SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Raj) 720

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
J.S.Verma, Farooq Hasan, JJ.
Gopal Lal Bolya - Appellant
Versus
Gayatri Devi - Respondent
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 278 of 1986.
Decided On : 22-08-1988

Advocates:
For the Appellant:Mr. K.K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. N.K. Mihra, Advocate.

A wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, even if a decree of divorce is passed against her on the ground of desertion.

Headnote:

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 13, 25 - DESERTION - MAINTENANCE - WIFE'S RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE DESPITE DESERTION - CONDUCT OF PARTIES - RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS.

Fact of the Case:

Husband filed for divorce on the ground of desertion. The wife contested the petition and sought maintenance. The Family Court dismissed the husband's petition. The husband appealed.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court allowed the appeal, granted a decree of divorce to the husband, and awarded maintenance to the wife.

Issues: 1. Whether the wife's desertion of the husband for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for divorce on the ground of desertion entitled the husband to a decree of divorce? 2. Whether the wife was entitled to maintenance despite her desertion of the husband?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the wife's desertion of the husband for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for divorce on the ground of desertion entitled the husband to a decree of divorce. 2. Yes, the wife was entitled to maintenance despite her desertion of the husband. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 empowers the court to grant maintenance to either spouse, irrespective of the kind of matrimonial decree that is passed and the ground on which it is passed. The court has ample discretion to grant or refuse maintenance, and the extent to which to grant the same, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Final Decision: Appeal allowed. Decree of divorce granted to the husband. Maintenance awarded to the wife.

JUDGMENT

1. - This civil misc. appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment passed by the Family Court, Jaipur by which it dismissed the appellant's application moved under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity, 'the Act').

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, the appellant filed an application under Section 13 of the Act, before the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on March 26, 1985, which was transferred to the Family Court, Jaipur. The appellant in his application, averred that he married Gayatri Devi (respondent) on April 19, 1979 at Jaipur, and have two sons-one born on Sept. 27, 1980 and another on February 22, 1982; that uptil the birth of his second son, he and the respondent had good relations but, thereafter, there was change in the behaviour and manners of the respondent and even she began with quarrelling on very trivial matters which continued then; and that on January 20, 1983 when he got up at 6 O'clock, he found the respondent not at home though both the children were there; therefore he went to his in-law's house where he found her and persuaded to accompany him to which she refused and acted in cruel manner.

3. The appellant also averred in the aforesaid application that after his return from Udaipur, he repeatedly asked the respondent to accompany him but she refused and since then she has not returned to her in law's house, and that, even the respondent refused to look after the innocent kids and to take them with her. In these circumstances, as alleged, the appellant sought divorce on the ground of desertion on account of cruelty.

4. The respondent filed her return to the application under Section 13 of the Act, wherein she denied the allegation made by the appellant with regard to the cruelty as also to the facts narrated constituting desertion.

5. The Judge, Family Court thereafter recorded the evidence of the parties and passed the impugned judgment. Hence aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

6. Shri K.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant, reiterating the points raised in memo of appeal, submitted that looking to the conduct of the respondent it has abundantly been clear and proved that the respondent has deserted the appellant.

7. Shri N.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent did not contest this appeal on the point of desertion and he frankly conceded that he has no objection in case decree of divorce is granted in favour of the appellant but, he submitted that while passing a decree of divorce, the appellant may be directed to pay a reasonable amount of maintenance to the respondent.

8. Although the learned Counsel for the respondent has expressed his no objection in passing decree of divorce in favour of the appellant but, before passing such a decree we would like to look into the matter and in order to satisfy ourselves as to whether there are grounds to pass decree of divorce in favour of the appellant.

9. Before expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, we think it proper to mention the principles to be considered before passing the decree in the matter of desertion. 'Desertion' means the desertion of one of the spouse by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent and against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of other spouse. In its essence, it signifies the internal permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other's consent and without reasonable cause. It is a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage. Desertion includes also the wilful neglect of one of the spouses by the other. For the offence of desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must exist: (1) the factum of separation and (2) intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end, coupled with the conditions of absence of con

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top