1

VERY USEFUL 

 JUDGMENTS 

ON 

DIVORCE

IN INDIA

COMPILED BY 
A P RANDHIR

B.COM, LL.M.

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 2

1. INTRODUCTION

India is a country, which believed in a union of Husband and wife for 7
births or eternal. So based on the Indissolubility theory of marriage, the
union of the husband and wife was unbreakable tie. It is a union of bone
with bone and flesh with flesh. It is eternal. The relations of the spouses
did not matter, because even if they were unhappy, they have to live
and die with it. This theory was of the Shastric Hindu Law. However,
the drastic change in the society has seen a sea change in the concept of
marriage and divorce.
These statutes have made provisions for divorce and same is well
accepted   by  the  Indian   Society.  To   facilitate   the   spouses   who  do   not
intend to continue their marital tie, based on the religion they practice
or the SMA, there are various laws that individuals may follow to get
their   marriage   dissolved.   There   are   applicable   marriage   and   divorce
laws.   The   theories   of   divorce   are   basically   a   “fault   theory”   that   is
developed on the basis of the grounds of judicial separation and divorce
that are formulated in section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Amendment
Act, 1976. The new evolution of a special kind is the modern theory of
divorce   like   “Mutual   Consent”.   Divorce   by   mutual   consent   has   been
incorporated   into   the   law.   Yet   there   is   one   more   theory   called
“breakdown   theory   or   the   irretrievable   breakdown   theory”,   which   is
reflected in some grounds, when there is failure to resume cohabitation
within one year getting the degree of restitution of conjugal rights and
failure to resume cohabitation within one year after getting the degree
of judicial separation. These two grounds are stated in section 13(1) (a)
and section 13(1) (b) of the Marriage Law Amendment Act, 1976. The

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 3

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with its amendment in 1976 laid down nine
grounds, based on guilt theory of divorce.
2. THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 NINE GROUNDS, BASED

ON GUILT THEORY OF DIVORCE.  – 

a) Adultery 
b) Cruelty 
c) Desertion 
d) Conversion to a non­Hindu religion 
e) Incurable insanity or mental disorder 
f) Virulent and incurable leprosy 
g) Venereal disease in communicable form 
h) Taking to sanyasa (i.e. renunciation of world by entering into a holy
order) and 
i) Presumption of death.
In addition to these common grounds, the additional four grounds
on which wife alone can sue for divorce. The Special Marriage Act, 1954
as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 recognizes
eight grounds based on guilt on which either party may seek divorce
and two additional grounds on which wife alone may seek divorce viz,
rape,   sodomy   or   bestiality   of   the   husband.   The   eight   grounds   are:
adultery;   desertion   for  at  least  three years; respondent  undergoing a
sentence of imprisonment for seven years or more for an offence under
the   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860;   cruelty;   venereal   disease   in   a
communicable form, leprosy (only if the disease was not contracted by
the respondent). The careful analysis of Section 13 shows that; there are
in all fifteen grounds for divorce.

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 4

3. ON­FAULT LIABILITY THEORY OF DIVORCE

A look at the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reveals that
most   of   the   grounds   under  sub­sections  (1)   and   (2)   of   section   13   are
based   on   fault   or   guilt   theory   of   divorce.   According   to   this   theory   a
marriage  can   be  dissolved only if  one of  the parties to marriage has
committed some matrimonial offence recognized as a ground for divorce.
A  law   of   divorce   based   mainly  on  fault   is  inadequate   to  deal  with  a
broken marriage. Under the fault theory, guilt has to be proved; divorce
courts are open with concrete instances of human behaviour as to bring
the institution of marriage into disrepute. Once a marriage has broken
down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the law not to take note
of   that   fact,   as   it   would   be   harmful   to   society   and   injurious   to   the
interest of the parties. There is also a provision for obtaining divorce by
Mutual consent under section 13­B and section 14, which is based on
the consent theory of divorce.
Darshan Gupta v. Radhika Gupta 2013 Indlaw SC 383 Held : that

the   petitioner   must   approach   court   with   clean   hands.   Grounds   of

divorce   under   S.   13(1)   are   based   on  matrimonial   offence   or   fault

theory. It is only commission of matrimonial offence by one spouse that

entitles   the   other   spouse   to   seek   divorce.   Here,   if   petitioner

himself/herself is guilty or at fault, he/she would be disentitled to seek
divorce.   Here   the   husband   had   come   to   court   for   divorce   on   the
grounds/facts   of   unsoundness   of   mind   of   the   cognitive   fact   of   the
Radhika Gupta after two failed deliveries (first one did not survive and
the second one did not survive even after caesarean. She had lost her

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 5

memory   and   had   become   like   child   of   5   years.   On   which   divorce   is

sought by the appellant. But the court held that these grounds are not
at all available to him under the "fault theory" on which S. 13(1) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is founded. In case the ground for seeking
matrimonial   relief   (divorce   or   judicial   separation)   is   adultery,   the
petitioner must show that he is in no way accessory to the respondent‘s
adultery, and that he did not connive at the adultery of the respondent. 
4.   THESE   GROUNDS   WILL   FALL   INTO   THE   FOLLOWING

THREE DIVISIONS: 

(1)   Nine   grounds   based   on­fault   liability   theory‘of   divorce.   These

grounds are laid down in sub section (1) and only the party aggrieved
may avail of them. 
(2)   Two   grounds   based   on   breakdown   theory‘of   divorce   which   are
contained in sub­section (1­A). They may be availed of by any party to
the marriage who is aggrieved or who is guilty. 
(3) Four grounds which are special and which can be availed of by a wife
only. These are shown in sub­section (2). Grounds shown above in (1)
and (2) are available in every case of marriage whenever solemnized.
Other than these, the incurable insanity or continuous or intermittent
mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner
cannot   reasonably   be   expected   to   live   with   the   respondent,   and
presumption of death 108 of IEA (respondent not been heard of as alive
for a period of seven years or more) are also grounds of divorce, but,
they are not part of matrimonial offences.
5. MEANING OF CRUELTY.

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 6

The   general   notion   of   cruelty   is   very   subjective­   depending   on   time,

place, persons and other factors also. The legal concept of cruelty, which
is not defined by statute, is generally described as act or conduct of such
a nature as to have caused danger to life, limb or health­ physical or
mental or as to make a reasonable apprehension of such danger.
5.1 The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cruelty is a ground for divorce as
well as judicial separation. However, the term ‘cruelty’ is not defined in
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is through decided cases that the term
has been understood to mean acts of physical as well as mental cruelty.
5.2 Types of Cruelty 

Cruelty can be categorised on the basis of two parameters i.e. form in
which it is inflicted and the relationship in which it is inflicted. The
types of cruelty are as follow: 
1) Physical and mental cruelty 
2) Matrimonial cruelty and cruelty in other relationships 
5.3 Physical and mental cruelty 

We have already discussed that time and again courts have widened the
scope of term cruelty as it is used in relation to women. Now it is the
settled position of law that cruelty will not only include any physical
harm caused to the women but also any other act which causes mental
and   emotional   agony.   Cruelty   may   be   subtle   or   brutal;   by   words,
gestures or by mere silence. It may also be physical or mental. Under all
the Indian matrimonial statues, cruelty can be interpreted with same
meaning. The formulation of cruelty can be made thus: “Cruelty is a
conduct of such a character as to have cause danger to life or health,

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 7

bodily or mental, give rise to reasonable apprehension of such danger.”
On the basis of nature of injury inflicted, broadly, cruelty is divided in
two categories: 
(i) Physical cruelty 
(ii) Mental cruelty
5.4 Physical Cruelty 

Physical violence, or threat with physical violence causing an apparent
apprehension to physical violence, would amount to cruelty. In common
parlance physical violence can be defined as inflicting any kind of bodily
pain  or  injury.   The  degree of physical violence which  will amount to
cruelty   differs   in   case   of   matrimonial   cruelty   and   cruelty   at   other
places.   'Habitual   assaults'   under   the   dissolution   of   Muslim   Marriage
Act, 1939 is a ground of divorce. The definition of 'assault' can be found
in Sec. 351 of the Indian Penal Code. 'Causing of grievous hurt' under
the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, is a ground of divorce. The
definition of 'grievous hurt' under the Act is substantially taken from
Sec. 320 of the Indian Penal Code. Beating of wife is the usual act of
physical cruelty .
5.5 Mental Cruelty 

Mental   cruelty   has   more   devastating   effect   on   health   than   physical

violence. It directly effects on the emotions of an individual. However, in
case of mental cruelty a particular conduct has to be assessed in light of
a person with normal psychological standards and not with respect to a
person   with   hyper   sensitive   nature.   Since   mental   cruelty   can   be
inflicted in various shapes, no definite parameters can be laid down to
define mental cruelty. However, law on mental cruelty has developed

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 8

through judicial precedents only and some of the judicially recognized
forms of mental cruelty are as under:
5.6 FORMS OF MENTAL CRUELTY 

i. False accusation of adultery or unchastity. 
ii. Refusal to have marital intercourse. 
iii. Undue familiarity with a person of opposite sex. 
iv. False charge of impotency. 
v. Neglectful conduct and deliberately harassing, indignity and 
indifference. 
vi. Drunkenness. 
vii. False criminal charges. 
viii. Deprivation of property. 
ix. Threat to commit suicide. 
x. Forcing wife to prostitution. 
xi. Sexual perversion. 
xii. Termination of pregnancy without consent of husband. 
xiii. False scandalous, Malicious, baseless charge. 
xiv. Reprehensible conduct. 
xv. Communication of disease.
5.7 LEGAL PROPOSITION ON THE ASPECT OF CRUELTY 

It is settled by catena of decisions that mental cruelty can cause even
more serious injury than the physical harm and create in the mind of
the   injured   appellant   such   apprehension   as   is   contemplated   in   the
Section.   It   is   to   be   determined   on   whole   facts   of   the   case   and   the
matrimonial relations between the spouses. To amount to cruelty, there
must be such wilful treatment of the party which caused suffering in

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 9

body or mind either as an actual fact or by way of apprehension in such
a manner as to render the continued living together of spouses harmful
or injurious having regard to the circumstances of the case. 
The word ‘cruelty’ has not been defined and it has been used in relation
to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to
or  in   respect  of   matrimonial duties  and  obligations. It  is  a  course  of
conduct and one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may
be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. There may be cases
where   the   conduct   complained   of   itself   is   bad   enough   and   per   se
unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other
spouse   need   not   be   enquired   into   or   considered.   In   such   cases,   the
cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted.
The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties
are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions, their culture
and   human   values   to   which   they   attach   importance.   Judged   by
standard   of   modern   civilization   in   the   background   of   the   cultural
heritage   and   traditions   of   our   society,   a   young   and   well   educated
woman   like   the   appellant   herein   is   not   expected   to   endure   the
harassment   in   domestic   life   whether   mental,   physical,   intentional   or
unintentional. Her sentiments have to be respected, her ambition and
aspiration   taken   into   account   in   making   adjustment   and   her   basic
needs   provided,   though   grievances   arising   from   temperamental
disharmony. This view was taken by the Kerala High Court in the case
reported in AIR 1991 Kerala 1. In 1993 (2) Hindu L.R. 637, the Court
had gone to the further extent of observing as follows: “Sometime even a
gesture, the angry look, a sugar coated joke, an ironic overlook may be

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 10

more cruel than actual beating” Each case depends on its own facts and
must be judged on these facts. The concept of cruelty has varied from
time to time, from place to place and from individual to individual in its
application according to social status of the persons involved and their
economic conditions and other matters. The question whether the act
complained of was a cruel act is to be determined from the whole facts
and the matrimonial relations between the parties. In this connection,
the culture, temperament and status in life and many other things are
the factors which have to be considered. 
The   legal   concept   of   cruelty   which   is   not   defined   by   statute   is
generally   described   as   conduct   of   such   character   as   to   have   caused
danger   to   life,   limb   or   health   (bodily   and   mental)   or   to   give   rise   to
reasonable   apprehension   of   such   danger.   The   general   rule   in   all
question   of   cruelty   is   that   the   whole   matrimonial   relations   must   be
considered, that rule is of a special value when the cruelty consists not
of   violent   act   but   of   injurious   reproaches,   complains   accusations   or
taunts.   It   may   be   mental   such   as   indifference   and   frigidity   towards
wife,   denial   of   a   company   to   her,   hatred   and   abhorrence   for   wife   or
physical, like acts of violence and abstinence from sexual intercourse
without reasonable  cause. It must be proved that one partner in the
marriage however mindless of the consequences has behaved in a way
which the other spouse could not in the circumstances be called upon to
endure,   and   that   misconduct   has   caused   injury   to   health   or   a
reasonable   apprehension   of   such   injury.   There   are   two   sides   to   be
considered   in   case   of   cruelty.   From   the   appellant’s   side,   ought   this
appellant to be called on to endure the conduct? From the respondent’s

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 11

side, was this conduct excusable? The court has then to decide whether
the sum total of the reprehensible conduct was cruel. That depends on
whether   the   cumulative   conduct   was   sufficiently   serious   to   say   that
from a reasonable person’s point of view after a consideration of any
excuse   which   the   respondent   might   have   in   the   circumstances,   the
conduct is such that the petitioner ought not be called upon to endure.

5.8   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   has   defined   mental   cruelty   in   V.

Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337 as under: 

"Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i­a) can broadly be defined as that
conduct   which   inflicts   upon   the   other   party   such   mental   pain   and
suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the
other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the
parties   cannot  reasonably  be  expected  to  live together.  The  situation
must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put
up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not
necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to
the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard
must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the
society   they   move   in,   the  possibility   or   otherwise  of   the   parties   ever
living   together   in   case   they   are   already   living   apart   and   all   other
relevant   facts   and   circumstances   which   it   is   neither   possible   nor
desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not
amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in
each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it
is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 12

context in which they were made"
5.9  A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur (2005)2 SCC 22 

The   Apex   Court   held   that   for   physical   cruelty   there   can   be
tangible  and  direct   evidence  but  in   mental  cruelty  there may  not  be
direct evidence. When there is no direct evidence, courts are required to
probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidence that are
brought out in evidence.
5.10 Vinitha Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit 2006)3 SCC 778 

The Supreme Court held that what constitutes mental cruelty will
not depend upon the numerical count of such incidents or only on the
continuous   course   of   such   conduct,   but   really   go   by   the   intensity,
gravity   and   stigmatic   impact   of   it   when   meted   out   even   once   and
deleterious effect of it in the mental attitude, necessary for maintaining
a conducive matrimonial home. 
5.10 Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007)4 SCC 511 

The Supreme Court observed that no uniform standard can be laid
down   for   guidance   with   regard   to   mental   cruelty.   The   married   life
should   be   reviewed   as   a   whole   and   a   few   isolated   instances   over   a
period   of   years   will   not   amount   to   cruelty.   The   ill   conduct   must   be
persistent for a lengthy period, where relationship has deteriorated to
an   extent   that,   the   wronged   party   finds  it   extremely   difficult   to   live
with other party any longer. 
5.11 Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kholi (2006)4 SCC 558

The Supreme Court held that Public Interest demands not only that the
married   status   should   as   far   as   possible,   as   long   as   possible   and

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 13

whenever   possible,   be   maintained,   but   where   a   marriage   has   been

wrecked   beyond   the   hope   of   salvage,   public   interest   lies   in   the
recognition of that fact.
5.11   Shobha   Rani   v.   Madhukar   Reddi   Supreme   Court   ­(1988)1

SCC 105 held that: 

a. Cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it

is physical, it will be easy for the court to determine it. If it is mental,
the problem presents difficulty. It is a matter of inference to be drawn
by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effects on the
complaining spouse. There may be occasions where the conduct itself is
bad enough and it amounts to cruelty; in such cases the impact of such
conduct need not be considered. 
b.  There has been a marked change in the life around us. The courts

should   not   search   for   standards   in   life,   while   appreciating   mental

cruelty. Matrimonial duties and responsibilities are of varying degrees
from   house   to   house   and   from   person   to   person.   A   set   of   facts,
stigmatised as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case. The
cruelty   alleged   may   depend   upon   the   life   style   of   the   parties,   their
economic and social conditions, their cultural and human values etc. 
c.  Cruelty cannot be divided into certain specific categories. Each case

may be different. New types of cruelty may crop up in new cases. The
conduct which is complained of as cruelty by one spouse may not be so,
for the other spouse. Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. 

