ASHOK KUMAR JAIN vs. SUMATI JAIN

      REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3861 OF 2013 (arising out of SLP(C)No.20277 of 2007) 

VERSUS J U D G M E N T Leave granted. 2. The   appellant   has   preferred   this   appeal   against  th the   judgment   dated   9   March,   2007   passed   by   the  Rajasthan   High   Court   at   Jaipur   in   DB   Civil  Miscellaneous   Appeal   No.   332   of   1998   whereby   the  th Division Bench upheld the judgment dated 13  February,  JUDGMENT 1998   passed   by   the   Judge,   Family   Court,   Jaipur  dismissing the appellant’s petition under Section 13 of  the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to  as “the Act” for short).   3. The facts of the case are as follows: The appellant and respondent are married to each  other.   The   appellant   preferred   a   petition   for  dissolution   of   marriage   under   Section   13   of   the   Act  1 Page 1 before the Judge, Family Court, Jaipur and brought on  record the following facts: The   appellant   and   the   respondent   were   married  th according   to   Hindu   rites   on   30   October,   1990   at  Jaipur.   For the first few days the respondent stayed  at her matrimonial home and behaved well with family  members   of   the   appellant.     However,   upon   her   return  from   her   parental   house,   after   a   few   days   of   the  marriage,   her   behaviour   suddenly   changed.   Appellant  claimed to be the only son of the family having two  small   sisters   and   old   father   to   look   after.     The  aforesaid fact was known to the respondent even prior  to   her   marriage   when   appellant   informed   the  respondent’s family that since there is no one to look  after   his   aged   father,   his   wife   would   have   to   look  JUDGMENT after him.     But, upon her return from her parental  place, the respondent started abusing her father­in­law  by calling his name and by neglecting his welfare.  She  also  pressurized  the  appellant   to abandon  his  father  and   shift   to   another   house.     Since   the   appellant  refused   to   succumb   to   her   pressure,   her   behaviour  became more and more cruel towards the appellant and  his family members.   Thereafter, without any rhyme or  th reason on 30  March, 1991 in the absence of appellant  2 Page 2 and   his   father,   the   respondent   packed   up   her   bags,  collected her jewellery and left the matrimonial home.  Since that date, she has refused to come back to the  th matrimonial home.   On 5  December, 1991 she gave birth  to a son, but the appellant was never informed either  by   the   respondent   or   by   his   in­laws.       When   the  appellant came to know about the birth of son, he went  to   see   his   wife   at   the   Hospital,   but   he   found   her  missing.     Thereafter,   the   appellant   went   to   his   in­ laws’ place but they refused to let him enter inside  the house.  Hence, the appellant could neither see his  newly   born   child   nor   meet   his   wife.     Furthermore,  according to the appellant despite sending many persons  to reconcile with his wife, the respondent consistently  refused to come back to him.  In this background, the  JUDGMENT appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act  before the Judge, Family Court, Jaipur for the divorce  on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.   4. The respondent, on the other hand, filed written  statement in the Family Court and narrated a totally  different set of facts.   She alleged that since from  first night, the appellant came deadly drunk into the  room  and abused  her  for bringing  insufficient  dowry.  Subsequently,   she   was   shocked   to   learn   that   the  3 Page 3 appellant   was   earlier   married   to   a   woman   known   as  ‘Shanta’   and   had   a   son   from   the   said   marriage.  According   to   the   respondent,   the   aforesaid   fact  relating   to   first   marriage   was   not   revealed   by   the  appellant in the matrimonial advertisement given by him  th on   8   April,   1990   in   the   daily   newspaper   “Rajasthan  Patrika”.   When she inquired about his first marriage  she realized that the appellant had sought divorce on  the exact same grounds as are pleaded by him in the  present case.  The respondent further claimed that once  when the appellant had lost Rs.3,000/­ in gambling, he  forced her to go to her parental place and to bring  Rs.3,000/­ for him.  