Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Jagdish Singh Khehar, JJ.
Darshan Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Radhika Gupta - Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6332-6333 OF 2009
Decided on: 1-7-2013
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Section 9-Restitution of conjugal rights- The husband was directed by the trial court to receive the wife back into his house within three months, and to give her moral and emotional support- On his failure to do so, he was directed to continue to pay the interim maintenance amount fixed by the Family Court, till he finally accepts her back into his house- The High Court and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. (Para 17, 43)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Section 13(1)- Dissolution of marriage by divorce- The party seeking divorce under the "matrimonial offence theory" / the "fault theory" must be innocent- A party suffering "guilt" or "fault" disentitles himself/herself from consideration- The party seeking divorce has to be innocent of blame. (Para 35, 36, 37)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Section 13(1) clauses (ia) and (iii)- Dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and of has been incurably of unsound mind - Mental disorder and severe cognitive deficiencies on account of brain damage, Distinguished- (Para 16)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Section 13(1)ia)- Intemperate behaviour is not cruelty- Erratic behaviour of being aggressive, erratic or abnormal not proved by independent witnesses-Cruelty not proved. (Para 24, 34)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Section 13(1)(iii)- Cognitive deficiency of the wife was recoverable could influence her day to day functioning, but expert opinion is unanimous that the same would not come in her way to discharge her matrimonial obligations. (Para 33)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Section 13 r/w Article 142 of the Constitution of India - Dissolution of marriage-Irretrievable brake down of marriage- Court cannot add such a ground to Section 13 of the Act as that would be amending the Act, which is a function of the legislature- A decree of divorce, on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be granted, for the simple reason that the breakdown is only from the side of the husband. (Paras 38, 39, 40)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Section 23(2)-Endeavour to bring reconciliation- It is routine to settle issues of law, but it is formidably cumbersome, and distressingly painful to decide issues of relationship. (Para 22)
Facts of the case:
The wife suffered brain damage after her cesarean operation in September, 2000. She had remained unconscious for some time even after having delivered a baby on 20.9.2000.The husband had initially extended full financial support, by seeking consultation of specialists in fields wherein the wife needed assistance. He also ensured, that such treatment was provided to her at premium hospitals. All his dreams of a happy married life, came to be shattered after seeing the medical condition of his wife, specially in the background of the assessment made by the experts being consulted. He did not extend due care and support to his wife, nor did he participate in her journey to recovery. She merely suffers from mild to moderate cognitive deficiencies.
The Supreme Court, desirous of an amicable settlement, permitted the appellant and the respondent to live together for six months. They however, remained together only for a few days. During the said period, the parties could not persuade themselves to maintain a relationship of cordiality, nor was there any physical relationship between them and the wife left the house as he was abusing her with filthy language without any reason.
Findings of the Court :
The wife was not suffering from any mental disorder or unsoundness of mind. She merely suffered from cognitive deficiency. The aforesaid cognitive deficiency was acquired during her second pregnancy. The appellant-husband had failed to establish, that the mental unsoundness of mind or mental disorder of the respondent-wife was of such degree, that he could not be expected to live with her.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.
1. The marriage between the appellant-husband, Darshan Gupta and the respondent-wife, Radhika Gupta, was solemnized on 9.5.1997 at the Holiday Inn Hotel in Hyderabad, as per Hindu rights and customs. This was not the first matrimonial alliance between the two families. The husband’s elder brother was already married to the wife’s sister. Both parties admittedly belong to well-to-do families. At the time of marriage between the parties, Darshan Gupta, the husband was 22 years of age, and Radhika Gupta was 19. Now the husband is 35, and the wife 32. The marriage between the parties was duly consummated, and their relationship blossomed into one full of love and affection.
2. The cordiality between the parties continued for a period of two years, till the wife conceived for the first time in February 1999. The aforestated conception was aborted when Radhika Gupta was in the fourth month of her pregnancy, as she had commenced to suffer from hypertension resulting into fits, extreme morning sickness and general weakness. The decision to abort the pregnancy in June, 1999, was based on medical advice.
3. The wife Radhika Gupta conceived for the second time in February 2000. During the instant pregnancy, she had similar symptoms, as she had suffered on the earlier occasion. For the aforesaid reason, and on medical advice, when the pregnancy was in its eighth month, a caesarian operation was performed in September, 2000. At the time of birth of the child, the wife, Radhika Gupta, was unconscious. Even after the child was delivered, she remained unconscious. The child born to Radhika Gupta survived for only eight days.
4. Since Radhika Gupta had developed serious medical complications, she was treated at the best hospitals at Hyderabad, amongst others at the Apollo Hospital, as an indoor patient. Doctors from across the country were consulted. They had attended upon her, at the behest of her husband Darshan Gupta. To ensure that there was no deficiency in her medical upkeep, she was shifted to the Leelavathi Hospital at Mumbai. At Mumbai, further tests were conducted and surgeries were performed. She also sought consultations from the National Institute of Medical Health and Neuroscience, Bangalore (NIMHANS).
5. During the treatment of Radhika Gupta, neurologists and gynecologists looking after her believed, that she had suffered brain damage. On that account, she is stated to have lost her memory, so much so, that she could not even recognize persons of close affinity. Her speech was also stated to have been substantially impaired. It was averred, that the condition of the wife was such, that she could not even discharge her personal obligations. She had to be assisted by an attendant. According to the contention of Darshan Gupta, the condition of Radhika Gupta was no better than a child of five years. He also alleged, that Radhika Gupta’s condition was such, that she could not be left alone in the room, nor could she be permitted to use the bathroom by herself. Gynecologists, who examined Radhika Gupta had opined, that she was not fit for discharging her matrimonial obligations. They also felt, that she could not bear a child. Neurologists believed, that it was impossible for the husband to live with Radhika Gupta. On the subject of their marital relationship, the husband contends, that his wife did not allow him to touch her physically, even to please her. It is the husband’s assertion, that at times Radhika Gupta would wake up in the middle of the night, and thereafter, would not allow him to sleep. Darshan Gupta even accused his wife, for shouting and screaming without any reason.
6. For the upkeep, maintenance and sustenance of his wife, the appellant Darshan Gupta, is stated to have created a trust with a corpus of Rs.10,00,000/-. For his wife’s residence, the appellant Darshan Gupta persuaded his father to execute a lease deed of a flat in a posh locality, at a nominal rent, in favour of the trust. Bes
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
