Back
2024 Supreme(All) 2206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, DONADI RAMESH, JJ.
Smt. Alka Saxena - Appellant
Versus
Sri Pankaj Saxena - Respondent
First Appeal No. - 239 of 2015
Decided on : 24-10-2024
For the Appellant : Goapl Misra,Gopal Misra
For the Respondent: Ajit Kumar, Syed Irfan Ali
A divorce petition filed within one year of marriage is non-maintainable unless an application under the proviso to Section 14(1) of the H.M.A. is made and allowed.
Headnote:(A) Family Court Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1-A)(ii) and 14(1) - Divorce petition filed within one year of marriage - Bar on presentation of divorce petition within one year from the date of marriage - The court found that the divorce petition was presented before the statutory period, rendering it incompetent and non-maintainable. The court emphasized that the bar operates on the presentation date, not the decision date, and that no application was made under the proviso to Section 14(1) to allow the petition. (Paras 11-15)
(B) Cruelty - The court noted that the lower court failed to record any cogent finding on the issue of cruelty based on evidence, relying instead on the appellant's conduct in legal proceedings, which was deemed irrelevant. The court reiterated that personal disputes within marriage should not be adjudicated unless they involve extreme cruelty or depravity. (Paras 18-20)
(C) Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - The court clarified that irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground for divorce under the H.M.A. and should not influence the decision. (Paras 21-22)
Facts of the case:
The parties were married on 15.01.1999 and no children were born. The divorce petition was filed by the respondent within 11 months of marriage, which was deemed non-maintainable. The appellant contested the divorce, asserting that the petition was filed to extract dowry.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, and the lower court's judgment was set aside due to the incompetence of the divorce petition and lack of evidence for cruelty.
Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of the divorce petition filed within one year of marriage and the absence of findings on the alleged cruelty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a divorce petition cannot be entertained if presented within one year of marriage without a prior application under the proviso to Section 14(1) of the H.M.A. The court also found that the lower court's reliance on the appellant's conduct in legal proceedings was misplaced.
Result: Appeal allowed; judgment and order set aside.
Please provide the content of the legal document within
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Gopal Misra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Syed Irfan Ali along with Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, arising from judgment and order dated 19.3.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad in Case No.186 of 2013 (Sri Pankaj Saxena Vs. Smt. Alka Saxena), in divorce case proceeding treated to have been filed under Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the H.M.A.).
3. Admitted facts between the parties are that they were married on 15.01.1999. No children are born to them. Within a period of one year and barely upon expiry of 11 months, the aforesaid divorce petition was first presented by the respondent on 16.12.1999. That date we have verified from the original record. Initially, the divorce petition thus filed, was registered as a Misc. Case No. 228 of 1999. Later, it was registered as Matrimonial Case No. 239 of 2000 and was instituted before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aligarh. Thereafter, the proceedings was transferred to Kanpur Nagar. From there it was re-transferred to Firozabad on transfer application moved by the respondent. Thus, it came to be numbered as Case No. 186 of 2013. During pendency of these proceedings, the appellant instituted a proceeding under Section 9 of the H.M.A. being Case No. 266 of 2000 (Smt. Alka Saxena Vs. Sri Pankaj Kumar Saxena) before the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar. That petition was decreed on 14.11.2000. No appeal was filed thereagainst. It has attained finality.
4. In the meanwhile, after the decree of restitution of conjugal rights had been passed, the respondent filed an amendment application in Case No. 186 of 2013. It was allowed vide order dated 21.02.2003. Accordingly, the respondent first introduced additional ground for divorce in terms of Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the H.M.A. Thereafter, issues were framed in the divorce case proceeding on 12.07.2011. No issue was framed with respect to the additional ground for divorce pleaded by the respondent under Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the H.M.A. The only issues framed, are as below:
5. Thereafter, evidence has been led and the matter heard. At the stage of oral hearing, amongst others, specific objection was raised by the appellant that the divorce case was instituted by the respondent only to extract a higher dowry, even before the expiry of statutory period of one year from marriage. In that regard, the learned Court below has recorded the objection raised in the following terms:
^^;kph us mDr ;kfpdk vf/kd /ku ds ykyp esa fof/k dh ea'kk ds izfrdwy fu/kkZfjr le; U;k; vof/k ls iwoZ U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dj nh FkhA
6. The learned Court below has not dealt with the objection thus raised by the appellant on the strength of statutory provision of Section 14 (1) of the H.M.A. It has also not discussed any additional ground raised under Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the H.M.A. At the same time, it has returned a finding on issue nos. 1 and 3, not on the strength of evidence led by the parties as to any cruel behaviour offered by the appellant but on the strength of conduct of the appellant in the course of legal proceedings. In that, it has been observed as below:
7. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is, the divorce case proceeding was wholly incompetent and rather, not maintainable in view of the clear bar contained in Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the H.M.A. No application was filed and no allowance was made by the learned Court below in terms of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the H.M.A. Since, the divorce petition had been 'presented' by the respondent well within one year from the date of marriage between the parties, the same may never have been entertained by the learned Court below. The fact that such a petition filed was initially registered as a miscellaneous case and that it may have registered as a divorce petition after the expiry of one year, w