6. LANDMARK JUDGMENTS ON DIVORCE. 

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 14

1. Shayara Bano V. Union of India 2017 (5) Supreme 577

Divorce – Triple Talaq –Constitutionality and legal sanctity – This
form of Talaq is manifestly arbitrary in the sense that marital tie can be
broken   capriciously   and   whimsically   by   a   Muslim   man   without   any
attempt at reconciliation so as to save it – This form of Talaq must be
held   to   be   violative   of   fundamental   right   contained   under   Art.   14   of
Constitution of India. Advocate, appeared on behalf of respondent no.11
(in Writ Petition (C) No.118 of 2016) ­ Dr. Noorjehan Safia Niaz, who
was impleaded as such, by an order dated 29.6.2016. It was submitted
by   learned   counsel,   that   talaq­e­biddat‘   was   a   mode   of   divorce   that
operated instantaneously. It was contended, that the practice of talaq­e­
biddat‘, was absolutely invalid even in terms of Muslim personal law‘ –
Shariat‘.   It   was   submitted,  that  it   was  not  required  of   this  Court   to
strike   down   the   practice   of   talaq­e­biddat‘,   it   was   submitted,   that   it
would suffice if this Court merely upholds the order passed by the Delhi
High   Court   in   the   Masroor   Ahmed   case,   by   giving   a   meaningful
interpretation to   talaq­e­biddat‘, which would be in consonance with
the verses of the Quran and the relevant hadiths‘. It was also asserted
by learned counsel, that Islam from its very inception recognized rights
of women, which were not available to women of othercommunities. It
was   pointed   out,   that   the   right   of   divorce   was   conferred   on   Muslim
women, far before this right was conferred on women belonging to other
communities.   It   was   asserted,   that   even   in   the   7   th   century,   Islam
granted women the right of divorce and remarriage. The aforesaid legal
right, according to learned counsel, was recognized by the British, when
it promulgated the Shariat Act in 1937. It was submitted, that through

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 15

the  above  legislation   all customs  and usages  contrary  to  the Muslim

personal law‘ –  Shariat‘, were unequivocally annulled. It was therefore
contended,   that   while  evaluating  the   validity   of   talaq­e­biddat‘,  this
Court should be conscious of the fact, that the Muslim   personal law‘
Shariat‘,   was   a   forward   looking   code   of   conduct,   regulating   various
features in the lives of those who professed the Muslim religion. 

2. Sukhendu Das V. Rita Mukherjee 2017 (8) Supreme 33 Special

Marriage Act: Sec. 27, r/w Article 142, Constitution of India.

Wife   refusing   to   participate   in   proceeding   for   divorce   –   Forcing   the

husband to stay in a dead marriage – Itself constitutes mental cruelty –
No   point   in   compelling   parties   to   live   together   in   matrimony.   The
husband   filed   a   divorce   petition.   Respondent   wife   filed   written
statement but did not participate in the proceedings. Divorce petition
was dismissed. The husband filed appeal before the High Court which
was also dismissed. However, respondent wife did not appear before the
High  Court either.  In  the present case, the Respondent, who did not
appear before the trial court after filing of written statement, did not
respond   to   the   request   made   by   the   High   Court   for   personal
appearance. In spite of service of Notice, the Respondent did not show
any   interest   to   appear   in   this   Court   also.   This   conduct   of   the
Respondent by itself would indicate that she is not interested in living
with the Appellant. Refusal to participate in proceeding for divorce and
forcing the appellant to stay in a dead marriage would itself constitute
mental  cruelty.   This   court  in  a series of  judgments has exercised  its
inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution for dissolution of

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 16

a   marriage   where   the   Court   finds   that   the   marriage   is   totally

unworkable,   emotionally   dead,   beyond   salvage   and   has   broken   down
irretrievably, even if the facts of the case do not provide a ground in law
on which the divorce could be granted. Admittedly, the Appellant and
the Respondent have been living separately for more than 17 years and
it will not be possible for the parties to live together and there is no
purpose in compelling the parties to live together in matrimony.
3.  Jasmine Charaniya v. Ahmed Charaniya, 2017 (13) Scale 64

Sec. 28­ Contempt of Court Act, 1971 –Section 2(b).

Dispute in the family having arisen after a compromise­ Parties have
prayed   for   divorce   by   mutual   consent­   This   Court   dissolves   the
marriage by a decree of divorce by consent­ In case the parties have nay
grievances with regard to the working of the terms of settlement, they
shall mention in only before this Court and shall not take any other
recourse before any other forum In this case, court is of the view that
there   is   no   point   in   relegating   the   parties   to   any   other   forum   for   a
decree of divorce by mutual consent under the Special Marriage Act,
1954. Contextually, we may also note that the parties have already filed
a petition under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 before the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House, New Delhi. Accordingly,
Interlocutory Application No. 73033 of 2017 is allowed. The marriage
between Ms. Jasmine Charaniya and Mr. Ahmed Charaniya is dissolved
by a decree of divorce by consent. Since the terms of settlement have
been reduced in the application, the application shall form part of this
Order.   In   case   the   parties   have   any   grievances   with   regard   to   the
working of the terms of settlement, we make it clear that they shall

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 17

mention it only before this Court and shall not take any other recourse
before any other forum. 
4. Narendra V. K. Meena, AIR 2016 SC 4599 (Karnataka) Hindu

Marriage Act Section 13(1)(ia)—Divorce. 

Cruelty  by  wife—Persistent effort of wife to constrain husband to be

separated   from   family—   Constitutes   an   Act   of   ―cruelty‖—Husband
entitled to decree of divorce It is not a common practice or desirable
culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated from the parents upon
getting married at the instance of the wife, especially when the son is
the only earning member in the family. A son, brought up and given
education by his parents, has a moral and legal obligation to take care
and maintain the parents, when they become old and when they have
either no income or have a meager income. In India, generally people do
not subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting married or
attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family. In normal
circumstances,   a   wife   is   expected   to   be   with   the   family   of   the
husbandafter the marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of
the family of the husband and normally without any justifiable strong
reason, she would never insist that her husband should get separated
from   the   family   and   live   only   with   her.   In   the   instant   case,   upon
appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that
merely for monetary considerations, the Respondent wife wanted to get
her   husband   separated   from   his   family.   The   averment   of   the
Respondent was to the effect that the income of the Appellant was also
spent for maintaining his family. The said grievance of the Respondent
is absolutely unjustified. A son maintaining his parents is absolutely

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 18

normal in Indian culture and ethos. There is no other reason for which
the Respondent wanted the Appellant to be separated from the family ­
the sole reason was to enjoy the income of the Appellant. Unfortunately,
the High Court considered this to be a justifiable reason. In the opinion
of the High Court, the wife had a legitimate expectation to see that the
income of her husband is used for her and not for the family members of
the Respondent husband. Court do not see any reason to justify the said
view of the High Court. As stated hereinabove, in a Hindu society, it is a
pious obligation of the son to maintain the parents. If a wife makes an
attempt to deviate from the normal practice and normal custom of the
society, she must have some justifiable reason for that and in this case,
Court do not find any justifiable reason, except monetary consideration
of   the   Respondent   wife.   In  our  opinion,  normally,  no  husband  would
tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents
and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income.
The persistent effort of the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant
to   be  separated   from   the  family   would   be  torturous  for  the   husband
andin   our   opinion,   the   trial   Court   was   right   when   it   came   to   the
conclusion that this constitutes an act of  cruelty‘.
5. MANISH GOEL versus ROHINI GOEL (Special Leave Petition

(C)   No.   2954   of   2010)   FEBRUARY   5,   2010   (Before   Hon’ble   Mr.

Justice Aftab Alam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Chauhan, JJ.)

2010 (2) SCR 414 

The statutory period of six months for filing the second petition
under Section 13­B(2) of the Act has been prescribed for providing an

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 19

opportunity to parties to reconcile and withdraw petition for dissolution
of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to advance
arguments   on   the   issue   as   to   whether,   statutory   period   prescribed
under   Section   13­B(1)of   the   Act   is   mandatory   or   directory   and   if
directory, whether could be dispensed with even by the High Court in
exercise of its writ/appellate jurisdiction. 
 
Thus, this is not a case where there has been any obstruction to the
stream   of   justice   or  there has  been  injustice  to  the parties, which  is
required  to  be eradicated, and this Court may grant equitable relief.
Petition does not raise any question of general public importance. None
of   contingencies,   which   may   require   this   Court   to   exercise   its
extraordinary   jurisdiction   under   Article   142   of   the   Constitution,   has
been brought to our notice in the case at hand.

6. Dr. (Mrs.) Malathi Ravi, M.D. Versus Dr. B.V. Ravi, M.D. CIVIL

APPEAL   NO.5862   OF   2014   (Arising   out   of   S.L.P.   (C)   No.   17   of

2010)   (Before   Hon’ble   Mr.   Justice   Sudhansu   Jyoti

Mukhopadhaya & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra, JJ.) 

Marriage as a social institution is an affirmance of civilized social order
where two individuals, capable of entering into wedlock, have pledged
themselves to the institutional norms and values and promised to each
other a cemented bond to sustain and maintain the marital obligation.
It stands as an embodiment for continuance of the human race. Despite

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 20

the   pledge   and   promises,   on   certain   occasions,   individual

incompatibilities,   attitudinal   differences   based   upon   egocentric
perception of situations, maladjustment phenomenon or propensity for
non­adjustment or refusal for adjustment gets eminently projected that
compels   both   the   spouses   to   take   intolerable   positions   abandoning
individual   responsibility,   proclivity   of   asserting   superiority   complex,
betrayal   of   trust   which   is   the   cornerstone   of   life,   and   sometimes   a
pervert sense of revenge, a dreadful diet, or sheer sense of envy bring
the cracks in the relationship when either both the spouses or one of the
spouses   crave   for   dissolution   of   marriage   –   freedom   from   the
institutional and individual bond. 
The   case   at   hand   initiated   by   the   husband   for   dissolution   of
marriage was viewed from a different perspective by the learned Family
Court Judge who declined to grant divorce as the factum of desertion as
requisite in law was not proved but the High Court, considering certain
facts and taking note of subsequent events for which the appellant was
found responsible, granted divorce. 
The High Court perceived the acts of the appellant as a reflection
of attitude of revenge in marriage or for vengeance after the reunion
pursuant   to   the   decree   for   restitution   of   marriage.   Presently   to   the
factual matrix in entirety and the subsequent events. We are absolutely
conscious that the relief of dissolution of marriage was sought on the
ground   of   desertion.   The   submission   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the
appellant is that neither subsequent events nor the plea of cruelty could
have been considered. There is no cavil over the fact that the petition
was filed under Section 13(1) (ib). However, on a perusal of the petition

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 21

it  transpires   that   there  are assertions of  ill­treatment,  mental  agony

and torture suffered by the husband. Mental cruelty is a state of mind.
The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse
caused   by   the   conduct   of   other   for   a   long   time   may   lead   to   mental
cruelty. Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference
or   total   departure   from   the   normal   standard   of   conjugal   kindness
causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also
amount to mental cruelty. 
The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated
instances   over   a   period   of   years   will   not   amount   to   cruelty.   The   ill
conduct   must   be   persistent   for   a   fairly   lengthy   period,   where   the
relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and
behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to
live   with   theother   party   any   longer,   may   amount   to   mental   cruelty.
Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may
fairly   be  concluded   that   the  matrimonial   bond   is  beyond   repair.   The
marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal itie. By refusing
to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of
marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and
emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental
cruelty.”
7. Suman Kapur vs Sudhir Kapur (2009) 1 SCC 422 Civil Appeal

No. 6582 of 2008 Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.

10907   of   2007   (Before   Hon’ble   Mr.   Justice   C.K.   Thakker   &

Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, JJ.)

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 22

Abortion   by   a   woman   without   her   husband’s   knowledge   and

consent  will  amount  to  mental  cruelty  and a  ground  for  divorce,  the
Supreme Court has held. “Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling
of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by
the conduct of the other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. A
sustained   course   of   abusive   and   humiliating   treatment   calculated   to
torture,   discommode   or   render   life   miserable   for   the   spouse,”   said   a
Bench consisting of Justices C.K. Thakker and D.K. Jain,  It was held:
“The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension
must be very grave, substantial and weighty. Sustained reprehensible
conduct,   studied   neglect,   indifference   or   total   departure   from   the
normal standard of conjugal kindness, causing injury to mental health
or deriving sadistic pleasure, can also amount to mental cruelty.” 
The   conduct   must   be   much   more   than   jealousy,   selfishness,
possessiveness,   which   caused   unhappiness   and   dissatisfaction   and
emotional upset but might not be a reason for grant of divorce on the
ground of mental cruelty. Absence of intention It was held: “To establish
legal cruelty, it is not necessary that physical violence should be used.
Continuous cessation of marital intercourse or total indifference on the
part   of   the   husband   towards   marital   obligations   would   lead   to   legal
cruelty.   In   such   cases,   the   cruelty   will   be   established   if   the   conduct
itself is proved or admitted. The absence of intention should not make
any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs the act
complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. Mens rea is not a
necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on
the ground that there has been no deliberate or wilful ill treatment.”

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 23

“Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty; frequent
rudeness   of   language,   petulance   of   manner,   indifference   and   neglect
may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other
spouse absolutely intolerable.” 
In the instant case, Suman Kapur was aggrieved at the decree of
divorce granted against her by a trial court and confirmed by the Delhi
High Court. Both courts gave a finding that her three abortions without
the knowledge and consent of her husband, Sudhir Kapur, was a valid
ground   for   divorce.   Disposing   of   the   appeal,   the   Bench   noted   that
Sudhir Kapur got remarried on March 5, 2007 before the expiry of the
period of 90 days for filing appeal before this court and a child was born
from   the   second   marriage.   “Since,   we   are   confirming   the   decree   of
divorce on the ground of mental cruelty as held by both courts, i.e. the
trial court as well as the High Court, no relief can be granted so far as
the  reversal   of   decree   of   the  courts   below  is   concerned.   At   the  same
time, however, in our opinion, the respondent­ husband should not have
remarried before the expiry of period stipulated for filing appeal. Ends
of justice would be met if we direct the respondent to pay Rs. 5 lakh to
the appellant.”
8.   Naveen   Kohli   vs   Neelu   Kohli   ,   (2006)   4   SCC   558   (Before

Hon’ble   Mr.   Justice   B.N.   Agrawal,   Hon’ble   Mr.   Justice   A.K.

Mathur & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.) 

It was held that the marriage had been wrecked beyond any hope
of salvation, the court held that public interest and the interests of all
concerned lay in the recognition, in law, of this fact. That even though
the wife was not agreeable to a divorce by mutual consent and seemed

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 24

to have resolved to live in agony only to make the life of her husband a
miserable   hell,   public   interest   lay   in   the   dissolution   of   the   marriage
bond. Keeping a sham of a marriage alive in law was held to be more
conducive to immorality and potentially more prejudicial to the public
interest than the dissolution of marriage. Not granting a divorce under
such   circumstances   was   held   to   be   disastrous   for   the   parties.   The
granting of divorce would offer them the chance, both psychologically
and emotionally, to settle down after a while and start a new chapter in
life.   The  Supreme   Court  directed  that  the marriage  between  Naveen
andNeelu Kohli be dissolved, subject to the husband giving Rs 25 lakh
to the wife as permanent maintenance.
9.   Durga   Prasanna   Tripathy   vs   Arundhati   (2005)   7   SCC   353

(Before  Hon’ble  Mrs.   Justice  Ruma   Pal &  Hon’ble  Mr.  Justice

A.R. Lakshmanan, JJ.)

This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   judgment   dated   23.12.2003

passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Civil Appeal No. 10 of
2001   whereby   the   High   Court   allowing   the   appeal   filed   by   the
respondent­herein/wife under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 on the ground of cruelty and desertion . This is a most unfortunate
case where both the parties could not carry on their marital ties beyond
a   period   of   7   months   of   their   marriage.   The   marriage   between   the
parties   took   place   on   05.03.1991   and   it   is   the   specific   case   of   the
appellant that the respondent deserted him on  22.10.1999 and never
again returned to her matrimonial home. Today the position is that the
parties have been living separately for almost 14 years which means
that there is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage and that because

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 25

of such breakdown of marriage the marriage between the parties has
been rendered a complete deadwood. Learned counsel for the appellant
argued   that   no   useful   purpose   will   be   served   by   keeping   such   a
marriage alive on paper, which would only aggravate the agony of the
parties. Therefore, he would pray that in the fitness of things and in the
interest   of   justice,   the   marriage   between   the   parties   is   forthwith
terminated by a decree of divorce. We have perused the orders passed
by the Family Court and also of the High Court. Both the Family Court
as   well   as   the   High   Court   made   efforts   to   bring   about   a
reconciliation/rapprochement between the parties. The Family Court in
this regard gave a clear finding that in spite of good deal of endeavour
to effect a reconciliation the same could not be effected because of the
insistence of the respondent to remain separately from her in­laws. It
was totally an impracticable solution. 
In our view that 14 years have elapsed since the appellant and the
respondent   have   been   separated   and   there   is   no   possibility   of   the
appellant   and   the  respondent   resuming   the  normal   marital   life  even
though the respondent is willing to join her husband. There has been an
irretrievable   breakdown   of   marriage   between   the   appellant   the
respondent.   Both   parties   have   crossed   the   point   of   no   return.   A
workable solution is certainly not possible. Parties cannot at this stage
reconcile  themselves   and  live  together  forgetting  their   past  as  a bad
dream. We, therefore, have no other option except to allow the appeal
and set aside the judgment of the High Court and affirming the order of
the  Family  Court   granting  decree  for  divorce.  The  Family  Court  has
directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/­ towards permanent

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 26

alimony to the respondent and pursuant to such direction the appellant
had deposited the amount by way of bank draft. Considering the status
of   parties   and   the   economic   condition   of   the   appellant   who   is   facing
criminal prosecution and out of job and also considering the status of
the wife who is employed, we feel that a further sum of Rs. 1 lakh by
way of permanent alimony would meet the ends of justice. This shall be
paid by the appellant within 3 months from today by an account payee
demand draft drawn in favour of the respondent Arundhati Tripathy
and   the   dissolution   shall   come   into   effect   when   the   demand   draft   is
drawn and furnished to the respondent. 
10.   Vinita   Saxena   vs   Pankaj   Pandit   (2006)   3   SCC   778   (Before

Hon’ble   Mrs.   Justice   Ruma   Pal   &   Hon’ble   Mr.   Justice   A.R.