Moreover, when her father retired  from the service and had received retiral benefits of  Rs.1,20,934/­,   the   appellant   pressurized   her   to  JUDGMENT convince her father to part with Rs.50,000/­ for him.  Whenever,  she  refused  to  talk  to  her  father  on  this  topic,   the   appellant   assaulted   her.     She   further  alleged that despite the fact that she was a woman from  a Jain community, the appellant would force her to cook  meat   or   to   drink   with   him.     Since   the   respondent  believed   in   non­violence   according   to   her   religious  tenance, she could never convince herself to eat non­ vegetarian food and to drink.   The respondent further  4 Page 4 th alleged that finally on 30  March, 1991, the appellant  mercilessly   bashed   her   up   and   threw   her   out   of   the  matrimonial home.  She had no option but to return to  her parental place.  According to the respondent, when  she was hospitalized and required blood and even after  the birth of her son, the appellant never visited the  hospital to see her and the son and enquired about her  welfare.    Therefore,   according   to the respondent,  in  fact the cruelty and desertion have been committed by  the appellant and not by her. 5. In   the   Family   Court   the   appellant   examined   four  witnesses including himself and submitted a number of  documentary   evidence.     The   respondent   also   examined  four   witnesses   including   herself   and   submitted   the  large   number   of   documentary   evidence.     The   learned  JUDGMENT Judge   after   going   through   the   oral   and   documentary  evidence and on hearing the parties, by the judgment  th dated   13   February,   1998   dismissed   the   petition   for  divorce with cost.    6. The Appellate Court,  as noticed  above, dismissed  the   appeal.     The   Appellate   Court   held   that   the  appellant has not only been cruel to the respondent,  but has also brought the situation to the point where  the   respondent   had   no   option   but   to   leave   her  5 Page 5 matrimonial  home.    Hence  the  appellant   has committed  constructive desertion of the respondent.   7. Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the  appellant submitted that the cruelty and desertion were  committed by the respondent.   He has taken us to the  factual matrix narrated above and submitted that these  facts   as   alleged   by   the   appellant   and   supported   by  evidence   clearly   shows   that   the   respondent   has  neglected   her   matrimonial   duties   both   towards   the  appellant and his family.  The respondent’s persistent  demand   to   separate   from   her   father­in­law,   depriving  the husband of the matrimonial relationship, refusal to  resume cohabitation with the appellant, all these acts  and   omissions   amount   to   cruelty   and   desertion.     The  cruelty   was   constituted   to   the   extent   that   it   was  JUDGMENT impossible for the husband to live with such a wife.  It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the  appellant   that   the   approach   of   the   High   Court   was  incorrect   as   it   failed   to   notice   that   when   the  appellant   and   the   respondent   have   been   living  separately for about sixteen years, there is no purpose  in compelling both the parties to live together. The  High Court ought to have granted decree of divorce.  It  was   further   contended   that   where   the   marriage   is  6 Page 6 irretrievably  broken  down  with  no possibility  of  the  appellant  and the  respondent  to live  together  again,  the best recourse for the High Court to adopt was to  dissolve their marriage and thereby allow the appellant  and the respondent to live remaining part of their life  peacefully   both   having   already   lost   valuable   part  thereof.  8. On   the   other   hand,   learned   counsel   for   the  respondent  highlighted   the facts  not  disputed  by  the  appellant   that   the   appellant   is   in   the   habit   of  marrying   and   remarrying.   Even   prior   to   the   present  marriage, the appellant had married one ‘Shanta’ from  whom he has a son.  This fact was never revealed by the  appellant to the respondent or to her parents prior to  the solemnisation of the present marriage.  Therefore,  JUDGMENT while playing fraud with woman, the appellant wishes to  continue solemnising number of marriages.   9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and  perused the record. 