Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Denial of relief due to taking advantage of own wrong - Courts consistently hold that a party cannot be granted relief such as divorce or separation if they are found to be taking advantage of their own misconduct, wrong, or disability. This principle is rooted in Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which mandates that relief should not be granted if the petitioner is exploiting their own wrong ["SANJU SONI VS SMT. RASHMI SONI - Chhattisgarh"], ["Vinay Kumar Verma, Son of Basant Mahto vs Kiran Devi, Wife of Vinay Kumar Verma - 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 509"], ["NEEL KAMAL BAURI vs KUMARI PRIYA @ PRIYA KUMARI - Jharkhand"].
Application of Section 23(1)(a) - The courts emphasize that even in undefended proceedings, it is obligatory to verify that the petitioner is not benefiting from their own misconduct. Evidence must show misconduct serious enough to justify denial of relief. For instance, if misconduct such as cruelty or desertion is proven but the petitioner is also found to be acting in bad faith or taking advantage of their wrong, relief can be refused ["SANJU SONI VS SMT. RASHMI SONI - Chhattisgarh"], ["Vinay Kumar Verma, Son of Basant Mahto vs Kiran Devi, Wife of Vinay Kumar Verma - 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 509"], ["Bal Kishan VS Urmila - Rajasthan"].
Definition and scope of own wrong - The concept includes acts like cruelty, desertion, or misconduct that are serious and deliberate. Desertion, for example, is defined as leaving the matrimonial home without reasonable cause, and includes willful neglect, which can be considered a matrimonial wrong ["Kiran Devi, W/o-Sanjay Kumar and daughter of Sushil Kumar vs Sanjay Kumar, S/o-Late Shivjee Rai - Jharkhand"], ["ROHIT SHARMA vs SHIVANI KUMARI ALIAS SHARMA - Jharkhand"], ["BANTI DEVI VS MOTI RAM - Himachal Pradesh"]. Mental cruelty, even without deliberate intent, can also amount to a matrimonial wrong if it causes significant harm ["Dinesh Mandal, S/o Late Brishpati Mandal @ Bahaspati Mandal VS Chaitali Majumdar W/o Dinesh Mandal - Patna"].
Mental cruelty and desertion as grounds - Acts of mental cruelty, such as causing frustration or misery, can justify divorce if they are of a nature that makes cohabitation impossible. Desertion is a continuing and inchoate offence; it is not complete until the legal proceedings are initiated, and the deserting party must leave without reasonable cause or against the wishes of the other ["Dinesh Mandal, S/o Late Brishpati Mandal @ Bahaspati Mandal VS Chaitali Majumdar W/o Dinesh Mandal - Patna"], ["Kiran Devi, W/o-Sanjay Kumar and daughter of Sushil Kumar vs Sanjay Kumar, S/o-Late Shivjee Rai - Jharkhand"], ["ROHIT SHARMA vs SHIVANI KUMARI ALIAS SHARMA - Jharkhand"].
Consequences of misconduct - When allegations of cruelty, desertion, or other misconduct are made, courts scrutinize whether the petitioner has acted in good faith or is attempting to take advantage of their own wrongs. If proven, relief such as divorce or separation may be denied on the grounds of own wrong ["SANJU SONI VS SMT. RASHMI SONI - Chhattisgarh"], ["Amarjit Singh VS Darshan Kaur - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Santhosh Kumar. S. , S/o. Raju VS Jayasree Damodaran, D/o. Late Damodaran - Kerala"].
Case law and judicial stance - Courts have consistently reiterated that allowing a wrongdoer to benefit from their misconduct contravenes the principle of justice. For example, if a spouse turns out to have subjected the other to cruelty or desertion but is also found to be exploiting the situation for relief, the relief is denied ["SANJU SONI VS SMT. RASHMI SONI - Chhattisgarh"], ["Savitri Pandey VS Prem Chandra Pandey - Rajasthan"], ["INDSC_9563_1998"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The overarching legal principle derived from the sources is that relief in matrimonial disputes—such as divorce or separation—should not be granted if the petitioner is found to be taking advantage of their own misconduct or wrong. This prevents wrongdoers from benefiting from their misconduct and upholds the integrity of judicial proceedings. Courts require concrete evidence that misconduct is serious and deliberate; mere allegations or general conduct are insufficient. The doctrine ensures fairness by disallowing relief to those who seek to exploit their own wrongful acts, such as cruelty or desertion, for personal gain ["SANJU SONI VS SMT. RASHMI SONI - Chhattisgarh"] ["Vinay Kumar Verma, Son of Basant Mahto vs Kiran Devi, Wife of Vinay Kumar Verma - 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 509"] ["Amarjit Singh VS Darshan Kaur - Punjab and Haryana"].
