Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul and Amar Nath (Kesharwani), JJ.
Abhishek Parashar v. Smt. Neha Parashar
First Appeals No. 1124 of 2019 and 1125 of 2019 (Jabalpur): against the judgment dated 27.3.2019 passed in RCS No. 1289A/2015 and RCS No. 516A/2017;
Decided on 17.1.2023
(1) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S. 13 (1A) (i) -- maintainability of appeal -- decree of judicial separation passed in proceedings for divorce -- appeal -- clause (1A) is an enabling provision – does not come in way of assailing judgment whereby decree of divorce was not granted -- it is a fresh and independent enabling provision available to either party to seek divorce after one year from date of passing of decree for judicial separation -- not impediment for maintainability of appeal. [Paras 19 & 20
(2) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S. 13 -- cruelty -- wife used to call husband impotent -- misbehaved with family members and relatives -- made allegation of illicit relation with another lady -- used to tell him that he had illicit relation with real sister -- when parents of husband came to meet their grandson, wife did not permit them even to touch grandson -- parents of husband went back weeping -- conduct of wife clearly falls within ambit of ‘cruelty’. (2014) 7 SCC 640 followed. [Paras 22 to 26 & 36
(3) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- Ss. 13 and 13A -- alternate relief of judicial separation -- discretion of Court must be exercised judiciously -- cannot be based on unjustifiable reasons -- clear finding of ‘cruelty’ and ‘mental cruelty’ recorded against wife -- Court not justified in declining decree of divorce and passing decree of judicial separation. 2021 SCC Online Bom. 2361 relied on.
[Paras 33 & 34
(4) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- Ss. 13 and 9 -- cruelty -- subsequent events – can be taken into account – parties not living together since 2014 – wife residing at Australia – has not made any effort/pains to contact her counsel or to participate in proceedings – no useful purpose would be served in entertaining appeal regarding her claim u/s. 9. (2014) 7 SCC 640, (2013) 5 SCC 226 and (2007) 5 SCC 660 followed. [Paras 37 to 40
(5) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- Ss. 9, 13 and 13A -- cruelty -- after forming definite opinion regarding ‘cruelty’, it was not proper for Court to decline decree of divorce and in lieu thereof grant decree of judicial separation -- more so when subsequent facts and entire factual backdrop show that it is not possible for parties to live together. [Para 41
(6) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S. 25 -- permanent alimony -- in absence of application, no directions can be issued for grant of permanent alimony. 1982 SCC Online MP 275, (2000) 6 SCC 359 and (2003) 5 SCC 448 followed. MANU/MP/0699/1997, 1 (1982) DMC 83, 1 (1984) DMC 120, 2003 (2) MPLJ 560, F. A. No. 665 of 2010 decided on 23.10.2012 and (2003) 1 MPLJ 513 relied on. 2019 (4) MPLJ 694 and (2020) 2 MPLJ 561 per incuriam. SLP No. 27693 of 2019 decided on 3.2.2022, AIR 2005 SC 422 and (2000) 1 MPLJ 19 referred to. [Para 46
(7) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – S. 25 – permanent alimony – various factual aspects regarding income, expenditure etc. of parties required to be taken into account – sufficient/complete material not available before appellate Court – prayer for grant of permanent alimony declined – however, wife may file application u/s. 25 before Court of competent jurisdiction. (2021) 2 SCC 324 followed. 2000 (2) CTC 449 distinguished. [Paras 46 & 48
(8) Precedent – is what is actually decided by apex Court – not what logically flows from it. (1968) 2 SCR 154, (1976) 3 SCC 334, (1987) 1 SCC 213 and (2007) 5 SCC 371 followed. [Para 47
¼1½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 && èkkjk 13¼1d½¼i½ && vihy pyus ;ksX; gksuk && fookg&foPNsn dh dk;Zokgh esa U;kf;d i`Fkd~dj.k dh fMØh ikfjr && vihy && [kaM ¼1d½ lkeF;Zdkjh mica/k gS && ,sls fu.kZ; ij vk{ksi djus ds vkM+s ugha vkrk ftlds }kjk fookg&foPNsn dh fMØh iznku ugha dh xbZ && og U;kf;d i`Fkd~dj.k dh fMØh ikfjr gksus ds fnukad ls ,d o"kZ i'pkr~ fookg&foPNsn dh bZIlk djus ds fy, nksuksa esa ls izR;sd i{kdkj dks miyC/k uwru ,oa Lora= lkeF;Zdkjh mica/k gS && vihy pyus ;ksX; gksus esa ck/kk ughaA ¼iSjk 19 ,oa 20
