1998 Supreme(MP) 294
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
V. K. AGRAWAL
SWAPNA CHAKRAWARTI - Appellant
Versus
VIPLAY CHAKRAWARTI - Respondents
FIRST APPEAL 373 Of 1996
Decided On : 03/30/1998
Important Points
Subject
Matrimonial Law - DIVORCE AND JUDICIAL SEPARATION
Act Referred
Headnote
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - SECTION 13, 13-A, 23(1)(A) - DESERTION - CRUELTY - JUDICIAL SEPARATION - IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE - ADULTERY - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES - FACTUAL ANALYSIS - COURT'S DISCRETION - FINAL DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-wife filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty and desertion by the respondent-husband. The husband, in his reply, denied the allegations and claimed that the wife had deserted him and was living in adultery with another man. The trial court found that the allegations of cruelty were not proved against the wife but granted a decree for judicial separation under Section 13-A of the Act, holding that there was no cohabitation between the parties for at least two years prior to the filing of the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court, on appeal, set aside the decree for judicial separation granted by the trial court and dismissed the husband's petition for divorce. The court found that the husband was living in adultery with another woman and that the wife was justified in refusing to cohabit with him. The court held that the husband's adulterous conduct amounted to desertion and that he could not take advantage of his own wrong to obtain relief under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the wife's refusal to cohabit with the husband amounted to cruelty or desertion. 2. Whether the husband's adulterous conduct amounted to desertion. 3. Whether the husband was entitled to a decree for judicial separation under Section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the wife's refusal to cohabit with the husband did not amount to cruelty or desertion, as she was justified in refusing to cohabit with him due to his adulterous conduct. 2. The court held that the husband's adulterous conduct amounted to desertion, as he had voluntarily abandoned his marital obligations and was living with another woman. 3. The court held that the husband was not entitled to a decree for judicial separation under Section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, as he was taking advantage of his own wrong by seeking relief based on his adulterous conduct.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the wife's appeal, set aside the decree for judicial separation granted by the trial court, and dismissed the husband's petition for divorce.
R.S.RAIZADA, SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL
( 1 ) THIS Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 8-1-1996 in Civil Suit No. 37-A/1993, filed by the respondent applicant by way of petition, under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act.
( 2 ) UNDISPUTABLY, the appellant/non-applicant and respondent/applicant are governed by Hindu Law. They were married on 26-11-1978 according to Hindu religious rites at Allahabad. The appellant/non-applicant resided with the husband after her marriage. Out of the said wedlock, a daughter and a son were born in the year 1981 and 1985 respectively.
( 3 ) THE averments of the respondent/applicant are that the appellant/non-applicant continued her studies at Benaras Hindu University after her marriage. After completion of her studies in 1980, she came to Bilaspur and was appointed as Lecturer in 1984 in C. M. D. College. The appellant/non-applicant started quarrelling with the respondent/applicant, after her return from Benaras. The appellant/non-applicant used to nurse unfounded suspicion about the character of the respondent/applicant. She used to cast aspersions on the respondent/applicant. The appellant/non-applicant had gone to the extent of alleging that the respondent/applicant was having incestuous relations with his mother and maternal aunt. She used to remain out of the house till late in the night hours. She stopped cooking meals and doing other domestic chores. On account of the aforementioned attitude of the non-applicant/appellant and her misbehaviour, the life of the respondent/applicant became miserable. It is further averred that the appellant/non-applicant, after giving the birth to the son in May, 1985, refrained from performing her marital obligations and completely severed marital relations with the respondent/applicant and started sleeping in a separate room in which the respondent/applicant was not permitted to enter.
( 4 ) IT was further averred by the applicant/respondent that in April, 1987, the appellant/non-applicant left the house of the respondent/applicant and went to the house of respondent/applicant's uncle, whereafter appellant's parents and sister brought back the appellant/non-applicant. In or about the month of June, 1987, the appellant/non-applicant came back to Bilaspur with her parents, rented a separate house and stayed there.
( 5 ) THE case of the applicant/respondent further was that the appellant/non-applicant desired that the respondent/applicant should live with her, separately from his parents. However, since the parents of the respondent/applicant were old and he was their only son, the respondent/applicant refused to abide with the above wish of the appellant/non-applicant, upon which, she again quarrelled with the respondent/applicant. Thereafter, appellant/non-applicant reluctantly came to reside in the house of the respondent/applicant, but did not have any martial relations with the latter. It was also averred by the applicant/respondent that on account of the maltreatment and constant quarrelling by the appellant/non-applicant, the father of the respondent/applicant suffered heart attack and expired, and his mother also started suffering from tension and heart disease. It was averred that the appellant/non-applicant has deserted the respondent/applicant for several years and the marriage between two has irreparably broken. It was therefore prayed by the applicant/respondent that the marriage between the parties be dissolved by a decree of divorce.
( 6 ) THE appellant/non-applicant, in reply, denied the above allegations. She denied that she insulted or abused the respondent/applicant or stopped cooking meals and doing other domestic chores. It was also denied that she made any false allegations against the applicant/respondent. It was also denied by her that she refused to fulfil her marital obligations. According to the appellant/non-applicant she had never left the matrimonial home and she and the applicant/respondent are still living as husband and wife in the same house.