1. Matrimonial dispute — Petition for restitution of conjugal rights — Subsequent petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 540
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
X – Appellant
Versus
Y – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7210 of 2024
Decided on : 08-07-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Mishra, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Satyam Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vishwajeet Mishra, Adv. Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Himanshu Sharma, AOR Mrs. Aditi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Varun Sharma, Adv. Mr. Basant Kumar, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Mishra, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Satyam Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vishwajeet Mishra, Adv. Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Himanshu Sharma, AOR Mrs. Aditi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Varun Sharma, Adv. Mr. Basant Kumar, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce – Marriage can be dissolved on the ground of complete breakdown of marriage.
Headnote:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ib) – Divorce – Desertion by wife – Parties have been residing separately since 2008 – While setting aside decree of divorce, High Court held that ground of desertion was not made out as appellant has continuously neglected his duties as a husband and considering his conduct, respondent had no choice but to leave him and stay at her parental home – It is not possible to sustain Judgment of High Court on issue of desertion – There is no material on record to show that after decree of restitution of conjugal rights was passed, respondent showed even an inclination to resume cohabitation with appellant – This is a case of a complete breakdown of marriage for last 16 years and more – High Court ought to have confirmed decree of divorce on the ground of desertion – As offered by appellant, lump sum alimony of Rs. 30 Lakhs awarded – Decree shall come into operation after a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs is paid to respondent. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
This is an unfortunate case in which appellant-husband and respondent-wife, notwithstanding continuous separation at least from 2008, have not been able to settle their matrimonial dispute. Respondent challenged divorce decree by preferring appeal before Punjab and Haryana High Court. By impugned judgment dated 4th October 2019, High Court has set aside divorce decree.
Findings of Court:
Respondent did not resume cohabitation after 15th May 2013 till the date of filing of divorce petition. It is not her case that any event happened after decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed, which prevented her from joining appellant's company. Hence, desertion of appellant at least from 2008 till date of filing the divorce petition in 2013 continued without any reasonable cause. Decree for divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) ought to have been passed.
Result :Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends non-compliance with restitution decree constitutes desertion and cruelty — Respondent argues failure to prove grounds for divorce and justifies separation based on husband's conduct. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Respondent failed to resume cohabitation despite a confirmed decree for restitution of conjugal rights, establishing desertion without reasonable cause and a complete breakdown of marriage. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Continuous failure to resume cohabitation after a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, where desertion without reasonable cause was established, warrants divorce under Section 13(1)(ib), HM Act. (Para 13 , 14 )
5. Appeal partly allowed — Marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce on grounds of desertion, subject to payment of lump sum alimony to the respondent. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. What constitutes desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act?
Desertion is defined as the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes wilful neglect. (Para 14 )
7. Can a decree of divorce be granted if a party fails to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights?
Yes. Under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the HM Act, divorce can be granted if there is no restitution of conjugal rights for one year or more after the decree. Such failure also supports a claim of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib). (Para 13 , 14 )
8. How does a prior decree for restitution of conjugal rights affect a subsequent claim for divorce on grounds of desertion?
A concluded finding in an RCR proceeding that a spouse left the company without reasonable cause serves as evidence of desertion. If the spouse continues to refuse cohabitation after the decree, the ground for divorce on desertion is established. (Para 10 , 13 )
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. This is an unfortunate case in which the appellant-husband and respondent-wife, notwithstanding continuous separation at least from 2008, have not been able to settle their matrimonial dispute. For the sake of privacy, we have masked their names.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 25th March 1999. Two children were born from the marriage. Both of them are adults. The matrimonial dispute led to multiple litigations. The matrimonial discord started in 2006, which led to the appellant filing a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘HM Act’) for restitution of conjugal rights. The petition was filed on 17th December 2008. By the judgment and decree dated 15th May 2013, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Barnala, passed a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under which the respondent was directed to join the appellant's company within three months. According to the case of the appellant, as the respondent did not abide by the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, on 23rd August 2013, the appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the HM Act before the Family Court at Barnala seeking a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Being aggrieved by the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, in the year 2013 itself, the respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The appeal was dismissed by the judgment dated 19th February 2015, and the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was confirmed.
3. On 1st August 2016, the learned Judge of the Family Court at Barnala allowed the divorce petition filed by the appellant and dissolved the marriage between the appellant and respondent. The respondent challenged the divorce decree by preferring an appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. By the impugned judgment dated 4th October 2019, the High Court has set aside the divorce decree.
4. There were two other litigations between the parties. The respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, claiming maintenance against the appellant. On 19th October 2013, the said petition was partly allowed. The Trial Court denied maintenance to the respondent on the ground that the respondent had refused to live with the appellant without any sufficient cause. However, the Trial Court directed the appellant to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3500/and Rs.4000/per month respectively to the children. The respondent filed a complaint before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. On 16th April 2014, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint. The respondent preferred a revision application against the order of dismissal of the complaint. The revision application was rejected by the order dated 18th October 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
5. During the pendency of this appeal, the dispute was referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. On 2nd August 2021, the learned Mediator submitted a failure report. Orders dated 22nd March and 6th May 2024 show that even this Court attempted to bring about a settlement. But the efforts could not succeed.
SUBMISSIONS
6. Shri Sukumar Pattjoshi, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that as the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was not abided by the respondent, a decree on the ground of desertion must follow. He submitted that consistent denial by the respondent to resume the matrimonial relationship caused mental cruelty to the appellant. Therefore, there was no reason for the High Court to disturb the decree of divorce.
7. Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that after considering the evidence on record, the High Court found that the appellant failed to prove the grounds for divorce pleaded by him. He submitted
