SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 980

2010 (7) Supreme 530
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Gurbux Singh — Appellant(s)
versus
Harminder Kaur — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 5010 of 2007
Decided on : 8-10-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Cruelty for the purposes of Hindu Marriage Act, discussed.

Headnote:(a) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Mental cruelty – Ingredients and contributing factors recalled. (Para 10)

        (2007) 4 SCC 511 – Relied upon

        (b) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Cruelty – It is essential for the party alleging cruelty to prove that a particular/part of conduct or behaviour resulted in cruelty to him – No prior assumptions can be made in such matters – Married life should be assessed as a whole – The ill-conduct must be precedent for a fairly lengthy period – Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. (Paras 11 and 12)

        (c) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross-examination have to be taken note – Respondent-wife making certain allegations against her husband-appellant – However, in absence of any issue framed by trial court or determination by the High Court, the ground cannot be considered by the Supreme Court. (Para 13)

        (2003) 6 SCC 334 – Distinguished

        (d) Constitution of India – Article 142 – Power under Art. 142 exercised rarely – In view of the matter of exercise of power u/At. 142 in matrimonial cases being under consideration of a larger Bench, no relief can be granted even though the parties are living separately for a long time. (Para 15)

       Facts of the case:

        1. The appellant fled a suit for divorce u/s 13 of H.M.A. 1955 on the ground of cruelty.

        2. The trial court as well as the High court have rejected the claim of the appellant herein on the ground that he has failed to prove ‘cruelty’ sufficient for grant of a decree of divorce.

       Finding f the Court:

        It is that the appellant is not interested to keep the respondent as his wife and he wants divorce by any means.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J. —

1) The appellant, a Principal in ITI College, Sirhali, Amritsar, has approached this Court against the judgment and final order dated 11.05.2007 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 252-M of 2006 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal filed by him against the judgment and order dated 11.10.2006 of the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Amritsar, dismissing the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for a decree of divorce against the respondent-wife, who is working as a Librarian in Government Institute DIET at Verka, Amritsar on the ground of `cruelty’. Both the courts have rejected the claim of the appellant herein on the ground that he has failed to prove `cruelty’ sufficient for grant of a decree of divorce.

The case of the Appellant

2) (a) On 23.11.1997, the appellant got married with the respondent at Amritsar according to Sikh rites and customs. Even on the date of marriage, the respondent had been working as a Librarian in a Government Institute DIET at Verka, Amristar. From the very beginning, the respondent expressed her dislike towards the appellant and his family and gradually started misbehaving with them. She started exhibiting short-tempered behaviour and treated the parents of the appellant with cruelty and disrespect. The father of the appellant is aged about 80 years and his mother is more than 75 years. In the month of January 1998, on the first Lohri festival after their marriage, the respondent being annoyed with the appellant on a trivial issue, abused his mother in filthy language in the presence of their relatives and neighbours causing immense pain to the entire family. Since then, the respondent started insisting that she cannot live with the parents of the appellant who are mental and nuisance in her life and pressed upon the appellant to have a separate abode from his parents.

(b) On 15.05.1999, a male child was born out of the wedlock. Even after the birth of the child, there was no improvement in the behaviour of the respondent. She always insisted that she being financially independent is not in need of the appellant and his family.

(c) Just five days before the third birthday of their child i.e. on 10.05.2002, the respondent, without any justifiable reason left the matrimonial home leaving the child unattended and went to her parents house and staying there since then. The appellant having failed in his efforts to bring back the respondent to the matrimonial home and in view of the consistent cruelty filed HMA Case No. 19 of 2003 before the Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, praying for a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act. The stand of the Respondent

3) In reply to the divorce petition, while denying all the averments made by the appellant, the respondent has stated that the appellant is a greedy person and not satisfied with the dowry articles received in marriage. He always misbehaved and maltreated her and abused on several occasions. She alleged that the appellant is a habitual drinker and used to threaten her to kill with poison. She also alleged that the appellant pulled her hair and gave merciless beatings in the presence of his parents.

Decision of the District Court and High Court

4) By judgment dated 11.10.2006, the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, after analyzing the plea of both the parties, oral and documentary evidence concluded that the appellant-husband failed to substantiate the allegations of ‘cruelty’ and dismissed his divorce petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the High Court by filing FAO No. 252-M of 2006. The learned single Judge of the High Court, by the impugned order dated 11.05.2007, while agreeing with the conclusion of the Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. Questioning the above said orders, the appellant has filed the present appeal by way of special leave pet





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top