¼2½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 && èkkjk 13 && Øwjrk && iRuh ifr dks uiqald cqykrh Fkh && dqVqac ds lnL;ksa rFkk ukrsnkjksa ls nqO;Zogkj fd;k && ,d vU; efgyk ds lkFk v;qDr laca/k dk vfHkdFku fd;k && ifr ls dgrh Fkh fd ifr ds lxh cgu ls v;qDr laca/k gSa && ifr ds ekrk&firk vius ikS= ls HkasV djus vk, rc iRuh us mUgsa ikS= dks Li'kZ rd djus ugha fn;k && ifr ds ekrk&firk foyki djrs gq, ykSV x, && iRuh dk vkpj.k Li"Vr% ^Øwjrk* dh ifjf/k esa vkrk gSA ¼2014½7 ,l lh lh 640 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 22 ls 26 ,oa 36
¼3½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 && èkkjk 13 rFkk 13d && U;kf;d i`FkDdj.k dk oSdfYid vuqrks"k && U;k;ky; dk foosdkf/kdkj U;k;lEer ढax ls iz;qDr fd;k tkuk vko';d && ,sls dkj.kksa ij vk/kkfjr ugha gks ldrk tks U;k;ksfpr ugha && ^Øwjrk* vkSj ^ekufld Øwjrk* dk Li"V fu"d"kZ iRuh ds fo#) vfHkfyf[kr && U;k;ky; }kjk fookg&foPNsn dh fMØh ls bUdkj fd;k tkuk vkSj U;kf;d i`Fkd~dj.k dh fMØh ikfjr dh tkuk U;k;ksfpr ughaA 2021 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu cacbZ 2361 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 33 ,oa 34
¼4½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 && èkkjk 13 rFkk 9 && Øwjrk && i'pkr~orhZ ?kVuk,¡ && fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gS && i{kdkj 2014 ls lkFk fuokljr ugha && iRuh vkLVªsfy;k esa fuokljr && vius dkmUlsy ls laidZ djus vFkok dk;Zokgh esa Hkkx ysus dk dksbZ izR;Ru@d"V ugha fd;k && /kkjk 9 ds v/khu mlds nkos ds laca/k esa vihy xzg.k djus ls dksbZ mi;ksx iz;kstu iw.kZ ugha gksxkA ¼2014½7 ,l lh lh 640] ¼2013½5 ,l lh lh 226 rFkk ¼2007½5 ,l lh lh 660 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 37 ls 40
¼5½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 && èkkjk 9] 13 rFkk 13d && ^Øwjrk && ^Øwjrk* ds ckjs esa fuf'pr jk; xfBr djus ds i'pkr~] U;k;ky; }kjk fookg&foPNsn dh fMØh ls bUdkj rFkk mlds LFkku ij U;kf;d i`Fkd~dj.k dh fMØh dk iznku mfpr ugha Fkk && rc vkSj Hkh] tc i'pkr~orhZ rF;ksa vkSj laiw.kZ rF;kRd i`"BHkwfe ls nf'kZr fd i{kdkjksa dk lkFk jguk laHko ughaA ¼iSjk 41
¼6½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 && èkkjk 25 && LFkk;h fuokZfgdk && vkosnu ds vHkko esa LFkk;h fuokZfgdk ds fy, funs'k tkjh ugha fd, tk ldrsA 1982 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,e ih 275] ¼2000½6 ,l lh lh 359 rFkk ¼2003½5 ,l lh lh 448 vuqlfjrA euq@,e ih@0699@1997] 1¼1982½ Mh ,e lh 83] 1¼1984½ Mh ,e lh 120] 2003¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 560] izFke vihy Ø- 665 lu~ 2010 fu.khZr fnukad 23-10-2012 rFkk 2003 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 105 voyafcrA 2019¼4½ ,e ih ,y ts 694 rFkk ¼2020½2 ,e ih ,y ts 561 vuo/kkurk ds dkj.k vfHkfu/kkZfjrA fo'ks"k btktr ;kfpdk Ø- 27693 lu~ 2019 fu.khZr fnukad 3-3-2022] , vkb vkj 2005 ,l lh 422 rFkk ¼2000½1 ,e ih ,y ts 19 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 46
¼7½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 && èkkjk 25 && LFkk;h fuokZfgdk && i{kdkjksa dh vk;] O;; vkfn ls lacaf/kr fofHkUu igywvksa ij /;ku fn;k tkuk vko';d && vihy U;k;ky; ds le{k i;kZIr@iw.kZ lkexzh miyC/k ugha && LFkk;h fuokZfgdk iznku fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk ukeatwj && rFkkfi] iRuh l{ke vfèkdkfjrk;qDr U;k;ky; ds le{k /kkjk 25 ds v/khu vkosnu izLrqr dj ldrh gSA ¼2021½2 ,l lh lh 324 vuqlfjrA 2000¼2½ lh Vh lh 449 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 46 ,oa 48
¼8½ iwoZ fu.kZ; && og gS tks loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk okLro esa fofuf'pr fd;k tk, &&og ugha tks mlls rkfdZd :i ls izokfgr gksA ¼1968½2 ,l lh vkj 154] ¼1976½3 ,l lh lh 334] ¼1987½1 ,l lh lh 213 rFkk ¼2007½5 ,l lh lh 371 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 47
JUDGMENT
1. The common judgment dated 27th March, 2019 passed in RCS No. 1289A/2015 and RCS No. 516A / 2017 is subject matter of challenge in these appeals. RCS No. 1289A/2015 was an application filed under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (H.M. Act) by the husband seeking decree of divorce on various grounds whereas other RCS was an application filed under section 9 of H.M. Act by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights. The Court below by the impugned judgment dated 27th March, 2019 decided both the matters and while rejecting the RCS No. 516A /2017 passed judgment and decree in RCS No. 1289A/2015 and granted a decree of judicial separation in favour of the husband.