In the realm of family law, particularly under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), seeking divorce on grounds like cruelty or desertion isn't straightforward. A critical question arises: Denial of relief to party taking advantage of its own wrong Cruelty and desertion. Can a spouse who has themselves inflicted cruelty or caused desertion turn around and use those very acts to seek divorce? Indian courts have consistently answered no, invoking the doctrine of 'taking advantage of one's own wrong' under Section 23(1)(a) of the HMA. This principle ensures justice isn't perverted by rewarding misconduct.
This blog post delves into this well-settled legal stance, drawing from key judgments and statutory provisions. Note that this is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The foundational rule is clear: a party seeking divorce cannot benefit from their own wrongs or misconduct, such as cruelty or desertion, when proven. Courts vigilantly scrutinize petitions to prevent parties from deliberately causing marital breakdown and then exploiting it for relief. This is enshrined in Section 23(1)(a) of the HMA, which mandates that the court shall not grant relief unless satisfied the petitioner is not taking advantage of their own wrong or disability. Sangeeta Gera VS Sanjeev Gera
As highlighted in multiple rulings, the Court is duty-bound to ensure that the party seeking relief is not taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability. Sangeeta Gera VS Sanjeev Gera Key points include:
This doctrine prevents wrongdoers from profiting legally from their misdeeds. For instance, in a case where the appellant concealed a prior marriage and sought divorce, the court denied relief, observing the attempt to take advantage of his own wrong. Ashok Kumar Jain VS Sumati Jain - 2013 3 Supreme 452 Similarly, entering a second marriage during pending proceedings constitutes misconduct, abusing the process and barring relief. Ashok Kumar Jain VS Sumati Jain - 2013 3 Supreme 452Savitri Pandey VS Prem Chandra Pandey - 2002 1 Supreme 90
Courts emphasize: no party to the marriage can be permitted to allege desertion unless he/she... was not at fault themselves. SAVITRI PANDEY vs PREM CHANDRA PANDEY For desertion specifically, the party seeking divorce on the ground of desertion is required to show that he or she was not taking the advantage of his or her own wrong. Sangeeta Gera VS Sanjeev GeraMunni Devi VS Pritam Singh Goyal - 2017 Supreme(MP) 948Arun Kumar Jain @ Bunty VS Geeta - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 1119
Cruelty or desertion claims demand cogent evidence. If the petitioner initiated the misconduct—e.g., mental/physical cruelty or baseless desertion—relief is typically denied. The 'wrong' mentioned in Section 23(1)(a) of HMA must be a serious misconduct and mere refusal to cohabit with spouse would not be considered a wrong. Sangeeta Gera VS Sanjeev Gera
In one appeal, the husband's claims of cruelty failed as he couldn't prove the wife's acts met the legal threshold post-filing; the petition was dismissed. Sangeeta Gera VS Sanjeev Gera Desertion, defined as a continuous course of conduct, requires the petitioner to prove they didn't contribute to it. (Vide Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73). Arun Kumar Jain @ Bunty VS Geeta - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 1119K. Kuppuraj VS M. RajasulochanaK. Kuppuraj VS M. Rajasulochana
In Savitri Pandey, repeatedly cited, the Supreme Court clarified that for desertion, the petitioner must affirmatively show no self-wrongdoing, subject to exceptions like incapacity. Munni Devi VS Pritam Singh Goyal - 2017 Supreme(MP) 948K. Kuppuraj VS M. Rajasulochana Another ruling granted divorce to a husband proving wife's prolonged separation without reconciliation efforts, confirming no 'own wrong' on his part. K. Kuppuraj VS M. Rajasulochana
Courts assess the 'entire conduct' of parties. Minor issues might not bar relief, but deliberate acts like concealing facts or inflicting cruelty do. When the evidence reveals that the petitioner has been the initiating party in acts of misconduct... the courts tend to deny relief. PARIHAR (PRITI) VS PARIHAR (KAILASH SINGH) - 1978 0 Supreme(Raj) 38Vinay Kumar Verma, Son of Basant Mahto vs Kiran Devi, Wife of Vinay Kumar Verma - 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 509Nirmal Singh Panesar VS Paramjit Kaur Panesar @ Ajinder Kaur Panesar - 2023 7 Supreme 98
Discretion is exercised judiciously: Once the petition for divorce was first filed, it could not reasonably have been expected of the respondent to continue residing. Yet, if the filer is culpable, no mercy. Sangeeta Gera VS Sanjeev Gera
Not absolute—cases turn on facts. If misconduct is unproven or minor, relief may be granted. However, clear evidence of wrongs like second marriages or intentional cruelty leads to denial. Savitri Pandey VS Prem Chandra Pandey - 2002 1 Supreme 90 For Muslim law contexts, similar scrutiny applies, but HMA governs Hindus. Munni Devi VS Pritam Singh Goyal - 2017 Supreme(MP) 948
The law firmly denies relief to parties exploiting their own wrongs in cruelty or desertion claims, protecting the sanctity of marriage and judicial process. As courts reiterate, justice rewards the innocent, not perpetrators. Key takeaway: Thorough evidence and clean conduct are vital for matrimonial relief under HMA.
