years. They were married in the year 1966. They have two grown-up children now - a son and a daughter. The son is a doctor while the daughter holds a degree in M.B.A. and is working with an American Company in California.
3. The respondent was working in a Television Company at the time of her marriage. After the birth of a child she left the job in August, 1967. The respondent started working again from the year, 1972 onwards. To start with she was employed in a Travel Agency. Somewhere around 1978-79, the petitioner began suspecting her of infidelity. According to him, when he questioned the respondent of her adulterous behaviour, she admitted the same and asked to be pardoned. The wife denies this, She says, she never made any such admission and that the allegation is a totally false one. From 1980 onwards the petitioner was making attempts to obtain a divorce by consent. The respondent was not willing. On May 28, 1985, he instituted the present petition for divorce in the District Court, Delhi. The divorce petition runs into more than 160 paragraphs. The main ground is adultery. According to husband, the wife is an incorrigible adulteress. The respondent filed the written statement denying the allegations. The written statement, if anything, is even lengthier and more voluminous than the divorce petition. She has denied the allegation in toto. According to her, the husband is like Othello a pathologically suspicious character.
4. On February 5, 1986, the petition for divorce was withdrawn and transferred to the High Court of Delhi. It was assigned to Justice H. C. Goel. The learned Judge struck out a large number of paragraphs from the petition for divorce. Against the order of the learned Judge, the petitioner approached this Court by way of an appeal which was allowed on February 19, 1987. On that occasion, this Court directed the learned Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to nominate a learned Judge to take up the divorce petition and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible. It was directed that the matter may be heard on day-to-day basis as far as possible.
5. In May 1987, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application before the High Court for passing a decree of divorce on the basis of the averments made by the respondent in her written statement/counter. According to him, those allegations amounted to cruelty against him and furnished adequate grounds for passing a decree of divorce. He then filed an application in this Court to withdraw the said interlocutory application to the file of this Court and grant the relief prayed for by him. This Court refused to do so. The interlocutory application filed by him was dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter, he amended his petition for divorce and again filed another interlocutory application for granting divorce on the basis of the averments made by the respondent in her written statement. This application too was dismissed by the High Co
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