10. It   is   not   in   dispute   that   even   prior   to   the  present marriage the appellant had married one ‘Shanta’  from whom he has a son.  The aforesaid fact was never  revealed by the appellant to the respondent or to her  parents   prior   to   the   solemnisation   of   the   present  7 Page 7 marriage   or   thereafter.       Even   in   the   matrimonial  advertisement   (Ex.   A­11),   the   appellant   had   not  revealed   the   fact   that   he   is   already   a   divorcee.  Moreover,   the   appellant   had   written   a   letter   to   his  father­in­law (Ex. A­10) but therein also not mentioned  that he is a divorcee and a father of a son. Moreover,  even   during   the   pendency   of   the   appeal,   the   Court  noticed   that   the   appellant   has   placed   a   matrimonial  advertisement in the paper as he wishes to enter into a  third marriage.    11. The High Court perused the divorce petition as was  filed by the appellant against his first wife as well  as the divorce petition filed by the appellant against  the present respondent and noticed that they are almost  identical   in   their   content.   The   same   sets   of  JUDGMENT allegations   were   levelled   against   the   first   wife   as  levelled against the present respondent.  This clearly  shows the modus operandi of the appellant.  Taking   into   consideration   the   aforesaid   fact   and  the fact that even during the pendency of the appeal  the   appellant   came   out   with   a   fresh   matrimonial  advertisement,   the   High   Court   rightly   held   that   the  appellant played fraud with the respondent.   The High  Court   noticed   that   surprisingly   the   subsequent  8 Page 8 matrimonial   advertisement   published   by   him   clearly  reveals his intention to re­marry for the third time  even before getting divorce from his second wife. The  High Court observed that this is against the Section 15  of the Act, whereunder it is stipulated that even after  dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, upto  certain   period   no   party   to   the   marriage   can   marry  again.    12. In   the   present   case   admittedly   marriage   has   not  been  dissolved   by any  of  the  Court   of Law.    On  the  other   hand,   the   petition   under   Section   13   for  dissolution   of   marriage   was   dismissed   by   the   Judge,  Family Court.  In such case there was no occasion for  the appellant  to  come out  with  another  advertisement  for third marriage  JUDGMENT In   this   background,   the   High   Court   rightly   held  that   the   aforesaid   acts   during   the   pendency   of   the  appeal   clearly   reveals   appellant’s   psychology   of  disobeying   the  law  and  of entering   into  a number  of  marriages. 13. Under sub­clause (a) of clause (1) of Section 23,  in   any   proceeding   under   the   Act,   if   the   Court   is  satisfied that any of the grounds for granting relief  exists   and   the   petitioner   is   not   in   any   way   taking  9 Page 9 advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the  purpose of such relief, the Court shall grant relief  under Section 23 (1) (a) of the Act.  Therefore, it is  always open to the Court to examine whether the person  seeking divorce “is not in any way taking advantage of  his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of  such  relief”.  On  such  examination  if  it  is  so found  that the person is taking advantage of his or her wrong  or   disability   it   is   open   to   the   Court   to   refuse   to  grant relief. 14. In the present case, both the Courts noticed the  relevant facts and came to a definite conclusion that  the   appellant   has   not   only   been   cruel   to   the  respondent, but has also brought the situation to the  point where the respondent had no option but to leave  JUDGMENT the   matrimonial   home.     In   this   situation   as   the  appellant   was   trying   to   take   advantage   of   his   own  wrong, the Courts disallowed the relief as was sought  for.   We find that the order to that effect   of the  High Court does not suffer any infirmity, illegality or  perversity;  no interference is called for.  15. In   the   result   and   in   absence   of   any   merit,   the  appeal   is   dismissed   but   there   shall   be   no   separate  orders as to costs.   1 Page 10 ………..………………………………………..J.        (G.S. SINGHVI) ………………………………………………….J.               (SUDHANSU JYOTI  MUKHOPADHAYA) NEW DELHI, APRIL  15, 2013. JUDGMENT 1 Page 11