2011 Supreme(Bom) 840

High Court of Judicature at Bombay
A.M. KHANWILKAR & R.Y. GANOO
Sanjeev Vyankatesh Ranade & Others
Versus
Meghna Sanjeev Ranade & Another
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2003 WITH NO. 85 OF 2003 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.28 OF 2004 WITH NOs.79 OF 2007, 87 OF 2007, 262 OF 2008 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2006 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.85 OF 2003
Decided on : 21-07-2011

A spouse who has taken advantage of his or her own wrong is barred from obtaining a divorce under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).

Headnote:

The husband's petition for divorce under Section 13(1-A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) was dismissed by the Family Court on the ground that he had taken advantage of his own wrong. The wife's appeal for enhancement of maintenance amount under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) was also dismissed by the Family Court. The husband challenged the Family Court's decision in Family Court Appeal No. 16 of 2003, and the wife challenged the Family Court's decision in Family Court Appeal No. 85 of 2003. The court held that the husband had taken advantage of his own wrong by obstructing the wife's entry into the matrimonial home and intentionally failing to pay the arrears of interim maintenance. The court also held that the wife was entitled to enhanced maintenance amount, including a lumpsum amount for purchasing a house and a lumpsum amount for permanent maintenance. The court dismissed the husband's appeal and allowed the wife's appeal.

Fact of the Case:

The husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1-A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), alleging that the wife had not cohabited with him for more than one year after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in his favor. The wife contested the petition, asserting that she had made all efforts to resume cohabitation, but the husband had frustrated her attempts. The Family Court dismissed the husband's petition, holding that he had taken advantage of his own wrong by obstructing the wife's entry into the matrimonial home and intentionally failing to pay the arrears of interim maintenance. The wife filed an appeal for enhancement of maintenance amount under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), challenging the Family Court's decision to grant her only Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance. The Family Court dismissed the wife's appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the husband had taken advantage of his own wrong by obstructing the wife's entry into the matrimonial home and intentionally failing to pay the arrears of interim maintenance. The court also found that the wife was entitled to enhanced maintenance amount, including a lumpsum amount for purchasing a house and a lumpsum amount for permanent maintenance.

Issues: 1. Whether the husband had taken advantage of his own wrong by obstructing the wife's entry into the matrimonial home and intentionally failing to pay the arrears of interim maintenance? 2. Whether the wife was entitled to enhanced maintenance amount, including a lumpsum amount for purchasing a house and a lumpsum amount for permanent maintenance?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the husband had taken advantage of his own wrong by obstructing the wife's entry into the matrimonial home and intentionally failing to pay the arrears of interim maintenance. The court reasoned that the husband's acts were a "serious wrong" within the meaning of Section 23(1)(a) of the HMA, which bars a spouse from obtaining a divorce if he or she has taken advantage of his or her own wrong. 2. The court held that the wife was entitled to enhanced maintenance amount, including a lumpsum amount for purchasing a house and a lumpsum amount for permanent maintenance. The court reasoned that the wife was entitled to a suitable residential accommodation of her own choice, and that the husband had the means to provide her with such accommodation. The court also reasoned that the wife was entitled to a lumpsum amount for permanent maintenance, as she had no sufficient means of her own to maintain herself.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the husband's appeal and allowed the wife's appeal. The court directed the husband to provide suitable residential accommodation to the wife within three months, or to pay her a lumpsum amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- in lieu of accommodation. The court also directed the husband to pay the wife a lumpsum amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- for permanent maintenance.