Page 1

JUDGMENT

1

“REPORTABLE”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9744 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.5694 of 2013)

Dipanwita Roy

…. Appellant

versus

Ronobroto Roy

…. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

1.

The petitioner-wife Dipanwita Roy and the respondent-husband Ronobroto

Roy, were married at Calcutta. Their marriage was registered on 9.2.2003. The

present controversy emerges from a petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the respondent, inter

alia, seeking dissolution of the marriage solemnised between the petitioner-wife

and the respondent-husband, on 25.1.2003.

2.

One of the grounds for seeking divorce was, based on the alleged

adulterous life style of the petitioner-wife. For his above assertion, the

respondent-husband made the following allegations in paragraphs 23 to 25 of his

petition:

“23.

That since 22.09.2007 the petitioner never lived with the

respondent and did not share bed at all. On a very few occasion since

then the respondent came to the petitioner's place of residence to

collect her things and lived there against the will of all to avoid public

scandal the petitioner did not turn the respondent house on those

occasion.

Page 2

JUDGMENT

2

24.

That by her extravagant life style the respondent has incurred

heavy debts. Since she has not disclosed her present address to bank

and has only given the address of the petitioner. The men and

collection agents of different banks are frequently visiting the

petitioner's house and harassing the petitioner. They are looking for

the respondent for recovery of their dues. Notice from Attorney Firms

for recovery of due from the respondent and her credit card statements

showing heavy debts are being sent to the petitioner's address. The

respondent purchased one car in 2007 with the petitioner's uncle, Shri

Subrata Roy Chowdhary as the guarantor. The respondent has failed to

pay the installments regularly.

25.

That the petiitoner states that the respondent has gone astray.

She is leading a fast life and has lived in extra marital relationship with

the said Mr. Deven Shah, a well to do person who too is a carrier

gentlemen and has given birth to a child as a result of her cohabitation

with Shri Deven Shah. It is reported that the respondent has given

birth to a baby very recently. The respondent is presently living at the

address as mentioned in the cause title of the plaint.”

(emphasis is ours)

3.

The above factual position was contested by the petitioner-wife in her reply

wherein she, inter alia, submitted as under:

“That the statements made in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the plaint are

admitted by the respondent to the extent that the daughter namely

“Biyas” is residing in the custody of the respondent's mother with the

arrangement of the petitioner and as a result of which the petitioner

used to come at his mother in law's place and spending days therein

and the respondent used to spend time with him and carrying on their

matrimonial obligation which includes co-habitation.

That the statements made in paragraph No.7 in the plaint is absolutely

false, concocted, untrue, frivolous, vexatious and made with the

purpose of harassing the respondent and the petitioner is call upon to

prove the allegation intoto. It is categorically denied by the respondent

that she was a selfish person, very much concern about her own self

and own affairs and without any concern for the petitioner as alleged.

The respondent further denied that she was self willed, arrogant and

short tempered and she used to fly into rage every now and then over

small matter and used to quarrel with the petitioner and his mother as

alleged. The respondent further denied and disputes that she used to

go out every now and then according to her whims without infor