- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Gulab Kaur v. Gurdev Singh Rattan Singh
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant had earlier suffered an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights which was never executed. After the lapse of two years a petition for divorce was filed under Section 13(1)(ix) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That petition was opposed mainly on the grounds that the ex parte decree was obtained by fraud and that the decree-holder had to seek its compliance (and, since no compliance was sought, it could not be said there was failure of compliance for two years). No arguments were addressed on the fraud ground, which was found against the appellant. The Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Bhatinda, dissolved the appellant's marriage under Section 13(1)(ix); this appeal challenges that decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether non-execution of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and absence of any steps by the decree-holder to enforce compliance prevents a finding of failure to comply with the decree for a period of two years within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ix) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Whether the ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights was obtained by fraud (not further argued in the appeal).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights was obtained by fraud.
- Because the decree was never executed and the decree-holder did not take steps or make an oral demand for its compliance, it cannot be held that there was failure to comply with the decree for a period of two years under Section 13(1)(ix).
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court interpreted Clause (ix) of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides for divorce where a party "has failed to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights for a period of two years or upwards after the passing of the decree." The court held that compliance must be by the judgment-debtor (the party against whom the decree is made) and that the decree-holder's actions to enforce the decree are irrelevant to the statutory requirement. The court rejected the appellant's construction that the decree-holder must execute or otherwise seek compliance before failure can be said to have occurred. The court found further support by analogizing Clause (viii) of Section 13(1) (non-resumption of cohabitation for two years after judicial separation), observing the obligation under that provision is also on the judgment-debtor, and concluding the Legislature would not have intended different standards for judicial separation and restitution decrees. Because the appellant's contention on non-execution was untenable under this interpretation, the court upheld the dissolution order. The court noted that no arguments were addressed on the fraud ground, which had been found against the appellant.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED
Direct effect: The decree dissolving the marriage under Section 13(1)(ix) stands. There will be no order as to costs. The opinion does not announce any broader precedent beyond its interpretation that failure to comply under Section 13(1)(ix) is measured by the conduct of the judgment-debtor and does not depend on steps taken by the decree-holder.
1. This appeal is directed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class Bhatinda dissolving the appellant's marriage with the respondent under Section 13(1) (ix) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. There is no dispute on facts. The appellant suffered an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights. That decree was never executed and after the lapse of two years, the present petition for divorce was filed under Section 13(1)(ix) of the Act. The petition was opposed mainly on the grounds that the ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights was obtained by fraud, and that in any case the decree-holder had to seek its compliance and as no compliance was sought, it cannot be held that there has been no compliance with the decree. It is true that no steps were ever taken to execute the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. No arguments have been addressed on the first ground which was found against the appellant.
2. So far as the second ground is concerned I have to proceed on the basis that there is a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant which has not been executed so far. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the decree has not been executed nor been an oral demand for its compliance made therefore it cannot be said that there has been a failure of compliance with the decree for a period of two years and, thus the respondent is not entitled to a decree for divorce. I an unable to agree with this contention. Clause (ix) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act reads thus:
"13. (1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or alter the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party-
"*****
(ix) has failed to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights for a period of two years or upwards after the passing of the decree.
As I read this clause I cannot import the construction which the learned counsel for the appellants wants me to place on this provision. The compliance has to be by the judgment-debtor. The decree-bolder does not come in the picture at all. Therefore, the argument that the decree-holder had to execute the decree or to otherwise seek its compliance is untenable. This construction derives further support from Clause (viii) of Section 13(1) of the Act, which reads thus:
"13(1)(viii) has not resumed cohabitation for a space of two years or upwards after the passing of a decree for judicial separation against that party; or"
The obligation under this provision is on the judgment-debtor. I cannot conceive that the Legislature was trying to put different standards with regard to a decree for judicial separation and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this appeal. The same fails and is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.
Alert