References (select excerpts):1. Denial via second marriage concealment. Ashok Kumar Jain VS Sumati Jain - 2013 3 Supreme 4522. Section 23 duty on courts. Sangeeta Gera VS Sanjeev Gera3. Desertion proof requirements. Arun Kumar Jain @ Bunty VS Geeta - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 1119SAVITRI PANDEY vs PREM CHANDRA PANDEY
For personalized guidance, reach out to a family law expert. Stay informed, stay just.
#HinduMarriageAct, #DivorceLawIndia, #FamilyLaw
, sub- clause (b) or sub-clause (c) of clause (ii) of section 5] is not in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief, and” 24. ... Therefore, even if a proceeding is undefended, it is obligatory on court to be satisfied under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act of 1955 that petitioner is not in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for purpose of such relief. ... serious enough to j....
wrong, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong. ... (b) or sub-clause (c) of clause (ii) of section 5] is not in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief, and (b) where the ground of the petition is the ground specified in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 13, the petitioner has not in any manner ... to adultery, cruelty and desertion. ... The applicability ....
wrong, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong. ... (b) or sub-clause (c) of clause (ii) of section 5] is not in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief, and (b) where the ground of the petition is the ground specified in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 13, the petitioner has not in any manner ... The applicability of the said provision is very much available herein since one of the ground....
appellant was not entitled to the relief as he was taking advantage of his own wrong. ... ), sub-clause (b) or sub- clause (c) of clause (ii) of section 5, any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for purpose of such relief, and....... ... Respondent denied the allegations made relating to the grounds of cruelty, desertion and in answer to the ground relating to non-resumption of cohabitation ....
In view of Section 23(1) of the HMA, the Court is duty-bound to ensure that the party seeking relief is not taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability. Section 23(1)(a) of the HMA is set out as follows:— “23. Decree in proceedings. ... However, the party seeking divorce on the ground of desertion is required to show that he or she was not taking the advantage of his or her own wrong. In the instant c....
Section 23 of the Act disentitles a party from seeking a relief if it is proved that such party was taking advantage of his or her own wrongs or disability for the purposes of the relief prayed. ... The appellant in the instant case has been proved to be taking advantage of his own wrong which disentitles to the grant of the relief prayed for Under Section 23 of the Act. ... The petition was resisted by the wife ma....
The respondent denied allegations of cruelty and desertion and claimed that appellant was taking advantage of his own wrong. ... So also, when the spouse sues for dissolution of marriage after taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability also, the said provision empowers the court to refuse the relief sought notwithstanding that the truth of the allegation was not denied specifically or by necessary implication. ... This b....
to the petitioner if it is found that the petitioner was taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability the advantage of his or her own wrong. ... However, the party seeking divorce on the ground of desertion is required to show that he or she was not taking no party to the marriage can be permitted to allege desertion unless he/span
However, the party seeking divorce on the ground of desertion is required to show that she. was not taking the advantage of his or her own. ... (12). ... In any proceedings under the Act whether defended or not the court would decline to grant relief to the petitioner if it is found that the petitioner was taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purposes of the reliefs contemplated under Section 23 (1) of the Act. ... As #HL_ST....
(c) of clause (ii) of section 5) is not in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief, and........." ... Section 23 (1) (a) of the Act provides that if the court is satisfied that any of the grounds for granting relief exists, and the petitioner is taking advantage of his or her own wrong, or disability for purpose of such relief, such relief should not be granted.....
She neither assigned any reason nor attributed the non-resumption of cohabitation to the respondent. However, the party seeking divorce on the ground of desertion is required to show that he or she was not taking the advantage of his or her own wrong. However, such a rule is subject to just exceptions which may be found in a case on the ground of mental or physical incapacity or other peculiar circumstances of the case. In the instant case the appellant herself pleaded that there had not been cohabitation between the parties after the marriage.
Desertion is not a single act complete in itself, it is a continuous course of conduct to be determined under the facts and circumstances of each case. The party seeking divorce on the ground of desertion is required to show that he or she was not taking the advantage of his or her own wrong. (vide Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73).”
(vide Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey, 2002 (2) SCC 73).” The party seeking divorce on the ground of desertion is required to show that he or she was not taking the advantage of his or her own wrong. Desertion is not a single act complete in itself, it is a continuous course of conduct to be determined under the facts and circumstances of each case.
The party seeking divorce on the ground of desertion is required to show that he or she was not taking the advantage of his or her own wrong. (Vide Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, (2002) 2 SCC 73)." Desertion is not a single act complete in itself, it is a continuous course of conduct to be determined under the facts and circumstances of each case.
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