2. The parties are at logger heads on the validity of this common judgment dated 27th March, 2019. The grievance of appellant– husband is that as per the findings given by the Court below, a clear case was made out by the husband for grant of a decree of divorce. The Court below has committed an error in not granting the decree of Divorce and instead granted a decree of judicial separation.
3. The grievance of wife is that the finding given by the Court below shows that there was a possibility of reunion between the parties. The husband continued to help the wife in various aspects and in that event, when possibility of reunion was alive, the Court was not justified in rejecting the application for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the wife.
FA No.1124/2019
4. This appeal is preferred by husband feeling aggrieved by the part of impugned judgment whereby instead of passing a decree of divorce, the Court below granted a decree of judicial separation.
5. Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not aggrieved by the finding in the impugned judgment to the extent it relates to the ground of ‘desertion’. By taking this Court to various paragraphs of the impugned judgment, it is submitted that almost all the grounds relating to ‘cruelty’ were accepted by the Court below in the impugned judgment. In that event, it was not open to the Court below to pass a decree of judicial separation. The Court below in no uncertain terms gave a finding regarding ‘mental cruelty’ on the part of the wife. The reliance is placed on K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa [(2013) 5 SCC 226] and Malathi Ravi, M.D. v. B.V. Ravi, M.D. [(2014) 7 SCC 640]. Much emphasis is placed on para-25 of this judgment of Malathi Ravi (supra). It is contended that this Court can take into account the subsequent events. Shri Shroti, learned counsel for the appellant has taken pains to submit that admittedly the parties are not living together with effect from August, 2014. This fact itself is sufficient to establish that the marriage has not worked. Subsequent events can also be taken into account by this Court is another limb of submission of Shri Shroti. He placed reliance on the bonafides of the husband whereby he has helped the wife by giving Rs.50,000/- per month, taking care of travel of mother-in-law of the husband and also provided financial assistance to the wife for obtaining permanent residential visa for Australia. In this backdrop, the behaviour of wife is clearly egocentric and for this reason, no useful purpose would be served in affirming the decree of judicial separation. All efforts between the parties for reunion failed which can be seen from the mediation report dated 12.11.2022 which shows that mediation failed despite the reference made by this Court by order dated 28.10.2022.
6. Thus, by taking this Court to various paragraphs of impugned judgment, Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the husband urged that the impugned judgment may be interfered with to the extent Court below passed decree of judicial separation and it may be substituted by the decree of divorce. Shri Shroti initially argued that neither party prayed for decree of judicial separation and therefore, it was not proper for the Court below to pass such decree in a suit claiming dec
(1) Divorce – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage may not be a ground for dissolution of marriage, under Hindu Marriage Act, but it is a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(1a) of ....
Mental cruelty justifies divorce; unilateral refusal of cohabitation and long-term separation erode marital obligations under Hindu Marriage Act.
The court held that a marriage can be annulled under Section 12(1)(C) of the Hindu Marriage Act if obtained through fraud, particularly when one spouse conceals crucial facts such as prior relationsh....
The court emphasized that the period of separation had left the relationship beyond repair, and the respondent's refusal to cohabitate over the last 12 years showed that there was nothing remaining i....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