Lakshmanan, JJ.) 

As to what constitute the required mental cruelty for purposes of
the said provision, will not depend upon the numerical count of such
incidents or only on the continuous course of such conduct but really go
by the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of it when meted out even
once and the deleterious effect of it on the mental attitude, necessary for
maintaining a conducive matrimonial home. 
If the taunts, complaints and reproaches are of ordinary nature
only,   the   court   perhaps   need   consider   the   further   question   as   to
whether their continuance or persistence over a period of time render,
what   normally   would,   otherwise,   not   be   so   serious   an   act   to   be   so
injurious   and   painful   as   to   make   the   spouse   charged   with   them
genuinely   and   reasonably   conclude   that   the   maintenance   of
matrimonial home is not possible any longer. 

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 27

11.   A.   Jayachandra   vs   Aneel   Kaur   (2005)   2   SCC   22   (Before

Hon’ble   Mrs.   Justice   Ruma   Pal,   Hon’ble   Mr.   Justice   Arijit

Pasayat & Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker, JJ.) 

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 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. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be “grave
and weighty” so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse
cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be
something more serious than “ordinary wear and tear of married life”.
The   conduct,   taking   into   consideration   the   circumstances   and
background   has   to   be  examined  to  reach   the  conclusion  whether  the
conduct   complained   of   amounts   to   cruelty   in   the   matrimonial   law.
Conduct   has   to   be   considered,   as   noted   above,   in   the   background   of
several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical
and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 28

a   precise   definition   or   to   give   exhaustive   description   of   the

circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as
to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the
parties   had  deteriorated to such  an  extent due to the conduct of  the
other   spouse   that   it   would   be   impossible   for   them   to   live   together
without   mental   agony,   torture  or   distress,   to   entitle   the  complaining
spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to
constitute   cruelty   and   a   consistent   course   of   conduct   inflicting
immeasurable   mental   agony   and   torture   may   well   constitute   cruelty
within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist
of   verbal   abuses   and   insults   by   using   filthy   and   abusive   language
leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party. If
acts subsequent to the filing of the divorce petition can be looked into to
infer condonation of the aberrations, acts subsequent to the filing of the
petition can be taken note of to show a pattern in the behaviour and
conduct. In the instant case, after filing of the divorce petition a suit for
injunction was filed, and the respondent went to the extent of seeking
detention of the respondent. She filed a petition for maintenance which
was also dismissed. Several caveat petitions were lodged and as noted
above,   with   wrong   address.   The   respondent   in   her   evidence   clearly
accepted that she intended to proceed with the execution proceedings,
and   prayer   for   arrest   till   the   divorce   case   was   finalized.   When   the
respondent gives priority to her profession over her husband’s freedom
it   points   unerringly   at   disharmony,   diffusion   and   disintegration   of
marital   unity,   from   which   the   Court   can   deduce   about   irretrievable
breaking of marriage. even if marriage has broken down irretrievably

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 29

decree   of   divorce   cannot   be   passed.   In   all   these   cases   it   has   been

categorically held that in extreme cases the Court can direct dissolution
of marriage on the ground that the marriage broken down irretrievably
as is clear from paragraph 9 of Shiv Sunder’s case (supra). The factual
position in each of the other cases is also distinguishable.
  It   was   held  that   long absence  of  physical company cannot  be  a
ground for divorce if the same was on account of husband’s conduct. In
Shiv Sunder’s case (supra) it was noted that the husband was leading
adulterous life and he cannot take advantage of his wife shunning his
company. Though the High Court held by the impugned judgment that
the said case was similar, it unfortunately failed to notice the relevant
factual difference in the two cases. It is true that irretrievable breaking
of   marriage   is   not   one   of   the   statutory   grounds   on   which   Court   can
direct dissolution of marriage, this Court has with a view to do complete
justice and shorten the agony of the parties engaged in long drawn legal
battle, directed in those cases dissolution of marriage. But as noted in
the said cases themselves those were exceptional cases. In the aforesaid
legal   and   factual   background   the   inevitable   conclusion   is   that   the
appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce and we direct accordingly.

12. Parveen Mehta vs Inderjit Mehta (2002) 5 SCC 296 (Before

Hon’ble   Mr.   Justice   D.P.   Mohapatra   &   Hon’ble   Mr.   Justice

Brijesh Kumar, JJ.) 

What is the meaning and import of the expression ‘cruelty’ as a
matrimonial offence is the core questionn on the determination of which

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 30

depends the result and the fate of this case. We find is that right from
the beginning the matrimonial relationship between the parties was not
normal;   the   spouses   stayed   together   at   the   matrimonial   home   for   a
short   period   of   about   six  months;  the  respondent  had  been  trying  to
persuade   the   appellant   and   her   parents   to   agree   to   go   for   proper
medical treatment to improve her health so that the parties may lead a
normal sexual life; all such attempts proved futile. The appellant even
refused to subject herself to medical test as advised by the doctor. After
21st June, 1987 she stayed away from the matrimonial home and the
respondent was deprived of her company. In such circumstances, the
respondent who was enjoying normal health was likely to feel a sense of
anguish and frustration in being deprived of normal cohabitation that
every married person expects to enjoy and also social embarrassment
due   to   the   behavior   of   the   appellant.   Further,   the   conduct   of   the
appellant in approaching the police complaining against her husband
and his parents and in not accepting the advice of the superior judicial
officer   Mr.S.K.Jain   and   taking  a  false  plea  in   the  case  that   she  had
conceived but unfortunately there was miscarriage are bound to cause a
sense of mental depression in the respondent. The cumulative effect of
all   these   on   the   mind   of   the   respondent,   in   our   considered   view,
amounts   to   mental   cruelty   caused   due   to   the   stubborn   attitude   and
inexplicably unreasonable conduct of the appellant.

13.   Savitri   Pandey   vs   Prem   Chandra   Pandey   (2002)   2   SCC   73

(Before   Hon’ble   Mr.   Justice   R.P.   Sethi   &   Hon’ble   Mr.   Justice

Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.) 

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 31

Treating the petitioner with cruelty is a ground for divorce under
Section 13(1)(i­a) of the Act. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act
but in relation to matrimonial matters it is contemplated as a conduct of
such   type   which   endangers   the   living   of   the   petitioner   with   the
respondent. Cruelty consists of acts which are dangerous to life, limb or
health. 
Cruelty for the purpose of the Act means where one spouse has so
treated the other and manifested such feelings towards her or him as to
have inflicted bodily injury, or to have caused reasonable apprehension
of   bodily   injury,   suffering   or  to   have  injured   health.  Cruelty   may   be
physical or mental. Mental cruelty is the conductof other spouse which
causes   mental   suffering   or   fear   to   the   matrimonial   life   of   the   other.
“Cruelty”, therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such
cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it
would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other
party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear
and   tear   of   family   life.   It   cannot   be   decided   on   the   basis   of   the
sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the
course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to
live with the other. In the instant case both the trial court as well as the
High Court have found on facts that the wife had failed to prove the
allegations of cruelty attributed to the respondent Desertion”, for the
purpose   of   seeking   divorce   under   the   Act,   means   the   intentional
permanent   forsaking   and   abandonment   of   one   spouse   by   the   other
without   that   other’s   consent   and   without   reasonable   cause.   In   other
words it is a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage. Desertion

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 32

is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things. Desertion,
therefore,   means   withdrawing   from   the   matrimonial   obligations,   i.e.,
not permitting or allowing and facilitating the cohabitation between the
parties.   The   proof   of   desertion   has   to   be   considered   by   taking   into
consideration the concept of marriage which in law legalises the sexual
relationship   between   man   and   woman   in   the   society   for   the
perpetuation of race, permitting lawful indulgence in passion to prevent
licentiousness and for procreation of children. 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.   After
referring to host of authorities and the views of various authors, this

Court   in  Bipinchandra   Jaisinghbhai   Shah   v.   Prabhavati   [AIR

1957 SC 176]  held that if a spouse abandons the other in a state of

temporary   passions,   for   example,   anger   or   disgust   without   intending

permanently to cease cohabitation, it will not amount to desertion the
appellant herself is trying to take advantage of her own wrong and in
the circumstances of the case, the marriage between the parties cannot
be held to have become dead for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 142 of the Constitution for dissolving the marriage.

14. G.V.N. Kameswara Rao vs G. Jabilli (2002) 2 SCC 296 (Before

Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Mohapatra & Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G.

Balakrishnan, JJ.) 

The husband who had been unsuccessfully fighting litigation for
the   past   more   than   15   years   for   snapping   his   marital   ties   with   the

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 33

respondent wife is  the appellant before us. various incidents brought
out   in   the   evidence   would   show   that   the   relationship   between   the
parties   was   irretrievably   broken,   and   because   of   the   non­cooperation
and the hostile attitude of the respondent, the appellant was subjected
to serious traumatic experience which can safely be termed as ‘cruelty’
coming within the purview of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage
Act. Therefore, we hold that the appellant is entitled to the decree for
dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage
Act. 
Under   Section   13(1)   (ia)   of   the   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   on   a   petition
presented   either   by   the   husband   or   wife,   the   marriage   could   be
dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has,
after   the   solemnization   of   the   marriage,   treated   the   petitioner   with
cruelty. ‘Cruelty’ is not defined in the Act. Some of the provisions of the
Hindu   Marriage   Act   were   amended   by   Hindu   Marriage   Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1976. Prior to the amendment, ‘cruelty’ was one of
the grounds for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act. Under
that   Section,   “cruelty”   was   given   an   extended   meaning   by   using   an
adjectival phrase, viz. “as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind
of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to
live with the other party”. By the Amendment Act of 1976, “cruelty” was
made one of the grounds for divorce under Section 13. The omission of
the words, which described ‘cruelty’ in the unamended Section 10 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, has some significance in the sense that it is not
necessary to prove that the nature of the cruelty is such as to cause
reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 34

harmful for the petitioner to live with the other party. English Courts in
some of the earlier decisions had attempted to define “cruelty” as an act
which involves conduct of such a nature as to have caused damage to
life, limb or health or to give rise to reasonable apprehension of such
danger. But we do not think that such a degree of cruelty is required to
be proved by the petitioner for obtaining a decree for divorce. Cruelty
can   be   said   to   be   an   act   committed   with   the   intention   to   cause
sufferings   to   the   opposite   party.   Austerity   of   temper,   rudeness   of
language,   occasional   outburst   of   anger,   may   not   amount   to   cruelty,
though it may amount to misconduct. “The mental cruelty in Section
13(1)(ia) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the
other   party   such   mental   pain   and   suffering   as   would   make   it   not
possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental
cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be
expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged
party   cannot   reasonably   be   asked   to   put   up   with   such   conduct   and
continue to live with the other party. 
It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to
cause   injury   to   the   health   of   the   petitioner.   While   arriving   at   such
conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of
the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the
parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all
other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor
desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not
amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in
each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 35

is   a   case   of   accusations   and   allegations,   regard   must   be   had   to   the

context in which they were made.” 
We do not think that this is a case, where the appellant could be
denied relief by invoking Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. On
the  other   hand,   various   incidents   brought   out   in   the   evidence  would
show   that   the   relationship   between   the   parties   was   irretrievably
broken, and because of the non­cooperation and the hostile attitude of
the   respondent,   the   appellant   was   subjected   to   serious   traumatic
experience which can safely be termed as ‘cruelty’ coming within the
purview of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, we
hold   that   the   appellant   is   entitled   to   the   decree   for   dissolution   of
marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. However,
we make it clear that any order of maintenance passed in favour of the
respondent will stand unaffected by this decree for dissolution of the
marriage. We also make it clear that if any rights have been accrued to
the respondent in the joint assets of both, she would be at liberty to take
appropriate action to enforce such right.

15.   MAHARANI   KUSUMKUMARI   AND   ANR.   Vs.   SMT.

KUSUMKUMARI JADEJA AND ANR. 1991 SCR (1) 193 1991 SCC

(1) 582 JT 1991 (1) 278 1991 SCALE (1)103 (Before Hon’ble Mr.

Justice L.M. Sharma & Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Punchhi, JJ.) 

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section II­Petition to declare marriage
a   nullity­Whether   maintainable   after   death   of   petitioner’s   spouse.

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 36

Practice and Procedure: Proceedings involving issues relating to marital
status­Question dependent upon nature of action and the law governing
the same­Provisions of the relevant statute very material.
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that having regard to
the   very   special   relationship   between   husband   and   wife,a   marriage
cannot be dissolved or declared to be a nullity unless both of them are
parties thereto. The martial status of a person sands on a much higher
footing than other positions one may hold in the society and cannot be
allowed   to   be   challenged   lightly,and   that   the   marriage   of   a   person,
therefore, cannot be declared as nullity after his death when he does no
have an opportunity to contest. Reliance was placed upon the language
of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On behalf of the respondent, it
was pointed out that having regard to the language of Section 16 of the
Hindu   Marriage   Act   as   it   it   stood   before   its   amendment   in   1976,he
children   born   of   the  respondent   would   not   have   been   entitled   to   the
benefit of the section in absence of a decree declaring the marriage of
their   parents   as   nullity,   and   this   was   precisely   the   reason   that   the
respondent   had   to   commence   the   present   litigation   On   the   question:
whether a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
for declaring the marriage of the petitioner as a nullity is maintainable
after the death of the petitioner’s spouse. 
Dismissing   the   appeal,   this   Court,   HELD:   An   application   under
Section11   of   the   Hindu   Marriage  Act,  1955  before  its  amendment   in
1976, was maintainable at the instance of a party to the marriage even
after the death of the other spouse. 
In the instant case, the proceeding was started in 1974 that is, before

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 37

the amendment was made in the Hindu Marriage Act,1955. Section II
did not contain the words “against the other party”. At that time all
that was required was that the application had to be filed by a party to
the marriage under challenge. On the plain language of the section as it
stood then,it could not be claimed that in absence of the other spouse as
a party to the proceedings, the same would not be maintainable. By the
amendment in section 11, in so far the cases where marriage can be
declared as nullity, the application of the rule protecting the legitimacy
was widened. If that had not been,the children born of such marriages
would have been deprived of the advantage on the death of either of the
parents. The intention of the legislature in enacting section 16 was to
protect the legitimacy of the children who would have been legitimate if
the Act had not been passed in 1955. There is no reason to interpret
section 11 in a manner which would narrow down its field. With respect
to   the   nature   of   the   proceedings,   what   the   court   has   to   do   in   an
application under section 11 is not to bring about any change in the
marital status of the parties. The effect of granting a decree of nullity is
to discover the flow in the marriage at the time of its performance and
accordingly to grant a decree declaring it to be void.

16.DHARMENDRA KUMAR Vs. USHA KUMAR 1977 AIR 2218 ,

1978 SCR (1) 315, 1977 SCC (4) 12 (Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice

A.C. Gupta & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Syed Murtaza Fazalali, JJ.) 

Hindu   Marriage   Act   1955­Section   13(1A)(ii).­23(1)(a)­If   divorce

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 38

can be obtained for absence of restitution of conjugal rights after decree
for restitution is granted by a person who refuses to have restitution­
Whether such a conduct amounts to a wrong within the meaning of sec.
23   (1)   (a)   of   the   Act.   The   respondent­wife   was   granted   a   decree   for
restitution   of   conjugal   rights   on   her   application   under   s.   9   of   Hindu
Marriage   Act,   1955   by   Additional   Senior   Sub­Judge,   Delhi   the
respondent presented a petition under s. 13(1A) (ii) of the Act in the
Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi for dissolution of the marriage
by a decree of divorce­stating therein that there bad been no restitution
of conjugal rights between the parties after the passing of the decree for
restitution   of   conjugal   rights.   The   appellant­husband,   in   his   written
statement   admitted   that   there   had   been   no   restitution   of   conjugal
rights,   between   the  parties  after  the passing  of  the decree  in   earlier
proceedings,   but   stated   that   he   made   attempts   to   comply   with   the
decree   dated   27th   August   77.   by   writing   several   registered   letters
inviting the respondent to live with him to which, according to him she
never replied. The husband contended that she herself prevented the
restitution of conjugal rights and was making a capital out of her own
wrong which she was not entitled to do. Section 13 as it stood before the
1964   amendment   permitted   only   the   spouse   who   had   obtained   the
decree   for   restitution   of   conjugal  rights   to   apply   for  relief  by   way  of
divorce. The party against whom the decree was passed was not given
that right. The relief which is available to the spouse against whom a
decree   for   restitution   of   conjugal   rights   has   been   passed   cannot
reasonably be denied to the one who does not insist on compliance with
the decree passed in his or her favour. In order to be a “wrong” within

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 39

the meaning of s. 23(1)(a) the conduct alleged has to be something more
than a mere disinclination to agree to an offer of reunion, it must be
misconduct serious enough to justify denial of the relief to which the
husband or the wife is otherwise entitled. Mere non­compliance with a
decree for restitution does not constitute wrong within the meaning of
section 23(1)(a).

