Back
2010 (5) Supreme 201
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. Sudershan Reddy and Aftab Alam, JJ.
Neelam Kumar — Appellant
versus
Dayarani — Respondent
Civil Appeal No.1957 of 2006
Decided on : 6-07-2010
Hindu Marriage Act, 1956-Section 13- Appeal against judgment and order passed by High Court wherein it set aside judgment passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Balaghat allowing appellant’s petition and granting him decree of divorce under section 13(1)(ia) of Act, 1956-Plea of appellant that appellant’s marriage with respondent had completely broken down with no hope of revival and compelling them to live together would be very hard and unjust- Nothing to indicate that respondent had contributed in anyway to alleged breakdown of marriage- If a party to a marriage, by his own conduct brings the relationship to a point of irretrievable breakdown, he/she cannot be allowed to seek divorce on the ground of breakdown of the marriage- That would simply mean giving someone the benefits of his/her own misdeeds- Relying upon decision in Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs. Manju Sharma held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce as it is not contemplated under section 13 and granting divorce on this ground alone would amount to adding a clause therein by a judicial verdict which would amount to legislation by Court. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the Case :
Present Appeal has been filed against judgment and order passed by High Court wherein it set aside judgment passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Balaghat allowing appellant’s petition and granting him decree of divorce under section 13(1)(ia) of Act, 1956.
Findings of the Court :
High Court found that judgment of trial court was mainly based on three allegations cited by the appellant husband as instances of respondent’s cruelty. First, she put the blame on the appellant and his family members for the miscarriage suffered by her when she went to attend marriage of appellant’s brother, against his advice. High Court pointed out that miscarriage would have caused greatest distress and pain to respondent and instead of sympathizing with her appellant chose the incident to cite as an instance of her cruelty. This showed not cruelty of respondent but complete insensitivity of appellant himself. High Court then took up other allegation that respondent did not come to attend and take care of appellant when he was undergoing medical treatment in a hospital for the injuries caused in an accident. High Court found that this allegation was not part of appellant’s pleadings and matter was introduced in course of evidence. Court observed that not being stated in the pleadings, allegation could not be taken into consideration. The court also rejected the third allegation by appellant that respondent did not come to attend and serve his mother when she was admitted in a hospital for eye surgery. The Court did not believe the case as neither mother nor attending doctor was examined nor was any documentary evidence produced showing the mother’s surgery. High Court Held that appellant had not been able to bring his case under section 13(1)(ia) of Act and allowed respondent’s appeal and set aside judgment and decree passed by trial court. Findings of High Court held justified. No interference warranted in view taken by High Court by this Court in appeal. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Aftab Alam, J. —
1.This appeal, by the husband, is filed against the judgment and order dated September 14, 2005 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court (at Jabalpur) in F.A.O. 462 of 2003. By the judgment coming under appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment dated August 23, 2003 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Balaghat in HMA Case No.26A/02, allowing the appellant’s petition and granting him the decree of divorce under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956.
2.The marriage between the parties took place on December 7, 1986 and they lived together first at Ankleshwar and later at Vadodara. There is no child from the wedlock.
3.According to the appellant, barely after 8 or 9 months of the marriage, the wife (respondent in this appeal) became quite aggressive and insulting, and started treating him and his family members in a cruel manner. He tried to make adjustments in the hope that she would correct herself but finally, when it became impossible to carry along with her, he filed the petition for dissolution of marriage under section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, on grounds of cruelty. In the application filed by the appellant, it was stated that his wife objected to his giving any financial assistance to his family and especially for the marriage of his sister and she always quarreled with him over the matter. It was alleged that at the time of his sister’s marriage she raised an alarm that her ornaments were missing and cast suspicion on the groom’s mother. Later on, the alarm turned out to be false, causing huge embarrassment to him and his family. Such incidents and the respondent’s behaviour and conduct towards the appellant made him the laughing stock in the town. He changed residence, but that too did not help to salvage his position. The respondent used to leave for office early and returned very late. When the appellant remonstrated over her timings she became very angry and even threatened to implicate him in a dowry case. In those circumstances, the appellant had even contemplated committing suicide but was held back by friends and relatives. The appellant also gave certain instances as evidence of her cruelty to him. In 1989, despite his advice to her not to go for attending his brother’s marriage since she was pregnant, she undertook the travel and participated in the marriage. As a result, she suffered a miscarriage there and, ironically, held the appellant and his family responsible for it. In 1994, the appellant sustained some injuries in an accident and had to undergo medical treatment. At that time she was living in a different town where she was posted in connection with her service. Despite intimation given to her she did not come to look after him and to give him moral support because she did not want to take leave from the work. Again she did not come to serve his mother and to support her when she was admitted to a hospital for her eye surgery.
4.The respondent denied all the allegations made against her by the appellant. She stated that she did not act cruelly or even disrespectfully towards the appellant or her family members. Her case was that she was in service from before her marriage and her marriage with the appellant was on the clear understanding that she would not be forced to leave the service. But a short while after their marriage, the appellant changed his mind and demanded that she should give up working. She was not agreeable to this and this seemed to hurt his pride. Further, their marriage failed to produce any child. This became another source for his estrangement from her and he eventually filed the divorce petition wanting to get rid of her.
5.Before the trial court the appellant examined himself, his sister Rashmi and two of his neighbours from Vadodara, as witnesses, in support of his case. The respondent did not get herself examined nor did she produce any witness. On the basis of the ex parte evidence adduced before it, the trial court allowed the appell
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
