- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Tulsa Bai v. Rajendra Singh
Factual and Procedural Background
The controversy arises from a suit filed by Rajendra Singh, husband of Smt. Tulsa Bai, for restitution of conjugal rights, resulting in a decree granted on 17-01-1991. The wife, Smt. Tulsa Bai, filed an appeal against this decree, which was pending adjudication without any interim order, leaving the decree operative. Subsequently, Rajendra Singh filed another suit (Civil Suit No. 7-A/91) within the same year, invoking Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging desertion by the wife for a continuous period of not less than two years preceding the petition. The present appeal challenges the validity of this subsequent suit filed before the expiry of the statutory period.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a party to a marriage can present a petition for annulment of marriage on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, after obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act but before the expiry of the statutory period required by law.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court observed that the facts have only peripheral relevance as the dispute is primarily a legal question. The court analyzed the interplay between Section 9 and Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 9 provides for restitution of conjugal rights, whereas Section 13(1)(ib) allows for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the petition.
The court noted the legislative amendments, including the insertion of sub-section (1A) by Amendment Acts No. 44 of 1964 and No. 68 of 1976, which reduced the required period for desertion after a decree for restitution of conjugal rights from two years to one year.
It held that the legislature did not intend for a party to simultaneously pursue remedies under both Sections 9 and 13. Since the husband had already obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and filed the subsequent suit for divorce on the ground of desertion before the expiry of the one-year period after the decree, such a suit was premature and not permissible under the law.
Holding and Implications
The appeal was allowed, and the decree of divorce passed by the lower court was set aside. The court held that filing a suit for divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) before the expiry of the statutory period following a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is legally impermissible.
The costs of the appeal were ordered to be borne by the respondent. The husband retains the right to file a suit for divorce if restitution of conjugal rights fails after the statutory period, without prejudice to this decision. No new precedent was established beyond the direct effect on the parties.
1. The controversy involved in the present appeal relates purely to the legal question and the facts have only peripheral relevance.
2. Rajendra Singh, the husband of Smt. Tulsa Bai filed a suit for restitution of conjugal right in the Court below. The decree was granted for restitution of conjugal rights on 17-1-1991, where against an appeal was filed by the wife Smt. Tulsa Bai in this Court, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is pending for adjudication in this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that in that appeal, no interim order was granted and as such, the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was in operation.
3. The husband Rajendra Singh, after the grant of decree for restitution of conjugal rights on 19-1-1991, did not wait for a period of two years but immediately in the same year, filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 7-A/91, giving rise to the present appeal, which was on the grounds mentioned in Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 i.e.
"has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two immediately preceding the presentation of the petition."
4. In the present case, the question for consideration is whether a person, either the wife or the husband as the case may be, can present a petition for annulment of marriage on the ground mentioned in Section 13(1)(ib) after obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before expiry of the period provided by law?
5. Section 13(1) of the Act gives ground for dissolution of the marriage straightaway. Sub-section (1-A) which was amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act No. 68 of 1976 contains clause (ii) which runs as under :-
"(1A) Either party to a marriage, whenever solemnised before or alter the commencement of this Act, may also present a petition for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground -
(ii) That there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties."
Prior to the Amendment by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act No. 68 of 1976, the said period was two years after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights during which no restitution of conjugal rights should take place between the parties. Such an amendment was made by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1964 on 20-12-1964 by adding sub-section (1-A).
6. It cannot be the intention of the Legislature that a party may avail of both the remedies under Sections 9 and 13 of the Act simultaneously, as has been done in the present case. In the present case, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been obtained by the husband Rajendra Singh which means he is ready to keep the wife Smt. Tulsa Bai with him. The other suit which has been filed by him is on the ground of (ib) of Section 13(1) of the Act and this ground is the ground of desertion. Here, the husband being a person having obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and without waiting for restitution of conjugal rights upto a period of one year or upward after the passing of the decree has filed a suit on the ground under Section 13(1)(ib) which cannot be permitted under the law. Since in the present case, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was obtained by the husband on 17-1-1991, subsequent filing of the suit on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) before expiry of period of one year of the date of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights was bad in law.
7. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds. The decree of divorce as passed by the Court below is set aside. Since no one appears to oppose the appeal, the costs of this appeal are to be borne by the respondent. However, it would be open for the, husband Rajendra Singh to file a suit for divorce if the restitution fails, as per the provisions of law and as may be advised, without prejudice by this decision.
Alert