17.   NARAYAN   GANESH   DASTANE   Vs.   SUCHETA   NARAYAN

DASTANE   1975   AIR   1534   1975   SCR   (3)   967   1975   SCC   (2)   326

(Before   Hon’ble   Mr.   Justice   Y.V.   Chandrachud,   Hon’ble   Mr.

Justice P.K. Goswami & Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.L. Untwalia, JJ.) 

Hindu Marriage Act­­Section 10(1)(b) and 23(1)(a)(b)­­Meaning of
cruelty­­Burden   of   proof   in   matrimonial   matters­­Whether   beyond
reasonable doubt­­Condonation­­of cruelty—Whether sexual intercourse
amounts to condonation—Whether condonation is conditional­­Revival
of cruelty. 
Code   of   Civil   Procedure­­Section   100   and   103­­Powers   of   High
Court   in   second   appeal.   The   appellant   husband   filed   a   petition   for
annulment   of   marriage   on   the   ground   of   fraud,   for   divorce   on   the
ground   of   unsoundness   of   mind   and   for   judicial   separation   on   the
ground   of   cruelty.   The   appellant   and   respondent   possess   high
educational qualifications and they were married in 1956. Two children
were born of the marriage one in 1957 and the other in 1959. 
The Trial Court rejected the contention of fraud and unsoundness

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 40

of mind. It, however, held the wife guilty of cruelty and on that ground
passed a decree for judicial separation. Both sides went in appeal to the
District Court which dismissed the husband’s appeal and allowed the
wife’s. The husband then filed a Second Appeal in the High Court. The
High Court dismissed that appeal. On appeal to this Court, Neither s.10
nor s. 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act requires that the petitioner must
prove his case beyond reasonable doubt S. 23 confers on the court the
power  to  pass  a decree if it is satisfied on the matters mentioned in
Clauses (a) to (e) of that Section. Considering that proceedings under
the Act are essentially of a civil nature the word ‘satisfied’ must mean
satisfied on a preponderance of probabilities and not satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt. The society has a stake in the institution of marriage
and, therefore, the erring spouse is treated not as a mere defaulter but
as an offender. But this social philosophy, though it may have a bearing
on   the   need   to   have   the   clearest   proof   of   an   allegation   before   it   is
accepted as a ground for­ the dissolution of marriage, it has no bearing
on the standard of proof in matrimonial cases. In England, a view was
at   one   time   taken   that   a   petitioner   in   a   matrimonial   petition   must
establish his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt but the House of
Lords in Blyth v. Blyth has held that the grounds of divorce or the bars
to the divorce May be proved by a preponderance of probability.
On the question of condonation of cruelty, a specific provision of a
specific   enactment   has   to   be   interpreted,   namely   s.   10(1)   (b).   The
enquiry, therefore, has to be whether the conduct charged as cruelty is
of   such   a   character   as   to   cause   in   the   mind   of   the   petitioner   a
reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him to

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 41

live with the respondent. It is not necessary, as under the English Law,
that the cruelty must be of such a character as to cause danger to life,
limb or health or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a
danger.   Acts   like   the   tearing   of   the   Mangal   Sutra,   locking   out   the
husband   when   he   is   due   to   arrive   from   the   office,   rubbing   of   chilly
powder   on   the   tongue   of   an   infant   child,   beating   a   child   mercilessly
while in high fever and switching on the light at night and sitting by
the bedside of the husband merely to nag him are acts which tend to
destroy the legitimate ends and objects of matrimony. The conduct of
wile amounts to cruelty within the meaning of s. 10(1) (b) of the Act.
The threat that she would put an end to her own life or that she will set
the house on fire, the threat that she will make the husband lose his job
and have the matter published in newspapers and the persistent abuses
and insults hurled at the husband and his parents are all of so grave an
order   as   to   ‘imperil   the   appellant’s   sense   of   personal   safety,   mental
happiness, job satisfaction and reputation.

18.   Lachman   Utamchand   Kiriplani   vs   Meena   Alias   Mota

Equivalent   citations:   1964   AIR   40,   1964   SCR   (4)   331   (Before

Hon’ble   Mr.   Justice   Bhuvneshwar   P.   Sinha,   CJ.   Hon’ble   Mr.

Justice   Sudhi   Ranjan   Das,   Hon’ble   Mr.   Justice   K.   Subbarao,

Hon’ble   Mr.   Justice   Raghubar   Dayal,   Hon’ble   Mr.   Justice   N.

Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ.) 

Husband   and   wife­judicial   separation­Desertion   without   just­

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 42

cause­offer to return to matrimonial home must be shown to be bona
fide­Petition   for   judicial   separation­Burden   of   proof­Hindu   Marriage
Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), s. 10(1)(a). Where an application is made under
s.  10(1)(a)   of   the Hindu  Marriage  Act, 1955, for a decree  for judicial
separation   on   the   ground   of   desertion,   the   legal   burden   is   upon   the
petitioning   spouse   to   establish   by   convincing   evidence   beyond   any
reasonable   doubt   that   the   respondent   intentionally   forsook   and
abandoned him or her without reasonable cause. The petitioner must
also prove that there was desertion throughout the statutory period and
there was no bona fide attempt on the respondent’s part to return to the
matrimonial home and that the petitioner did not by his or her action
by word or conduct provide a just cause to the other spouse to desist
from, making any attempt at reconciliation or resuming cohabitation;
­but   where,   however,   on   the  facts   it   is   clear   that   the   conduct   of   the
deserted spouse has  had no such effect on the mind of the deserting
spouse there is no rule of law that desertion terminates by reason of the
conduct of the deserted spouse. An offer to return to the matrimonial
home   after   sometime,   though   desertion   had   started,   if   genuine   and
sincere and represented his or her true feelings and intention, would
bring to an end the desertion because thereafter the animus deserendi
would be’ lacking, though the factum of separation might continue; but
on the other hand, if the offer was not sincere and there was in reality
no   intention   to   return,   the   mere   fact   that   letters   were   written
expressing   such   an   intention   would   not   interrupt   the   desertion   from
continuing. 
In the present case, the evidence was clear that the respondent

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 43

left her matrimonial home with the permission of her husband and his
parents and that it was not possible to infer from the evidence given by
Dr. Lulla that the respondent decided to abandon the appellant. The
letters demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the wife did not
demonstrated beyond band with the requisite animus, but on the other
hand,   showed   her   willingness   to   go   over   to   Bombay   as   soon   as   she
regained   her   health.   In   view   of   the   false   allegations   made   by   the
appellant   in   his   letter   dated   April   1,   1954,   in   which   he   charged   the
respondent with unchastity and leading a fast and reckless life, from
that date the desertion, if any, on the part of the respondent came to an
end and from that date the appellant was guilty of desertion.

19. Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah vs Prabhawati Equivalent

Citations:   1956   Scr   838   Date   of   Judgment:   19/10/1956   (Before

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhuvneshwar P. Sinha, Hon’ble Mr. Justice

B.   Jagannadhadas   &   Hon’ble   Mr.   Justice   T.L.   Venkatarama

Aiyyar, JJ.) 

HMA­section 13­ divorce­ ground of desertion ­ For the offence of
desertion,   so   far   as   the   deserting   spouse   is   concerned,   two   essential
conditions must be there, namely 
(1) the factum of separation, and 
(2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 44

deserendi). 
Similarly two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is
concerned: 
(1) the absence of consent, and 
(2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the
matrimonial   home   to   form   the   necessary   intention   aforesaid.   The
petitioner for divorce bears the burden of proving 
those elements in the two spouses respectively.... 
Desertion is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and
circumstances of each case. The inference may be drawn from certain
facts which may not in another case be capable of leading to the same
inference; that is to say, the facts have to be viewed as to the purpose
which   is   revealed   by   those   acts   or   by   conduct   and   expression   of
intention, both anterior and subsequent to the actual acts of separation.
If, in fact, there has been a separation the essential question always is
whether   that   act   could   be   attributable   to   an   animus   deserendi.   The
offence   of   desertion   commences   when   the   fact   of   separation   and   the
animus   deserendi   co­exist.   But   it   is   not   necessary   that   they   should
commence   at   the   same   time.   The   de   facto   separation   may   have
commenced without the necessary animus deserendi coincide in point of
time.

20. U.Sree vs U.Srinivas CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8927­8928 OF 2012

Decided on 11 December, 2012 (Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S.

Radhakrishnan & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra, JJ.) [Arising

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 45

out of S.L.P.  (Civil) Nos. 37449­37450 of 2012 ( CC.5877­5878 of

2012)] 

The human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is
equally   complicated.   Similarly   human   ingenuity   has   no   bound,
therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is
almost   impossible.   What   is   cruelty   in   one   case   may   not   amount   to
cruelty in the other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to
person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational,
family   and   cultural   background,   financial   position,   social   status,
customs,   traditions,   religious   beliefs,   human   values   and   their   value
system.   ....the   concept   of   mental   cruelty   cannot   remain   static;   it   is
bound to change  with the passage of time, impact of modern culture
through print and electronic media and value system, etc. etc. 
What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty
after   a   passage   of   time   or   vice   versa.   There   can   never   be   any
straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty
in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate
the   case   would   be   to   evaluate   it   on   its   peculiar   facts   and
circumstances. ....In matrimonial relationship, cruelty would obviously
mean   absence   of   mutual   respect   and   understanding   between   the
spouses   which   embitters   the   relationship   and   often   leads   to   various
outbursts   of   behaviour   which   can   be   termed   as   cruelty.   Sometime
cruelty  in   a   matrimonial  relationship  may  take  the form  of   violence,
sometime   it   may   take   a   different   form.   At   times,   it   may   be   just   an
attitude   or   an   approach.   Silence   in   some   situations   may   amount   to

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 46

cruelty.

21.Vishwanat vs Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal CIVIL APPEAL

NO. 4905 OF 2012 Decided on 4 July, 2012 (Before Hon’ble Mr.

Justice Deepak Verma & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra, JJ.)

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 16528 of 2007) 

Regard   being   had   to   the   aforesaid,   we   have   to   evaluate   the

instances. In our considered opinion, a normal reasonable man is bound
to   feel   the   sting   and   the   pungency.   The   conduct   and   circumstances
make   it   graphically   clear   that   the   respondent­wife   had   really
humiliated him and caused mental cruelty. Her conduct clearly exposits
that it has resulted in causing agony and anguish in the mind of the
husband.   She   had   publicised   in   the   newspapers   that   he   was   a
womaniser and a drunkard. She had made wild allegations about his
character.   She   had   made   an   effort   to   prosecute   him   in   criminal
litigations which she had failed to prove. The feeling of deep anguish,
disappointment, agony and frustration of the husband is obvious. It can
be   stated   with   certitude   that   the   cumulative   effect   of   the   evidence
brought   on   record   clearly   establish   a   sustained   attitude   of   causing
humiliation and calculated torture on the part of the wife to make the
life   of   the   husband   miserable.   The   husband   felt   humiliated   both   in
private and public life. Indubitably, it created a dent in his reputation
which is not only the salt of life, but also the purest treasure and the
most precious perfume of life. It is extremely delicate and a cherished

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 47

value this side of the grave. It is a revenue generator for the present as
well as for the posterity. Thus analysed, it would not be out of place to
state   that   his   brain   and   the   bones   must   have   felt   the   chill   of
humiliation. The dreams sweetly grafted with sanguine fondness with
the passage of time reached the Everstine disaster, possibly, with a vow
not to melt. The cathartic effect looked like a distant mirage. The cruel
behaviour of the wife has frozen the emotions and snuffed out the bright
candle   of   feeling   of   the   husband   because   he   has   been   treated   as   an
unperson. Thus, analysed, it is abundantly clear that with this mental
pain, agony and suffering, the husband cannot be asked to put up with
the conduct of the wife and to continue to live with her. Therefore, he is
entitled to a decree for divorce.
22.USHA RATILAL DAVE VERSUS ARUN B. DAVE Gujarat High

Court First Appeal No. 1484 of 1981 , 1983 SCC OnLine Guj 93 :

1984 GLH 333 : (1984) 25 (1) GLR 81 Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice

V.V Bedarkar 

HINDU   MARRIAGE   ACT   :   S.10,   S.13(1),   S.23,   S.23(1),   S.9

­­whether a decree of Legal Separation obtained in Illinois (U. S. A.)
Court   be  availed   of   in   Indian  Court  for  dissolution   of  marriage   by  a
decree of divorce under sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 when
both   the   spouses   are   Hindus   by   Personal   Law   and   married   in   India
according   to   Hindu   rites­   ­­   from   this   reference   to   Corpus   Juris
Secundum it is very clear that the connotation legal separation is akin
to judicial separation in our country and therefore it cannot be said that

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 48

this is not a judicial separation as envisaged by Indian Law . the order
of dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce passed by the learned
trial Judge is quite justified.

 23.  (Sadhana
    Satish   Kolvankar   Vs   Satish   Sachidanand

Kolvankar)   2005(2)   Civil   Court   Cases   75   (Bombay)   Hindu

Marriage Act,  1955,  Ss.12(1)(a)  and 13(1)(a)  ­ Divorce petition by

husband on ground of cruelty and prayer for decree of nullity on ground
of non consummation of marriage owing to impotence of wife ­  Doctor
opined that although wife has had sexual intercourse but she was not
habituated to it ­ Plea of non consummation of marriage, therefore, is
not available ­ However, ground of cruelty stands proved as wife during
the pendency of divorce petition had filed criminal complaint u/s 498­A
IPC   against   husband,   his   aged   mother   and   sister­in­law   which   was
dismissed   ­   Parties   lived   together   for   a   few   months   and   there   were
constant   quarrels   ­   Divorce   granted   on   ground   of   cruelty   ­   Husband
directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1200/­ per month. 

24. (Ram Kumar @ Ramender Kumar Vs Smt.Raksha @ Galabo)

2003(2) Civil Court Cases 70 (P&H) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,

S.13, Hindu Marriage (Punjab) Rules, 1956, R.10 ­ Adultery ­ Non

impleading   of   adultator   as   a   co­respondent   ­   Petition   is   not

maintainable for not joining necessary party.

25. (Rakesh Sharma Vs Surbhi Sharma) AIR 2002 Rajasthan 138

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 49

Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13   ­  Cruelty   ­   Act   of   wife   leaving

matrimonial   home   without   husband's   consent   and   not   returning

thereafter ­ Amounts to cruelty. 

26.(A.Jayachandra   Vs   Aneel   Kaur)   2005(1)   Apex   Court

Judgments 318 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 402 (S.C.) Hindu

Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13  ­   Cruelty   ­   Can   be   physical   or   mental   ­

Conduct complained of should be “grave and weighty” so as to come to
the conclusion that it is not reasonable expected to live with the other
spouse ­ It must be something more serious than “ordinary wear and
tear of married life”.

27.(Mayawanti Vs Bina Ram) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 59 (P&H)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13  ­ Cruelty ­ Extent of ­ Should be of

such a degree so as to cause an apprehension of danger to life, limb or
health,   physical   or   mental   ­   Allegation   of   excessive   drinking   and
addiction to sulfa  but the same not proved ­ Divorce petition dismissed.

28.   (Ramesh   Kumar   Bansal   Vs   Smt.Santosh   Kumari   Singla)

2003(2) Civil Court Cases 306 (P&H)  Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,

S.13  ­   Cruelty   ­   False   allegations   ­   Allegations   of   serious   nature   ­

Allegations   not   established   and   found   to   be   concocted   ­   Held,   false

allegations in itself amounts to cruelty. 

29. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13  ­ Cruelty ­ False and baseless

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 50

allegations   by   wife   in   reply   to   notice   about   bad   character   not   only

against husband but also against his other family members ­ Amounts
to cruelty. (Anita Vs Krishnakuamr) AIR 2003 Bombay 273

30. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Cruelty ­ Husband alleged to be

in the habit of excessive drinking and addicted to sulfa ­ There is no
nothing to establish this aspect ­ Cannot be taken as an independent
ground for the grant of matrimonial relief. (Mayawanti Vs Bina Ram)
2004(2) Civil Court Cases 257 (P&H)

31.   Hindu   Marriage Act, 1955, S.13  ­  Cruelty ­  Husband living at

Delhi   and   wife   employed   at   Meerut   ­   Wife   not   ready   to   live   with
husband   and   even   not   visiting   him   ­   Lodging   FIR   against   him   for
offence   u/s   498­A,   323   and   506   PC   maliciously   and   without   any
reasonable  cause ­  Such conduct of  wife amounts to mental cruelty ­
Acts not condoned by husband ­ Husband entitled to decree of divorce.
(Dr.P.K.Tomar Vs Smt.Archana) AIR 2003 Allahabad 214

32.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13  ­   Cruelty   ­   Husband   visiting

office   of   wife,   humiliating   her   by   using   objectionable   language   in

presence of her colleagues and calling her prostitute ­ Husband can be
said to have treated wife with cruelty ­ Wife entitled to grant of divorce.
(Smt.Kala Kumari Vs Ram Bhawan Anand) AIR 2004 All. 54

34. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13  ­ Cruelty ­ Isolated incidents of

misbehaviour by husband ­ Held, these are not sufficient to establish

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 51

cruelty ­ mental or physical. (Mayawanti Vs Bina Ram) 2004(3) Civil
Court Cases 59 (P&H)

35. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Cruelty ­ Levelling of false and

scandalous   allegations  by wife against  husband regarding demand  of

dowry and his adulterous life ­ Held, such false allegations constitute
mental   cruelty.   (Rakesh   Sharma   Vs   Surbhi   Sharma)         AIR   2002
Rajasthan 138

36. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Cruelty ­ Mental ­ Enquiry as to

­ Must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment and impact on such
treatment   in   the   mind   of   the   spouse,   whether   it   caused   reasonable
apprehension   that   it   would   be   harmful   or   injurious   to   live   with   the
other ­ Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into
account   the   nature   of   the   conduct   and   its   effect   on   the   complaining
spouse ­ However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of
itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal ­ Then the impact or
injurious   effect   on   the   other   spouse   need   not   be   enquired   into   or
considered ­ In such case, cruelty will be established if the conduct itself
is   proved   or   admitted.   (A.Jayachandra   Vs   Aneel   Kaur)   2005(1)   Apex
Court Judgments 318 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 402 (S.C.)

37. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13  ­ Cruelty ­ Mental ­ Has to be

considered in the light of norms of marital ties of the particular society
to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in
which   they   live.   (A.Jayachandra   Vs Aneel  Kaur)  2005(1)  Apex   Court

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 52

Judgments 318 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 402 (S.C.)

38.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13  ­   Cruelty   ­   Mental   cruelty   ­

Mental   cruelty   is   far   more   damaging   than   physical   cruelty   ­   Mental

cruelty   continues   to   hurt   the   person   all   along   and   any   amount   of
heeling   touch   or   heeling   words   would   not   wipe   out   the   scars   which
continue   to   prick   and   cause   continuous   hurt.   (Manmohan   Singh   Vs
Aneeta Preet) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 410 (P&H)  

39.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13  ­   Cruelty   ­   Not   established   ­

Allegations   and   counter­allegations   of   misbehaviour,   physical   and

mental torture made by both parties ­ Parties unable to live together ­
Marriage   becoming   death   both   emotionally   and   practically   with   no
chances  of  revival  ­ In  such circumstances decree of divorce granted.
(Poonam Gupta Vs Ghanshyam Gupta) AIR 2003 Allahabad 51

40. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Cruelty ­ Wife alleged to have

illicit relations with a person ­ Person with whom wife alleged to have
illicit relations not examined or cross­examined though his affidavit was
on record ­ Cannot be concluded that wife had illicit relations with her
colleague etc. ­ Finding of cruelty by wife on that count liable to be set
aside. (Anita Vs Krishnakumar) AIR 2003 Bombay 273

41.   Hindu   Marriage  Act,  1955,  S.13  ­  Cruelty   and  harassment   for

dowry   ­   Wife   seeking   divorce   ­   Husband   alleged   to   be   drug   addict,

alcoholic and demanding dowry ­ Deed of divorce executed by parties

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 53

earlier   ­   Husband   admitted   its   execution   in   pleadings   ­   Said   deed

cannot   be   excluded   from   consideration   merely   because   it   was   not
exhibited as documents ­ Plea by husband that both the said documents
were executed as a joke and/or both of them lived together as husband
and wife after execution of those documents ­ Not tenable ­ Husband
proved to have received amount from his father­in­law against demand
of dowry ­ No interference in order of dissolution of marriage ­ Fact that
marriage   between   parties   has   irretrievably   broken   down   is   an
additional reason. (Navneet Kumar Vs Meena Kumari) AIR 2002 H.P.
16

42.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13  ­   Decree   for   dissolution   of

marriage ­ Thirty party who has nothing to do with the relationship of
husband   wife   cannot   prefer   an   appeal   against   the   said   decree   ­   He
cannot intrude into their privacy ­ He is not an aggrieved party. (Baldev
Singh Vs Surinder Mohan Sharma) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 16 (S.C.)  

43. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Desertion ­ For the purpose of

seeking  divorce desertion means the intentional permanent forsaking
and abandonment of one spouse by the other without other's consent
and without reasonable cause ­ A single act is not complete in itself ­ It
is a continuous course of conduct to be determined under the facts and
circumstances of each case ­ So far as the deserting spouse is concerned,
two essential conditions must be there, (i) the factum of separation, and
(ii) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus
deserendi) ­ Similarly two elements are essential so far as the deserted

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 54

spouse is concerned (i) the absence of consent and (ii) absence of conduct
giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to
form the necessary intention. (Geeta Mullick Vs Brojo Gopal Mullick)
2004(2) Civil Court Cases 333 (Calcutta)

44. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Desertion ­ Husband resident of

Delhi and wife employed at Meerut ­ Wife not ready and willing to live
with   husband   ­   Suit   for   restitution   was   filed   by   her   only   to   create
evidence for future litigation ­ Even after passing of decree of restitution
wife failing to comply it ­ Desertion was continuous and for more than
two  years   ­   Husband  entitled  to decree  of  divorce. (Dr.P.K.Tomar  Vs
Smt.Archana) AIR 2003 Allahabad 214

45. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Desertion ­ Petition by husband

for   divorce   ­   Wife   alleged   second   marriage   by   husband   ­   Second

marriage   not   proved   but   sufficient   material   placed   on   record   that
husband   carved   matrimonial   like   relationship   with  another   woman   ­
Decree   of   divorce   rightly   refused.   (Ram   Lakhan   Vs   Prem   Kumari)
2003(2) Civil Court Cases 582 (Rajasthan)  

46. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13  ­ Desertion ­ Wife stating that

she is prepared to go back to the matrimonial home unconditionally ­  ­
Unconditional   offer   of   wife   in   proceedings   before   Lok   Adalat   can   be
taken   into   account   to   show   her   conduct   as   to   whether   there   was
desertion on her part. (Ram Mehar Singh  Vs Urmila Kumari) 2004(3)
Civil Court Cases 659 (P&H)

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 55

47.Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13  ­   Desertion   ­   Wife   wanted   her

husband   to   live   separately   from   his   old   parents   and   brothers   and
deserting   him   on   this   count   with   the   intention   to   bring   cohabitation
permanently   to   an   end   ­   Decree   of   divorce   validly   passed.   (Geeta
Mullick   Vs   Brojo   Gopal   Mullick)   2004(2)   Civil   Court   Cases   333
(Calcutta)

48.Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13  ­   Dissolution   of   marriage   ­

Petition by husband on ground of cruelty ­ Institution of FIR by wife
against husband under S.498­A IPC for subjecting her to cruelty which
was   found   false   after   investigation   ­   Amounts   to   cruelty   ­   Husband
entitled to decree of dissolution of marriage. (Narendra Kumar Gupta
Vs Indu) AIR 2002 Rajasthan 169

49. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Dissolution of marriage ­ Wife

left   matrimonial   home   within   6   months   of   marriage   ­   Wife   charge

husband  for  impotency and mental disorder and stated that she was
always ready and willing to lead normal conjugal life ­ Wife did not put
on record strong and reliable evidence ­ Parties living separately for last
22   years   ­   Efforts   of   conciliation   failed   ­   Decree   of   dissolution   of
marriage passed granting Rs.2.5 lacs to wife as monetary compensation.
(Prabat Kumar Mitra Vs Sikha Mitra) AIR 2002 Jharkhand 154

50. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Divorce ­ Appeal against decree

of   divorce   in   favour   of   husband   ­   In   appeal   wife   seeking   Rs.18   lacs

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 56

towards   full   and   final   settlement   ­     Wife   given   a   sum   of   Rs.12   lacs
towards lumpsum one time settlement. (Harsha Indukumar Bhojani Vs
Indukumar Ratilal Bhojani) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 562 (Bombay)

51. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Divorce ­ Can be sought on the

grounds   viz.   (1)     Character   assassination   is   a   serious   matrimonial

offence and can found a decree for divorce; (2) Cruelty to a spouse has
not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, and it has to be judged
from the facts and circumstances of each different case, where there has
been   cruel   treatment   of   one   spouse   by   the   other;   (3)   Cruelty   ­   it   is
sufficient if the spouse can prove that it could be unreasonable or cruel
to force him or her to live with the other spouse as man and wife, in the
entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case; (4) Allegations of bad
character etc. made in pleadings can find a cause of action for divorce
and the aggrieved spouse is not necessarily to be driven to a subsequent
litigation based on the pleadings of the present litigation. (Smt.Kakali
Das  (Ghosh) Vs Dr.Asish Kumar Das) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 147
(Calcutta)

52. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Divorce ­ Cannot be granted on

ground that marriage has irretrievably broken down. (Swapan Kumar
Ganguly Vs Smiritikana Ganguly) AIR 2002 Calcutta 6

53. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13  ­ Divorce ­ Cruelty ­ Caused by

husband   to   wife   ­   Wife   has   a   cogent   reason   to   stay   away   from

matrimonial   home   ­   Husband,   not   entitled   to   decree   of   divorce   on

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 57

ground of desertion by wife. (Swapan Kumar Ganguly vs Smiritikana
Ganguly) AIR 2002 Calcutta 6

54. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Divorce ­ Cruelty ­ Demand of

wife for a separate residence ­ Merely to avoid company of parents­in­
law inspite of the fact that wife gets normal care, affection and facilities
amounts to cruelty ­ However, if wife does not get proper respect, status
and   treatment   from   her   parents­in­law   then   demand   of   separate
residence   does   not   amount   to   cruelty   ­   Wife's   insistence   on   separate
residence per se cannot constitute a mental cruelty, unless it is found to
be totally unnecessary, unreasonable, inhuman and unfair. (Smt.Kakali
Das  (Ghosh) Vs Dr.Asish Kumar Das) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 147
(Calcutta)

55. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Divorce ­ Cruelty ­ Slanderous

allegation by wife about character of husband of having extra­marital
relationship   with   another   lady   ­   Allegation   not   proved   ­   Wife   wrote
letters to Authorities and Women Cell and also to Prime Minister ­ Wife
was   persisting   to   humiliate   and   wounding   feeling   of   husband   which
amounts to cruelty ­ Brother of wife assaulted husband and broke his
tooth ­ Matrimonial life causing profound and lasting disruption driving
husband   to   feel   deeply   hurt   and   reasonably   apprehended   that   it   is
impossible for him to live together ­ Held, husband is entitled to divorce.
(D.N.Sharma Vs Usha Sharma) AIR 2004 Delhi 198

56. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Divorce ­ Cruelty ­ Statements

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 58

in the pleadings provoked by the course of litigation are not sufficient
for the purpose of establishing the case of cruelty against wife and in
favour of husband. (Smt.Kakali Das (Ghosh) Vs Dr.Asish Kumar Das)
2004(2) Civil Court Cases 147 (Calcutta)

57.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13  ­   Divorce   ­   Cruelty   ­   Visit   to

parents house by wife ­ Permission of husband each and every time is
not   required   ­   So   long   such   visit     to   parents   house   do   not   cause   an
unbearable   inconvenience   or   does   not   amount   to   obduracy,   husband
cannot treat such visits as acts of cruelty. (Smt.Kakali Das (Ghosh) Vs
Dr.Asish Kumar Das) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 147 (Calcutta)

58. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13  ­ Divorce ­ Cruelty ­ Wife used

insultive language against parents of husband ­ Unrebutted ­ Allegation
by  wife   regarding   infidelity   on  part  of   husband  not   substantiated   by
corroborative   evidence   ­   Wife   extravagant   ­   Wife   insulted   husband
sometime in public ­ Wife living separately with child ­ Such kind of
behaviour of wife and such kind of situation culminates into cruelty ­
High Court while making effort for reconciliation found that there is not
compatibility between the parties making them live together would be
asking the two strangers to share a roof ­ Decree of divorce granted in
favour   of   husband   ­   No   interference.   (Shivani   Chattopadhyaya   Vs
Siddharth Chattopadhyaya) AIR 2002 P&H 58

58. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Divorce ­ Desertion ­ Husband

seeking   divorce   ­   Wife   claiming   to   be   living   separate   due   to   dowry

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 59

harassment and attempt to cause physical harm ­ No police complaint
lodged for dowry but parties had gone to police station in this regard ­
Maintenance order also passed in favour of wife ­ Inference of desertion
cannot be drawn from the fact that wife did not join husband even after
panchayathdars advised to that effect ­ Husband not entitled to divorce.
(Smt.Prabhavathi Vs K.Somashankar) AIR 2002 Karnataka 431

59. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Divorce ­ Desertion ­ Wife at all

stages   and   even   in   Supreme   Court   ready   to   go   back   to   husband   ­

Husband   refused   to   take   back   the   wife   ­   Husband   made   baseless
allegations against wife and even filed a complaint of bigamy u/s 494
IPC which was dismissed ­ Wife was forced to leave the matrimonial
home ­ It is the husband who is at fault ­ It can hardly lie in the mouth
of a party who is at fault and who has not allowed the marriage to work
to   claim   that   the   marriage   should   be   dissolved   on   the   ground   of
irretrievable   break   down.   (Shyam   Sunder   Kohli   Vs   Sushma   Kohli   @
Satya Devi) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 551 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Civil
Court Cases 85 (S.C.)

60. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Divorce ­ Husband and family

members   maltreating   wife   ­   Wife   left   with   no   option   except   to   leave

matrimonial   home   ­   Wife   went   to   matrimonial   home   on   learning   of
second  marriage by husband ­ Husband maltreated her and she was
forced to leave matrimonial home ­ Report of incident lodged with police
­   There   was   sufficient   and   reasonable   ground   for   wife   to   leave
matrimonial home ­ Wife not guilty of desertion ­ Wife is also not guilty

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 60

of cruelty on account of lodging report with police ­ Held, husband is not
entitled to decree of divorce ­ Irretrievable break down due to second
marriage in such case cannot be ground of divorce. (Mst.Butti Vs Gulab
Chand Pandey) AIR 2002 M.P. 123

61.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13  ­   Divorce   ­   Husband   seeking

divorce on ground of desertion by wife ­ Facts showing that husband
himself   left   his   wife   with   her   parents   ­   No   evidence   to   show   that
husband had taken steps to bring back wife to matrimonial home ­ It
cannot be aid that wife had deserted him ­ Grant of decree of divorce on
ground of desertion ­ Not permissible. (K.Palanisamy Vs P.Samiathal)
AIR 2002 Madras 156

62. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13  ­ Divorce ­ Irretrievable break

down of marriage ­ A party at fault cannot be allowed to get marriage
dissolved   on   the   ground   of   irretrievable   break   down   of   marriage.
(Shyam   Sunder   Kohli   Vs  Sushma   Kohli  @   Satya   Devi)   2004(2)   Apex
Court Judgments 551 (S.C.)

63. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13  ­ Divorce ­ Irretrievable break

down of marriage ­ A party at fault cannot be allowed to get marriage
dissolved   on   the   ground   of   irretrievable   break   down   of   marriage.
(Shyam   Sunder   Kohli   Vs   Sushma   Kohli   @   Satya   Devi)   2005(1)   Civil
Court Cases 85 (S.C.)

64. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13  ­ Divorce ­ Irretrievable break

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 61

down of marriage ­ Marriage not to be dissolved lightly on the ground of
irretrievable   break   down   of   marriage   ­   Only   in   exceptional
circumstances   marriage   can   be   dissolved   on   this   ground.   (Shyam
Sunder   Kohli   Vs   Sushma   Kohli   @   Satya   Devi)   2004(2)   Apex   Court
Judgments 551 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 85 (S.C.)

65. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Divorce ­ Mental cruelty ­ Act of

living   together   or   sharing   the   bed   with   another   man   ­   Amounts   to

cruelty ­ Marriage dissolved. (Velayudhan Vs Chandrika) 2003(3) Civil
Court Cases 51 (Kerala)  

66. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Divorce ­ Mental disorder and

not  psychological  depression  is ground for divorce ­  Petitioner has to

prove   by   leading   medical   evidence   that   psychological   depression   is
synonymous to mental disorder ­ Husband not led cogent evidence to
prove mental disorder of wife ­ Decree of divorce set aside. (Hema Reddy
Vs Rakesh Reddy) AIR 2002 A.P. 228

67. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Divorce ­ Petition by husband ­

Allegation of mal­treatment ­ Wife alleged that husband living with her
cousin   sister   and   issues   born   to   them   ­   To   establish   said   fact   wife
produced various documents viz; Guardianship deed, discharge ticket,
Recurring deposit account in name of her husband and her cousin sister
­ In such circumstances dismissal of petition of husband for divorce ­
Proper. (Ram Lakhan Vs Smt.Prem Kumari) AIR 2003 Rajasthan 115

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 62

68. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Divorce ­ Petition by husband ­

Claimed   on   ground   of   wife   having   sexual   intercourse   with   another

person and treating him with cruelty as he was illiterate ­ Writing love
letters   to   a   married   woman   not   necessarily   prove   illicit   relationship
between them ­ Fact of wife found in the company of another man is not
sufficient to infer adultery or sexual intercourse ­ Wife talking to a man
does not amount to illicit intimacy between them ­ Inconsistencies in
the pleadings and proof ­ No evidence to prove that letters said to have
been found in a box having been written by another man ­ No proof as
to   whom   the   said   box   belongs   ­   Husband   not   familiar   with   the
handwriting of 2nd respondent, he being an illiterate ­ No independent
evidence   adduced   to   prove   those   letters   ­   Husband   not   produced
acceptable and reliable evidence to prove illicit intimacy and cruelty ­
Petition   dismissed.   (Alapati   Venkayamma   Vs   Alapati   Kesava   Rao   &
Anr.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 505 (A.P.)

69. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Divorce ­ Petition by husband ­

Wife   abandoned   her   matrimonial   husband   as   husband   living   with

another woman and separate case pending against him u/s 494 IPC ­ In
such circumstances it is incompatible for wife to continue to stay with
her husband ­ Marriage between parties has come to an irretrievable
end   and   their   relationship   cannot   be   restored   ­   Divorce   granted.
(Pratima Biswal Vs Amulay Kumar Biswal) AIR 2002 Orissa 125

70. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Divorce ­ Rape of wife ­ Not a

ground of divorce ­ Husband cannot claim cruelty because he has to live

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 63

with a rape victim. (Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs Smt.Rekha Singh & Ors.)
2005(1) Civil Court Cases 525 (Allahabad)

71.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13  ­   Divorce   ­   Time   involved   in

litigation ­ Alone cannot be a ground to contend that marriage is dead.
(Neeta Kirit Desai Vs Bino Samuel George) AIR 2003 Bombay 7

72. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13  ­ Divorce petition by husband ­

Cruelty and desertion ­ Once it is held that wife has not treated the
husband   with   cruelty   husband   is   not   entitled   to   seek   dissolution   of
marriage   on   ground   of   desertion   ­   Wife   given   severe   beatings   and
turned out of matrimonial home ­ Wife still ready and willing to reside
with   the   husband   ­   No   animus   deserendi   on   part   of   wife   ­   It   is   the
husband who has created such circumstances so as to force wife to leave
the matrimonial home ­ Held, husband is not entitled to seek divorce on
ground of desertion. (Radha Rani Vs Har Bhagwan) 2005(1) Civil Court
Cases 570 (P&H)

73. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13  ­ Divorce petition by husband ­

Evidence of wife that husband had developed illicit relationship with
another   lady   supported   by   evidence   of   father   of   husband   ­   Plea   of
husband   that   wife   deserted   him   without   any   justifiable   reasons,   not
tenable ­ Evidence also reveals that husband had filed the petition with
an oblique motive to get rid of legally married wife ­ Petition based on
false and frivolous averments ­ Liable to be dismissed. (Laxmi Mallik Vs
Mayadhar Mallik) AIR 2002 Orissa 5

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 64

74. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13 ­ Divorce petition by husband on

ground of cruelty and desertion ­ Husband a doctor residing in Germany
­ Wife held to be not a dutiful and obedient wife but no finding that
there was cruelty on part of her but divorce still granted ­ No direct
evidence   as   husband   did   not   enter   witness   box   ­   Only   mother   of
appellant who had no personal knowledge gave evidence and many of
the incidents alleged by husband happened in Germany and there was
no direct evidence to support of those facts ­ Husband rightly held not
entitled   to   divorce.   (Perminder   Charan   Singh   etc.   Vs   Harjit   Kaur)
2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 711 (S.C.)

75.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13  ­   False   allegation   by   wife   ­

Allegation by wife that husband is interested in getting married with
another girl in his close relation ­ Said allegation not proved by wife ­ It
does   not   mean   that   it   is  disproved   and   it   is  a  false  allegation   made
against   petitioner   which   may   amount   to   cruelty.   (Hema   Reddy   Vs
Rakesh Reddy) AIR 2002 A.P. 228

76. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13  ­ Ground of adultery by wife ­

Untainted evidence of witnesses leading to irresistible conclusion about
adulterous   conduct   of   wife   ­   Explanation   of   wife   not   truthful   ­
Allegations by wife about illicit relations of husband with other lady ­
Levelled only to counter facts pleaded by husband ­ Evidence produced
by wife not sufficient to disprove charge of cruelty and adultery levelled
against her ­ Husband establishing that conduct of wife caused disgrace

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 65

to him in society and caused mental agony ­ Marriage between parties,
irretrievably   broken   down   and   there   are   no   chances   of   their   living
together   ­   No   interference   in   decree   of   divorce   granted   in   favour   of
husband ­ Late filing of petition for divorce cannot be said to be fatal in
facts and circumstances of the case. (Nidhi Dalela Vs Deepak Dalela)
AIR 2002 Rajasthan 128

78.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13  ­   Husband   filed   petition   for

divorce ­ Ground that wife not willing to live at husband's house and
wanted to keep her with him or to keep her separately at place 'C' ­ Fact
that husband living abroad and visits India sometimes ­ Husband did
not enter the witness box ­ Brother of husband and Sarpanch of village
stated   that   wife   not   willing   to   stay   with   parents   of   husband   ­   In
proceedings before Lok Adalat it was recorded that husband was living
in   USA   and   wife   in   Germany   and   there   was   no   possibility   of
compromise   ­   In   such   circumstances   wife   cannot   be   said   to   have
deserted husband ­ Decree of divorce cannot be granted. (Sucha Singh
VS Paramjit Kaur) AIR 2002 P&H 46

79.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13  ­   Irretrievable   break   down   of

marriage ­ Not a ground for seeking divorce. (Mayawanti Vs Bina Ram)
2004(2) Civil Court Cases 257 (P&H)

80.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13  ­   Irretrievable   breakdown   of

marriage is not a ground to seek divorce under the Act. (Mayawanti Vs
Bina Ram) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 59 (P&H)

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 66

81. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13  ­ Marriage ­ Dissolution before

Panchayat ­ Marriage  can be dissolved by a decree of divorce by the
Court and not in any proceedings before the Panchayat and wife is not
bound by the compromise unless of course she herself consents to the
same and gives her consent in proceedings seeking divorce before the
matrimonial   Court.   (Rajesh   Kumar   Madaan     Vs   Mrs.Mamta   alias
Veena ) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 433 (P&H)

82. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13  ­ Mental cruelty ­ Complaint to

Police   ­   SHO   not   summoned   for   production   of   complaint   ­   Without

ascertaining the contents of complaint it cannot be said that there is
harassment   and   humiliation   ­   No   positive   or   corroborated   evidence
produced to show any mental cruelty ­ Held, cruelty not proved. (Ajmer
Singh Vs Ranjit Kaur) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 308 (P&H)  

83.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13­B,   Civil   Procedure   Code,

1908, S.151  ­ Divorce by mutual consent ­ Recall/review of decree on

ground of fraud ­ Recall/review petition does not lie if one party plays
fraud on the other ­ Aggrieved party has to file a separate suit ­ If fraud
is played on Court only then review petition is maintainable u/s 151
CPC. (Anita Vs R.Rambilas) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 284 (A.P.)  

84. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13­B  ­ Appeal against order under

section 9 ­ During pendency of appeal parties seeking divorce by mutual

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 67

consent ­ More than six months have already elapsed as to pendency of
proceedings and parties not living together ­ Held, no useful purpose
will be served to allow litigation to continue any further ­ Application
u/s 9 allowed to be converted into one under section 13­B ­ Divorce by
mutual   consent   allowed.   (Sukhjit   Kaur   Vs   Sikandar   Singh)   2004(2)
Civil Court Cases 299 (Rajasthan)

85. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13­B ­ Divorce by mutual consent ­

During pendency of LPA against dismissal of divorce petition filed by
husband ­ During its pendency parties jointly filed application seeking
divorce by mutual consent on ground of temperamental incompatibility
­ In view of fact that parties had no monetary and other claims against
each   other   and   were   remarriageable   ­   Waiting   period   condoned   and
decree of divorce by mutual consent passed. (Dr.Subharajyoti Das Vs
Smt.Uttama Das) AIR 2002 Gauhati 117

86. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13­B ­ Divorce by mutual consent ­

Husband and wife living separately for period of more than one year ­
Not able to live together ­ Ingredients of S.13­B(1) satisfied ­ Court is
bound   to   accept   petition   and   grant   relief   of   divorce.   (In   re:
K.S.Subramanian) AIR 2002 Madras 228

87. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13­B ­ Divorce by mutual consent ­

Joint application ­ Continued wilful absence of husband from next date
of hearing ­ Inference can be drawn that consent which was initially
given continued ­ If husband wanted to withdraw his consent he should

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 68

take positive stand and inform Court ­ Order refusing to grant decree of
divorce on basis of mutual consent on ground that consent of husband
was missing at second stage ­ Liable to be set aside. (Smt.Suman Vs
Surendra Kumar) AIR 2003 Rajasthan 155

88. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13­B ­ Divorce by mutual consent ­

Joint   petition   filed   ­   Statement   of   parties   recorded   ­   Case   adjourned

after   six   months   ­   Husband   not   appearing   on   adjourned   date   ­
Application   of   wife  for   summoning  husband  as  witness  rejected   ­  No
procedure to issue notice to husband to appear ­ Held, merely because
the second motion was not signed by both the parties it cannot be said
that consent of husband was missing at second stage ­ Consent if not
withdrawn by a positive act, inference would be that consent initially
given continues ­ Silence of husband amounts to consent to decree of
divorce   ­   Decree   of   divorce   by   mutual   consent   granted.   (Suman   Vs
Surendra Kumar) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 393 (Rajasthan)  

89. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13­B ­ Divorce by mutual consent ­

Recall of decree ­ Wife alleged consent obtained by fraud ­ Wife failing
to prove the alleged fraud ­ Wife graduate and her brother an Advocate
­ Wife never complained about fraud played by husband to anyone in
spite of having several opportunities ­ Wife might have decided to go for
divorce by mutual consent on the alleged ground of demanding dowry
by her husband in a huge sum ­ She had given up custody of her child
and   her   right   of   maintenance   for   reasons   known   to   her   ­   Order   of
Family   Court   dismissing   recall/review   petition,   upheld.   (Anita   Vs

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 69

R.Rambilas) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 284 (A.P.)

90. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13­B ­ Divorce by mutual consent ­

Waiting period of six months ­ Dispensing with ­ Proceedings pending
for divorce ­ By way of amendment converted into a petition for divorce
by mutual consent ­ Waiting period of six months can be dispensed with
on two counts viz (1) If consent is not obtained by force, fraud or undue
influence and that the petition has not been presented or prosecuted in
collusion   with   the   respondent;   (2)   and   secondly   on   amendment   of
petition it relates back to the date of institution of divorce petition and
waiting period of six months is to be counted from the date of institution
of   original   petition   and   waiting   period   of   six   months   had   already
expired.   (Chander   Kanta   Vs   Mohinder   Partap   Dogra)   2003(2)   Civil
Court Cases 564 (P&H)  

91. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13­B ­ Divorce by mutual consent ­

Waiting period of six months ­ Petition u/s 13 by husband ­ Dismissal ­
Appeal   against   ­   During   pendency   of   appeal   parties   compromised   ­
Held, period of six months is to be counted from the date of petition filed
u/s 13 of the Act. (Kuldip Singh Vs Surinder Kaur) 2003(1) Civil Court
Cases 33 (P&H)  

92. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13­B ­ Divorce by mutual consent ­

Waiting period of six months ­ Can be brought down when divorce by
mutual consent is sought in a divorce petition already pending for more
than six months ­ Provision of S.13­B(2) is directory and not mandatory.

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 70

(Dineshkumar   Shukla   Vs   Smt.Neeta)   2005(2)   Civil   Court   Cases   161

(M.P.)

93.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13­B  ­   Recall/review   petition   ­

Allegation by wife that her consent was obtained by husband by fraud,
coercion   and   threat   ­   Wife,   an   educated   lady,   had   opportunities   to
complaint to many people about fraud played on her but she did not
choose to do so ­ It by itself is sufficient to prove that wife on her own
accord agreed to sign divorce petition as husband used to give mental
torture to her by demanding a dowry of Rs.25 lakhs for doing business ­
Plea of coercion and threat a concocted story ­ Fact of giving up custody
of   child   and   right   of   maintenance   by   her   also   does   not   prove   her
allegation   ­   Petition   is   not   maintainable.   (Smt.Anita   Vs   R.Rambilas)
AIR 2003 A.P. 32

94. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13­B ­ Waiting period of six months

­ Condonation ­ No possibility of living together ­ Adjournment of case
for  six  months   as   required  statutorily  would  be futile ­  Period  of  six
months   condoned.   (Navjot   Kaur   Vs   Balwinder   Singh)   2003(1)   Civil
Court Cases 204 (P&H)   

95.   Hindu   Marriage Act, 1955, Ss.13­B & 19  ­  Divorce by mutual

consent ­ Jurisdiction ­ Wife residing at Gwalior ­ Court at Gwalior has
jurisdiction   to   entertain   the   joint   petition   by   husband   and   wife   for
divorce   by   mutual   consent.   (Uma   Tiwari   Vs   Vikrant   Tiwari)   2005(2)
Civil Court Cases 67 (M.P.)

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 71

96.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)  ­   Divorce   ­   Irretrievable

breakdown of marriage ­ Not a ground of divorce ­ Court, if satisfied
that   continuation   of   marriage   and   emotionally   dead   relationship
constitute an act of oppressive mental cruelty, it may grant a decree of
divorce.  (Dilip Kumar Karmakar Vs Biju Rani Karmakar) 2004(3) Civil
Court Cases 07(Calcutta)

97.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(1­B)  ­   Cruelty   ­   Divorce   ­

Allegations of husband that wife used to leave his company by going to
her parental house without his permission and  that she used to insult
him before the guests and  that she did not cook for him ­ This do not
amount to cruelty on the basis of which marriage between the parties
can be dissolved ­ These allegations are general in nature and because
of these trivial disputes, the marriage cannot be dissolved. (Amrit Pal
Kaur Vs Roshan Lal) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 438 (P&H) 

98. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(a) ­ Divorce ­ Alleged demand

of   dowry   though   vague   and   not   reliable   but   incident   of   beating   and
causing burn injury on back proved ­ Minor errors about dates etc. not
material in case of illiterate lady ­ Parties living separately for the last
nine years with no possibility to reconcile and reside together ­ Divorce
granted.   (Meera   Vs   Ramesh   Chand)   2004(2)   Civil   Court   Cases   214
(Rajasthan)

99.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(a)  ­   Divorce   ­   Cruelty   ­

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 72

Husband   alleging   that   wife   quarrelling   with   him   and   removed   her
mangalsutra   from   her   neck   in   front   of   his   family   members   and
neighbours and threw same on road side gutter ­ Such allegation made
by counsel without any instructions from husband ­ Husband admitting
that there was no quarrel between him and his wife on that date ­ Wife
was also not residing with husband on that particular date ­ Grant of
divorce by ignoring admission made by husband ­ Improper. (Shobha
Srinivas Bodigar Vs Srinivas Veeranna Bodigar) AIR 2002 Karnataka
256

100.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(a)  ­   Divorce   ­   Cruelty   ­

Solitary act of wife, an illiterate lady, of removing her Mangalsutra and
throwing   same   on   roadside   gutter   in   heat   of   moment   ­   Does   not
constitute   mental   cruelty.   (Shobha   Srinivas   Bodigar   Vs   Srinivas
Veeranna Bodigar) AIR 2002 Karnataka 256

101.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(i­a)  ­   Cruelty   ­   Baseless

allegation by wife that husband is having illicit relations with another
woman   ­   It   is   cruelty   and   a   ground   for   divorce.   (Harsha   Indukumar
Bhojani Vs Indukumar Ratilal Bhojani) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 562
(Bombay)

102.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(i­a)  ­   Cruelty   ­   Divorce

petition by wife ­ Demand of dowry by husband, his false allegations of
infidelity   against   wife,   physical   violence   and   acts   showing   sexual
perversion ­ Entitles wife to claim dissolution of marriage. (Tulasamma

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 73

Vs N.Seenan) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 347 (Karnataka)  

103. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(i­a) ­ Cruelty ­ To establish

cruelty, the conduct must be of such a character as to cause danger to
life,   limb   or   health,   (physical   or   mental)   so   as   to   give   rise   to   a
reasonable apprehension of such a danger ­ It depends upon the facts
and circumstances of each case which is to be assessed bearing in mind
the   social   status   of   the   parties,   their   customs   and   traditions,   their
educational level and the environment in which they live. (Ram Mehar
Singh  Vs Urmila Kumari) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 659 (P&H)

104.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(i­a)  ­   Cruelty   ­   Wife

quarrelled   with   two   married   daughters   of   her   husband   from   first

marriage   ­   Daughters   stopped   visiting   father's   house   ­   Wife   also   not
behaving well with her mother­in­law who shifted to her  second son ­
Husband deprived of company of his daughters and mothers ­ Held, this
amounts to cruelty ­ Divorce granted. (Harsha Indukumar Bhojani Vs
Indukumar Ratilal Bhojani) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 562 (Bombay)

105. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(i­a)  ­ Divorce ­ Petition by

husband   ­   Allegation   of   causing   mental   cruelty   and   adultery   ­   Wife

denying   allegation   and   making   counter   allegation   that   husband   had
driven   her   out   of   house  along  with   two  children,   forcing   her   to   take
refuge at her parent's home ­ No evidence led to substantiate allegation
of adultery ­ Making a baseless allegation is grave assault on honour,
reputation   and   status   of   wife   which   by   itself   constitutes   cruelty   ­

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 74

Dismissal   of   petition   ­   Proper.   (G.Siddagangappa   Vs   Smt.R.Shailaja)

2004(2) Civil Court Cases 694 (Karnataka)

106.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(i),   Civil   Procedure

