Advocates:
MOMOTA DEVI OINAMB. SUNITA RAO

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 6

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 7763-7764 of 2004

PETITIONER:

A. Jayachandra

RESPONDENT:

Aneel Kaur

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/12/2004

BENCH:

RUMA PAL, ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K.THAKKER

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of S.L.P (C) Nos. 8655-8656 of 2003)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

Parties to a marriage tying nuptial knot are supposed to bring

about the union of souls. It creates a new relationship of love,

affection, care and concern between the husband and wife. According to

Hindu Vedic philosophy it is sanskar \026 a sacrament; one of the sixteen

important sacraments essential to be taken during one’s lifetime.

There may be physical union as a result of marriage for procreation to

perpetuate the lineal progeny for ensuring spiritual salvation and

performance of religious rites, but what is essentially contemplated is

union of two souls. Marriage is considered to be a junction of three

important duties i.e. social, religious and spiritual.

This case presents a very unpleasant tale of two highly educated

professionals (doctors by profession) fighting a bitter matrimonial

battle.

Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows:

The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ’husband’) and the

respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ’wife’) tied nuptial knot on

10.10.1978. They were blessed with two children. Both are majors by

now. The marriage was what is commonly known as "love marriage".

Appellant and the respondent were co-students in the medical college.

They belong to different parts of the country; the appellant-husband is

a Telugu Brahmin while the respondent-wife belongs to Sikh religion.

They were both working in the hospital which was established by the

appellant’s father Dr. A. Ram Murthy. Allegedly finding the behaviour

of the respondent-wife obnoxious, humiliating and amounting to mental

cruelty, a notice was given by the appellant-husband on 5.3.1997

seeking divorce by mutual consent to avoid unnecessary complications.

It was stated therein that they had not shared the bed and there was no

physical contact between them for over two years. It was indicted in

the notice that the respondent had treated appellant with cruelty and

her conduct amounted to desertion for two years and was, therefore,

neither safe, desirable nor advisable to continue marital relationship.

A response was given by respondent on 21.3.1997 denying the

allegations. It was suggested that there should be a free and heart to

heart discussion to sort out the problems for a harmonious married

life. The aforesaid task which admittedly took place did not bring any

result and ultimately a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 (in short the ’Act’) was filed before Family Courts,

Hyderabad. It was categorically stated therein that the behaviour and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 6

conduct of the respondent was causing immense emotional stress, mental

agony, and there being no sharing of the bed and cohabitation for more

than two years, prayer was made to grant decree of divorce for

dissolving the marriage between the parties. It was specifically stated

that the respondent has ill-treated her husband, abused him in vulgar

language in the home and at the hospital and at other places thereby

causing mental agony, damage and loss personally and professionally and

also in the social circle; allegations were made about his character.

Caveats were filed at different places with a view to forestall legal

action, and create an impression of innocence. Caveats were admittedly

lodged at the wrong address of the appellant. Counter affidavit was

filed by the respondent denying the allegations. It was stated that her

bona fide acts in advising her husband to act properly and to be decent

in his behaviour was misconstrued and was being projected as nagging

and insulting beha