Code,1908, O.13.R.4, Evidence Act, 1872 ­ Document ­ Proof ­ Mere

marking of document as exhibit does not make the document admissible
in   evidence   ­   A   document   must   be   proved   by   formal   mode   of   proof
enjoined by the provisions of Evidence Act. (Kailash Devi Vs Jai Kishan
(Lance Naik) & Anr.) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 87 (P&H)

107.  Hindu  Marriage Act, 1955,  S.13(1)(i)  ­  Adultery  ­  “Seen  in  a

compromise position” ­ Evidence of such a witness is in the nature of a
chance   encounter   ­   Though   chance   witness   is   not   necessarily   a   false
witness, however, it is rash to rely upon such evidence. (Kailash Devi Vs
Jai Kishan (Lance Naik) & Anr.) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 87 (P&H)

108.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(i)  ­   Adultery   ­   Proof   ­

Standard of proof is higher and a strict measure   of proof is required,
though it may not be beyond shadow of reasonable doubt as is required
in   a   criminal   case   but   at   the   same   time   it   is   also   not   on   mere
preponderance  of   probabilities ­ Proceedings for divorce on ground of
adultery partakes character of quasi criminal procedure. (Kailash Devi
Vs Jai Kishan (Lance Naik) & Anr.) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 87 (P&H)

109.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(i)  ­   Divorce   ­   Illicit

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 75

relationship ­ Mental cruelty ­ Ground of divorce and plea of defence ­
Held, when divorce is claimed on this ground then the same must be
proved or established to get a decree but when such plea is raised by
way of defence it is sufficient to present the circumstances producing
such   apprehension/suspicion.   (Dilip   Kumar   Karmakar   Vs   Biju   Rani
Karmakar) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 07(Calcutta)

108.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(i)  ­   Divorce   ­   Illicit

relationship   ­   Mental   cruelty   ­   Taken   up   as   a   plea   of   defence   in   a

petition   for   divorce   filed   by   husband   ­   Husband's   attempt   to   hide
relationship with a lady falsely saying that she is his maternal aunt and
his insistence on staying in house of that lady ­ Enough to provide basis
to entertain a suspicion ­ Cannot be said to be unfounded ­ Husband not
entitled to divorce. (Dilip Kumar Karmakar Vs Biju Rani Karmakar)
2004(3) Civil Court Cases 07(Calcutta)

109. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ia) ­ Character assassination

in written statement ­ Is a great assault on the character, honour and
reputation   of   wife     ­   Amounts   to   worst   form   of   insult   and   cruelty   ­
Sufficient   by   itself   for   a   grant   of   decree   of   divorce.   (Vijaykumar
Ramchandra  Bhate Vs  Neela Vijaykumar Bhate)  2003(1)  Apex Court
Judgments 677 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 487 (S.C.)  

110. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ia) ­ Character assassination

in   written   statement   ­   Subsequent   amendment   of   written   statement

and accusations withdrawn ­ The indelible impact and scar it initially

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 76

created   cannot  be  said  to be ipso facto dissolved  with  amendment of

written   statement.   (Vijaykumar   Ramchandra   Bhate   Vs   Neela
Vijaykumar Bhate) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 677 (S.C.) : 2003(2)
Civil Court Cases 487 (S.C.)  

111. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ia)  ­ Cruelty ­ Allegations

levelled   by   respondent   not   false   ­   Does   not   amount  to   cruelty.   (Ram
Kumar   @   Ramender   Kumar   Vs   Smt.Raksha   @   Galabo)   2003(2)   Civil
Court Cases 70 (P&H) 

112.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(ia)  ­   Cruelty   ­   Divorce   ­

Cruelty must be of such a type which will satisfy the conscience of the
Court that the relationship between the parties has deteriorated to such
an   extent   that   it   has   become   impossible   for   them   to   live   together
without mental agony. (Anita Krishnakumar Kachba Vs Krishnakumar
Ramchandra Kachba) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 323 (Bombay)  

113.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(ia)  ­   Cruelty   ­   Earlier

petition   ­   Withdrawn   when   husband   promised   to   mend   his   ways   ­

Withdrawal of earlier petition cannot be regarded as condonation on the
part of the spouse to operate as estoppel to file a second petition on the
same   cause.   (Dev  Goswami  Vs Gulshan  Sharma)  2004(3)  Civil  Court
Cases 626 (P&H)

113. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ia) ­ Cruelty ­ FIR lodged by

wife   against   husband   for   offences   of   cheating,   forgery   and   enticing

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 77

married  woman  with   criminal intent ­ Offences alleged to have been

committed by husband are of serious nature ­  Criminal proceeding not
concluded yet ­ If the husband of his own accord had stooped down to
commit such acts in spite of the protest of wife which acts amounts to
offence then husband has to think himself for the plight in which he
stood placed ­ Action of wife is not such which warrants annulment of
marriage ­ Marriage and criminal activities of husband and remedial
action sought for by the wife in law had to be kept apart. (Smt.Neelu
Kohli Vs Naveen Kohli) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 505 (Allahabad)

114. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ia)  ­ Cruelty ­ Husband in

habit of visiting  office  of his wife and humiliating her by calling her

prostitute   ­   It   is   physical   and   mental   cruelty   ­   Wife   is   entitled   to
divorce.   (Kala   Kumari   Vs   Ram   Bhawan   Anand)   2004(2)   Civil   Court
Cases 477 (Allahabad)

115. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ia)  ­ Cruelty ­ In reply to

notice wife made false and wild allegations as to character of husband
and also against his other family members so as to injure the reputation
­ Amounts to cruelty. (Anita Krishnakumar Kachba Vs Krishnakumar
Ramchandra Kachba) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 323 (Bombay)  

116. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ia)  ­ Cruelty ­ Initiation of

criminal proceedings by wife against husband ­ Wife not able to prove
her   allegations   beyond   a   reasonable   doubt   so   as   to   warrant   the
conviction   ­  Does   not  mean  that the allegations have caused  cruelty.

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 78

(Radha Rani Vs Har Bhagwan) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 544 (P&H)

117. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ia)  ­ Cruelty ­ Initiation of

legal proceedings for redressal of the rights or for punishment to the
wrong doer ­ Cannot be said to be acts of cruelty. (Radha Rani Vs Har
Bhagwan) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 544 (P&H)

118. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ia) ­ Cruelty ­ Intention to be

cruel is not an essential element ­ It is sufficient that cruelty is of such
type that it is impossible for spouses to live together. (Smt.Neelu Kohli
Vs Naveen Kohli) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 505 (Allahabad)

119. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ia) ­ Cruelty ­ Mental cruelty

­ Does not depend upon numerical count of such incidents or only on the
continuous course of such conduct ­ It goes by the intensity, gravity and
stigmatic impact of it when meted out even once and the deleterious
effect of it on the mental attitude necessary for maintaining a conducive
matrimonial   home.   (Vijaykumar   Ramchandra   Bhate   Vs   Neela
Vijaykumar Bhate) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 677 (S.C.) : 2003(2)
Civil Court Cases 487 (S.C.)

120. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ia) ­ Cruelty ­ Once finding

that   wife   has   not   treated   the   husband   with   cruelty   is   reversed   then
husband  is   not   entitled  to  seek  dissolution  of  marriage  on  ground  of
desertion. (Radha Rani Vs Har Bhagwan) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 544
(P&H)

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 79

121.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(ia)  ­   Cruelty   ­   Parties

started living together on the basis of compromise in proceedings u/s 10
of the Act for judicial separation ­ Held, acts of cruelty, if any, stood
condoned. (Susheel Kumari Vs Vijay Kumar) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases
495 (P&H)

122. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ia)  ­ Cruelty ­ Registration

of FIR by wife against husband ­ FIR not shown to be false ­ It also not
shown that husband has suffered emotionally inducing fear in respect of
the   matrimonial   relationship   or   that   the   behavior   or   behavioural
pattern of the other spouse is of such a nature that an inference can be
drawn that husband has been subjected to mental cruelty ­ No inference
can   be   drawn   that   husband   has   been   subjected   to   mental   cruelty.
(Rajesh   Kumar   Madaan     Vs   Mrs.Mamta   alias   Veena   )   2005(2)   Civil
Court Cases 433 (P&H)

123.  Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ia)  ­ Cruelty ­ Vague and

general allegations regarding quarrels between two sides ­ Except this
nothing brought on record to show that wife caused cruelty to husband
in any manner whatsoever ­ Held, husband is not entitled to decree of
divorce on ground of cruelty. (Asha Gupta alias Anju Gupta Vs Rajiv
Kumar Gupta) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 106 (P&H)

124. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ia)  ­ Cruelty ­ Wife alleged

to have taken away Rs.20,000/­ and all her ornaments ­ As ornaments

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 80

were of the wife and if she had taken away the ornaments it cannot be
said that it amounted to cruelty ­ Husband having failed to prove theft
of money is not entitled to seek dissolution of marriage by a decree of
divorce   on   the   ground   of   cruelty.   (Suresh   Kumar   Vs   Sunita)   2004(2)
Civil Court Cases 485 (P&H)

125. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ia)  ­ Cruelty ­ Wife alleged

to   have   visited   office   of   husband   and   that   she   levelled   serious

allegations   including   his   having   illicit   relations   with   a   woman   ­   In
support of these allegations none from office of husband examined as a
witness ­ Bald testimony of husband in this respect cannot be accepted.
(Asha  Gupta   alias  Anju Gupta Vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta)  2005(2) Civil
Court Cases 106 (P&H)

126.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(ia)  ­   Cruelty   ­   Wife

consistently stating that she is ready to live with her husband ­ It is not
the case of husband that his wife used to abuse him or hurl abuses upon
his   family   members   ­   Not   in   evidence  that   wife  did   not   perform   her
matrimonial duties and did not behave as a dutiful wife ­ No sincere
effort on the part of husband to settle the wife and the evidence led by
husband   shows   that   he   only   made   a   pretence   of   settling   the   wife
without any real intention to do so ­ Held, it is not a case that amount to
cruelty on the part of the wife against the husband. (Ram Mehar Singh
Vs Urmila Kumari) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 659 (P&H)

127.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(ia)  ­   Cruelty   ­   Wife   sole

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 81

proprietor   of   company   holding   94.5%   shares   and   husband   was   the

employee  ­ Wife publishing news item that husband was acting against
spirit of Article of Association and had caused immense loss of business
and   good   will   ­   Business   associates   cautioned   to   avoid   dealing   with
husband   alone   ­   Such   news   item   cannot   be   said   to   have   resulted   in
lowering  down   prestige   or  caused  mental   cruelty   to   husband   ­   News
item   issued   to   protect   the   interest   of   company   and   to   protect   the
interest   of   employees   and   major   share   holders   cannot   be   said   to   be
illegal or motivated ­ Decree of divorce annulling marriage cannot be
granted   on   that   ground.   (Smt.Neelu   Kohli   Vs   Naveen  Kohli)   2004(2)
Civil Court Cases 505 (Allahabad)

128. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ia)  ­ Cruelty contemplated

as   a   ground   of   divorce   under   the   Act   is   conduct   of   such   type   that

petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.
(Susheel Kumari Vs Vijay Kumar) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 495 (P&H)

129. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ia) ­ Desertion ­ Wife given

severe beatings and turned out of matrimonial home ­ Wife ready and
willing to reside with the husband ­ There is no animus deserandi on
the part of wife ­ It is husband who has created such circumstances so
as to force wife to leave the matrimonial home ­ Husband is not entitled
to   decree   of   divorce   on   ground   of   desertion.   (Radha   Rani   Vs   Har
Bhagwan) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 544 (P&H)

130.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(ia)  ­   Divorce   ­   Cruelty   ­

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 82

Fraud by wife at time of marriage by not disclosing her true age and her
marital status ­ Wife deliberately suppressed material facts that her ex­
husband committed suicide because of harassment meted out to him by
her ­ Wife left house of husband with intention not to come back ­ Wife
of quarreling nature ­ FIR was also lodged by husband against wife u/ss
490,   420,   120   IPC   ­   Uncontroverted   evidence   not   rebutted   by   wife   ­
Entirety of facts clearly constituting case of cruelty against husband ­
Decree of divorce  ­  Held, proper. (Raj Kumari Vs Nandlal) AIR 2002
Rajasthan 345

131.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(ia)  ­   Divorce   ­   Cruelty   ­

Petition filed by wife ­ Husband writing repeatedly to police authorities
against wife of her having extra marital relations with other persons ­
Repeated   allegations   without  anything else by themselves amount  to
cruelty causing reasonable apprehension in the mind of wife that it is
dangerous to live with the husband ­ Decree of divorce passed by trial
Court ­ No interference. (Jai Dayal Vs Shakuntala Devi) 2004(2) Civil
Court Cases 628 (Delhi)

132. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ia) ­ Divorce ­ Irretrievable

break   down   of   marriage   on   account   of   cruelty   inflicted   by   wife   on

husband ­ Wife did not contest the petition filed by husband for divorce ­
Wife did not file any written statement and she did not came before
Court to  explain   her  behaviour ­ Appeal of  husband allowed and his
marriage   with   respondent   wife   dissolved   by   a   decree   of   divorce.
(Jaiprakash Dattatray Patade Vs Mrs.Usha Jaiprakash Patade) 2005(1)

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 83

Civil Court Cases 314 (Bombay)

133.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(ia)  ­   Divorce   petition   by

husband ­ Husband assaulted by brothers of wife, maternal uncle and
mother ­ FIR registered u/ss 323 and 506 IPC ­ All convicted and fined ­
There   was   no   allegation   against   wife   ­   Held,   the   effect   of   actions   of
relations   of   wife  cannot   fall  on   wife.  (Radha   Rani  Vs   Har   Bhagwan)
2005(1) Civil Court Cases 570 (P&H)

134.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(ia)  ­   Divorce   petition   by

husband on ground of cruelty ­ Wife lodged FIR u/ss 498­A and 323 IPC
against   husband   ­   Husband   acquitted   ­   Husband   did   not   initiate
proceedings   for   malicious   prosecution   against   wife   ­   Held,   merely
because wife was not able to prove her allegations beyond a reasonable
doubt   so   as   to   warrant   the   conviction   does   not   amount   to   cruelty.
(Radha Rani Vs Har Bhagwan) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 570 (P&H)

135.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(ia)  ­   Lodging   of   criminal

complaint u/s 406/498­A IPC by wife ­ Nothing on record to show what
was the fate of the case ­ In absence of any other proof merely lodging of
criminal complaint u/ss 406/498­A IPC does not amount to cruelty to the
husband.   (Asha   Gupta   alias   Anju   Gupta   Vs   Rajiv   Kumar   Gupta)
2005(2) Civil Court Cases 106 (P&H)

136.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(ia)  ­   Mental   Cruelty   ­

Difficult   to   prove   by   direct   evidence   ­   Inference   to   be   drawn   from

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 84

attending circumstances ­ Cruelty should be of such a nature so as to
cause   reasonable   apprehension   in   his   or   her   mind   that   it   would   be
harmful or injurious to health to live with other party ­ Instances of
misbehaviour   not   to   be   considered     in   isolation   ­   All   facts   and
circumstances to be taken cumulatively ­ Uncorroborated allegations of
violent temperament, suspecting fidelity, going to office of husband and
abusing   before   colleagues   do   not   constitute   mental   cruelty.
(Pothapragada   Sri   Lakshmi   Maruthi   Hara   Gopal   Vs   Smt.P.Seshu
Kumari) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 300 (A.P.)

137.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(ia)  ­   Mental   cruelty   ­

Standard   of   proof   under   matrimonial   cases   ­   Charge   not   to   be

established    beyond  reasonable   doubt but by preponderance of  facts
alleged.   (Pothapragada   Sri   Lakshmi   Maruthi   Hara   Gopal   Vs
Smt.P.Seshu Kumari) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 300 (A.P.)

138.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(ia)  ­   Parties   living

separately   for   11   years   ­   Not   a   ground   to   hold   that   marriage   has

irretrievably   broken   down   ­   Moreover   irretrievable   break   down   of
marriage is not a ground of divorce under Hindu Marriage Act. (Asha
Gupta  alias  Anju  Gupta  Vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta)  2005(2) Civil Court
Cases 106 (P&H)

139.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(ia)   and   (ib)  ­   Divorce

petition by husband on ground of cruelty and desertion ­ Wife alleged to
be seeking separate accommodation and that she desired to stay away

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 85

from the joint family ­ Wife denied the allegations and made counter­
allegations that she was harassed and ill­treated by her husband and
his family members ­ Allegations made by her were vague and there
was no date nor other particulars mentioned in respect of any particular
incident of harassment ­ Husband entitled to grant of divorce on ground
of cruelty and desertion. (Meena Dinesh Parmar Vs Dinesh Hastimal
Parmar) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 321 (Bombay)

140.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(ia)   and   23  ­   Cruelty   ­

Petition by husband ­ Cruelty can be physical or mental ­ Ill­treatment
and   resultant   apprehension   flowing   therefrom   must   be   grave   as   to
make   co­habitation   unendurable   ­   Onus   to   prove   cruelty   is   on   suing
spouse ­ Standard of proof is no better than in civil proceedings, i.e. fact
can   be   proved   by   preponderance   of   probability   ­   Vague   allegation   of
habitual   use   of   vulgar   words,   humiliation,   contemptuous   treatment
does not amount to proof of cruelty ­ Husband making such allegation is
not   entitled   to   decree   of   divorce.   (B.S.Mohan   Kumar   Vs
Smt.B.K.Nirmala) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 412 (Karnataka)

141.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(ib)  ­   Desertion   ­   Means

permanent   intentional   abandonment   of   one   spouse   by   other   without

consent   and  reasonable cause ­ It is total repudiation of   obligations of
marriage and to bring cohabitation permanently to an end ­ Husband
alleged separation under an agreement giving him liberty to remarry
and liberty to wife to live separately and claim maintenance ­ Would not
amount   to   desertion   ­   Agreement   held   to   be   against   public   policy   ­

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 86

Husband   cannot   take   advantage   of   conditions   favorable   to   him   and

leave the other conditions not favourable to him ­ Held, it was husband
who  was living away from wife and is not entitled to decree of divorce.
(Pothapragada   Sri   Lakshmi   Maruthi   Hara   Gopal   Vs   Smt.P.Seshu
Kumari) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 300 (A.P.)

142.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(ib)  ­   Desertion   ­   Two

essential conditions are : Factum deserendi and animus deserendi that
is   the   factum   of   separation   and   the   intention   to   bring   cohabitation
permanently to an end. (Rajesh Kumar Madaan   Vs Mrs.Mamta alias
Veena ) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 433 (P&H)

143. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ib)  ­ Divorce ­ Desertion ­

Wife   deserted   husband   for   continuous   period   of   2   years   immediately

preceding the presentation of petition ­ Plea of husband that he took his
wife at her request to residence of her uncle and she refused to come
back   in   spite   of   various   attempts   made   by   him   to   bring   her   back   ­
Evidence in this respect not rebutted ­ Marriage between parties stands
dissolved by decree of divorce. (Shyamsunder Amarlal Hotchandani Vs
Smt.Arti alias Sunita Shyamsunder Hotchandani) 2005(2) Civil Court
Cases 154 (Bombay)

144.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(ib)  ­   Divorce   ­   Illicit

relationship of husband with another woman ­ No evidence on record to
substantiate said plea ­ Husband also not cross examined on said issue ­
Mere   statement   of   wife   by   itself   is   not   sufficient   for   arriving   at

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 87

conclusion   that   husband   has   deserted   wife   ­   In   absence   of   evidence

finding   of   trial   Court   that   conduct   of   husband   has   resulted   in   wife
leaving   matrimonial   home   is   not   proper.   (Kishan   Chand   Vs   Munni
Devi) AIR 2003 Delhi 382

145. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(ib) and 23 ­ Desertion ­ For

offence  of  desertion,   so  far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two

essential conditions must be there, namely, (1) the factum of separation;
and (2) the intrusion to bring cohabitation permanently to an end, i.e.
animus deserendi ­ Two elements are essential so far as deserted spouse
is concerned ­ (1) the absence of consent; and (2) Absence of conduct
giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to
form the necessary intention ­ Burden to prove lies on the petitioner.
(B.S.Mohan Kumar Vs Smt.B.K.Nirmala) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 412
(Karnataka)

146.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(ib)   and   23  ­   Desertion   ­

Petition by husband ­ Accusation by wife against husband that he was
having   illicit   relations   with   woman   and   had   also   child   through   that
woman, proved to be true, husband would not be entitled to decree of
divorce   on   ground   of   desertion   when   husband   himself   was  proved  to
have   tried   to   desert   wife   and   not   vice   versa.   (B.S.Mohan   Kumar   Vs
Smt.B.K.Nirmala) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 412 (Karnataka)

147.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(1)(iii)  ­   Divorce   ­   Husband

seeking   divorce   on   ground   of   wife   suffering   from   Schizophrenia   ­

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 88

Marriage not consummated even in long period of more than six years ­
Wife not appearing in the witness box to rebut the allegations leveled
against her by husband ­ Wife not producing medical evidence ­ Parents
of wife avoiding to send their daughter to her in­laws' house ­ Husband
successfully   proving   that   wife   was   Schizophrenic   ­  Adverse   inference
cannot   be   drawn   against   husband   for   not   examining   his   parents   or
grand   parents   ­   No   error   on   part   of   trial   Court   in   drawing   adverse
inference against wife ­ As husband had no opportunity to live with life
as such there is no question of delay in filing petition for divorce after
six   years   ­   Wife   proved   to   be   of   unsound   mind   and   husband   is   not
expected   to   live   with   such   a   wife   ­   Decree   of   divorce   sustained.
(Vandana Vs Suresh Charan) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 142 (Rajasthan)

148. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(1)(iii) ­ Mental disorder ­ Mere

proof of schizophrenic is not sufficient ­ Unsoundness of mind must be
proved   to   be   of   such   kind   and   of   such   degree   that   petitioner   cannot
reasonably be expected to live with the other. (B.N.Panduranga Shet Vs
S.N.Vijayalaxmi) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 395 (Karnataka)  

149.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(2)(iv)  ­   Marriage   during

minority ­ Repudiation ­ Custom prohibiting repudiation of marriage ­
Custom must be pleaded and proved ­ In absence of any pleading as to
custom,   no   such   argument   can   be   entertained.   (Ramesh   Kumar   Vs
Sunita Devi) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 572 (P&H)

150.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(2)(iv)  ­   Marriage   during

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 89

minority ­ Repudiation ­ Not permissible before attaining the age of 15
years   and   such   option   is   available   till   attaining   age   of   18   years.
(Ramesh Kumar Vs Sunita Devi) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 572 (P&H)

151. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13(i)(a)  ­ Cruelty ­ Wife having

extra marital relations ­ Divorce petition by husband ­ Allegation not
substantiated by husband through any independent and uninterested
witnesses   ­   Held,   husband   is   not   entitled   to   decree   of   divorce.
(G.Siddanagappa Vs R.Shailaja) AIR 2004 Karnataka 244

152.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(i)(b),   (ia)  ­   Cruelty   and

desertion ­ Husband could not substantiate even one of many acts of
cruelty of wife ­ Husband wants to get rid of wife one way or the other ­
Appeal of husband ­ Dismissed. (Jagdeep Singh   Vs Poonam) 2005(1)
Civil Court Cases 65 (P&H)

153.   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,   S.13(ia)  ­   Divorce   petition   by

husband ­ Cruelty ­ Wife and her relations gave beatings to the husband
­  Husband   sustained  injuries  on  various parts of  body  and remained
admitted in hospital for seven days ­ Wife never bothered to come back
and   take   care   of   husband   ­   Wife   rightly   found   to   have   treated   the
husband with cruelty ­ Decree of divorce granted in favour of husband,
upheld.   (Satyawati   alias   Savitri   Vs   Chandi   Parshad)   2005(1)   Civil
Court Cases 235 (P&H)

154. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Ss.13, 14, Civil Procedure Code,

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 90

1908, O.2.R.2, S.11 ­  Earlier petition filed within one year of marriage

­   Pending   permission   of   Court   to   file   such   a   petition   the   same

withdrawn ­ Subsequent petition ­ Not barred ­ Held, that dismissal of a
suit as premature is not a decision on merits and does not operate as res
judicata as it cannot be held that the earlier suit which was dismissed
as premature had been “heard and finally decided”. (Himanshu Chadha
Vs Sangeeta) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 17 (P&H) 

155. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Ss.13(1A)(ii) and 23(1)(a) ­ Decree

of restitution of conjugal rights obtained by wife ­ Appeal of husband
dismissed ­ Taking advantage of the decree husband filed petition for
divorce after one year contending that there had been no cohabitation ­
Husband   in   his   own   evidence   admitted   that   he   was   not   willing   to
resume cohabitation with his wife ­ There was non compliance of decree
and positive wrong on part of husband ­ Held, Family Court was right
in   concluding   that   there   was   a   legal   bar   in   granting   divorce   decree.
(Ravindra Marutrao Shelar Vs Kalpana Ravindra Shelar) 2003(1) Civil
Court Cases 437 (Bombay)  

156. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Ss.13(1)(ia), 23 ­ Divorce petition by

husband   on   ground   of   cruelty   ­   Wife,   in   turn   seeking   restitution   of

conjugal rights ­ Instances of cruelty alleged by husband not proved ­
Husband asking wife to stay with other members of family since he does
not   like   her   company   ­   By   itself   amounts   to   cruelty   ­   Husband   not
entitled   to   take   advantage   of   his   own   wrong   ­   Petition   of   husband
rightly dismissed ­ Petition of wife rightly allowed. (Yudhishter Singh

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 91

Vs Smt.Sarita) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 493 (Rajasthan) 

157.  Aditi Wadhera V. Vivek Kumar Wadhera, 2016 (8) SCALE

145

Section   13­B—Constitution—Article   142—Divorce   petition—   Parties

have   arrived   at   an   amicable   settlement   of   the   entire   disputes—
Monetary   part   of   the   settlement   has   been   complied   with—Pending
criminal   cases   held,   liable   to   be   quashed—   Marriage   between   the
parties   stands   dissolved   by   decree   of   mutual   consent   in   exercise   of
jurisdiction   under   Article   142.   In   this   matter,   Aditi   Vivek   Kumar
Wadhera,   wife   and   Vivek   Kumar   Varinder   Wadhera­husband   are
present   before   the   Court.   It   is   submitted   that   they   have   lived   as
husband and wife only for a few days in the year 2010. Both parties
have exercised their free will and have taken a conscious decision to
part and put an end to all other litigation as well. They have also filed a
joint   petition   for   dissolution   of   marriage   by   mutual   consent   under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the District Court. 
Having   regard   to   the   background   of   the   several   litigations
between   the   parties   over   a   period   of   five   years,   background   of   the
parties   living  separately  for  more  than   five  years, submission   of   Mr.
Vivek  Kumar  Varinder  Wadhera that he has to go back to his work
place in U.S.A and also having regard to the submission of Aditi Vivek
Kumar Wadhera that she has now to think of her future, Court is of the
view that it is a fit case to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of
the   Constitution   of   India   and   grant   a   decree   of   divorce   by   mutual
consent   by   waiving   the   statutory   period   of   waiting.   Therefore,   the

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 92

marriage   between   Aditi   Vivek   Kumar   Wadhera   and   Vivek   Kumar

Wadhera stands dissolved by decree of mutual consent. 

158. Manish Gautam V. Smt. Shikha Gautam, 2016 (2) ARC 800 

S.   13­   Cruelty   –Meaning   of   –Mental   cruelty   and   its   effect   cannot   be

stated   with   arthematical   accuracy,   it   various   from   individual   to
individual from society to society and also depends on the status of the
persons Mental cruelty and its effect cannot be stated with arithmetical
accuracy. It varies from individual to individual, from society to society
and also depends on the status of the persons. What would be mental
cruelty in the life of two individuals belonging to a particular strata of
the   society   may   not   amount   to   mental   cruelty   in   respect   of   another
couple belonging to a different stratum of society. The agonized feeling
or for that matter a sense of disappointment can take place by certain
acts causing a grievous dent at the mental level. The inference has to be
drawn from the attending circumstances.

159. Daljeet Kaur V. Tejindar Mohan Singh, 2016 (117) ALR 728

S.   13­   Divorce­   Mere   allegation   of   cruelty   without   evidence   cannot

justify decree of divorce There are allegations and denial. There is no
other   evidence   on   record   to   prove   aforesaid   allegations   alleged   by
plaintiff. It cannot be doubted, had the allegations made by plaintiff, if
correct   and   proved   by   adducing  any  evidence  or  credible  evidence,  it
would have been a serious thing and could have justified a decree of
divorce. However, mere allegation without evidence and that too such a
serious allegation, cannot be taken lightly. Court below has observed

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 93

that in cross­examination DW1­ defendant admitted that she used to go
to   her   maternal   uncle   at   Rajpura,   Punjab   sometimes   and   she   is
doingpairvi of case residing at Rajpura, the place of her maternal uncle,
and   there   is   no   reason   that   plaintiff   shall   make   a   false   allegation
against   his   wife.   We   find   these   observations   contrary   to   record   and
based on assumption. Defendant has categorically denied that plaintiff
has seen her in an objectionable position with her maternal uncle and
her deposition in cross­examination. In matrimonial disputes, wild and
untrue allegations are levelled on both sides frequently and that is a
common   experience   of   courts   dealing   with   such   matters.   Still   court
below, in present case, without appreciating the fact that such plea for
the first time was taken by way of replication, has believed and that too
without any evidence. This finding of Court below is patently perverse
and illegal. Cruelty is a ground, prima facie, under law to justify decree
of divorce, but mere allegation without evidence cannot justify decree of
divorce.   In   the   present   case,   plaintiff­respondent   though   has   made
allegations   against   her   wife   regarding   her   mental   ailment   and
misbehaviour,   but   failed   to   prove   the   same   by   adducing   credible
evidence whatsoever.   Court below has relied upon certain documents
which   were   never   proved   and   exhibited   hence   are   inadmissible   in
evidence. Thus, finding recorded by Court below holding that there was
cruelty on the part of wife towards her husband so as to justify decree of
divorce is perverse, based on no evidence, and cannot be sustained.

160. Ashish Kumar Srivastava V. Smt. Ankita Srivastav, 2016 (2)

ARC 780 

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 94

Ss.   13   and   13   B   –Whether   rule   of   estopel   has   application   in   a

petition U/S 13­B of the Act?­ Held,  ―No In the present cae, no petition
under Section 13­B of the Act has been filed. The petitioner wants for a
decree in divorce suit under Section 13 of the Act, in view of compromise
dated 10.10.2014, as this compromise would operate as estoppel against
the respondents. Ruleof estoppel is a rule of evidence. There can be no
estoppel against statute.

161 Supreme Court in State of Bihar V. Project Uchcha Vidya,

Sikshak Sangh, (2006) 2 SCC 545, 

Held   that   it   is   now   well   known,   the   rule   of   estoppels   has   no

application where contention as regards a constitutional provision or a
statute is raised. Section 13­B itself gives liberty for second thought to
the parties. The consent must continue during the interregnum period
and   after   this   period   the   parties   should   again   confirm   their   consent
before   the   Court.   As   held   by   Supreme   Court   in   various   cases   cited
above,  the parties  can withdraw their consent during this period. As
such rule of estoppels has not application in a petition under Section 13­
B of the Act. 

162.Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi vs Hasan Raza Khan and six others

in Writ Petition No.534 (Consolidation) of 2002, S. 13­B­ Petition

for   grant   of   divorce   by   mutual   consent   by   power   of   attorney

holder can be entertained .

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 95

Recently a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Syed Wasif

Husain   Rizvi   vs   Hasan   Raza   Khan   and   six   others   in   Writ

Petition   No.534   (Consolidation)   of   2002  has   dealt   with   the   issue

relating to attorneys at some length. After elucidating the meaning of
power   of   attorney,   the   Court   taking   into   account   the   provisions   of
Allahabad High Court Rules and the provisions contained in Code of
Civil Procedure, particularly those contained in Order III thereof, has
inter alia observed that it is evident from the provisions of Order III
Rule 1 of CPC that an appearance, application or act in or to any Court
which is required to be made or done by a party in the Court can be
effectively made or done by the party in person or by a recognized agent.
Thus, from the authorities as discussed above and also taking into
account   the   facts   and   circumstances   which   the   instant   case   has
presented,   I   find   it   appropriate   to   dispose   of   this   petition   with   the
following   observations   and   directions:­1.   In   case   a   petition   under
Section 13­B of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent is
presented by the petitioner and the respondent no.2, then pleading of
such petition may be permitted to be signed and verified by the holder
of power of attorney of the petitioner in terms of the Special Power of
Attorney executed by the 
petitioner on 11.04.2016 before notary public in California, Santa Clara
County. 
2. Along with the petition to be presented under Section 13­B of Hindu
Marriage Act, a draft settlement agreement, which is a part of record of
this case before this Court and has duly been signed by learned counsel
for parties before this Court will also be annexed. 

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce

 96

3.   That   for   verifying   and   attesting   the   contents   of   the   joint   petition
which may be presented under Section 13­B of Hindu Marriage Act by
the parties, an affidavit of the petitioner shall also be required to be
filed which can be sworn in before the notary public or before any other
lawful  authority   in   United  States  of  America where the petitioner is
presently living. The said affidavit shall also contain duly self­attested
photograph of the petitioner. 
4.   On   presentation   of   the   joint   petition   seeking   divorce   by   mutual
consent under Section 13­B of Hindu Marriage Act, the learned court
below   will   proceed   with   the   said   application   in   accordance   with   law
after permitting the power of attorney authorized by the petitioner to
appear before it. The Court will also make such inquiries as are deemed
fit   in   respect   of   the   averments   made   in   the   petition   for   divorce   by
mutual  consent and  it is only on  being satisfied that contents of  the
petition are true, the court will proceed to pass appropriate orders. 
5. However, it is made clear that in case at any stage of the proceedings
of  Section  13­B of Hindu Marriage Act, if instituted, the court below
finds any doubt about the averments made in the petition, it would be
lawful   for   the   Court   to   summon   the   petitioner   for   hispersonal
appearance. Kanwalijeet Sachdev V. State of U.P. Thru Additional Prin.
Judge Family Court & Anr. , 2016 (2) ARC 789.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::THE END:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

BY A P RANDHIR Judgments On Divorce