Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
  • Article 142 of the Constitution of India
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
  • Article 142 of the Constitution of India
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, a sanitary inspector, and the respondent, a teacher, have lived apart for twenty-five years. This is their second round of litigation to reach the Supreme Court of India. Their first case—based on alleged desertion—was decided against the husband on 23 April 1980. In the present appeal, the husband seeks dissolution of the marriage on the ground of “cruelty” under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Both the trial court and the High Court rejected the claim because the wife’s earlier allegations about the husband’s character were neither proved nor supported by evidence. The Supreme Court now reviews that decision.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the marriage, which the Court described as “dead both emotionally and practically,” should be dissolved on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce notwithstanding the absence of proven acts of cruelty in the evidentiary record.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs) (1994) 1 SCC 337 Defines and explains the concept of mental and physical cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Used as the foundational standard for assessing whether continuing the present marriage would amount to legal cruelty.
Chanderkala Trivedi (Smt) v. Dr S.P. Trivedi (1993) 4 SCC 232 Holds that if a marriage is irretrievably dead, it is preferable to dissolve it. Relied upon to justify ending a marriage that is “dead both emotionally and practically.”

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court observed that the spouses had not cohabited for twenty-five years, and that “continuance of marital alliance for namesake is prolonging the agony and affliction.” Applying the principles of cruelty discussed in V. Bhagat, the Court reasoned that forcing the parties to remain legally married would itself constitute cruelty. The Court also invoked Chanderkala Trivedi to emphasise that a marriage beyond repair should be brought to an end.

Although the husband had been negligent in fulfilling his marital and parental duties, he expressed remorse and offered to transfer his only house to the wife as compensation. Weighing these factors, the Court decided that equity and justice required immediate dissolution. Exercising its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court ordered that the marriage be dissolved, conditioned on the husband transferring the house to the wife within four months.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The marriage between the appellant and the respondent shall stand dissolved once the appellant transfers his sole house to the respondent and hands over possession within four months. The appeal is accordingly disposed of, with each party bearing its own costs.

Implications: The decision underscores the Court’s willingness to invoke Article 142 to terminate marriages that are irretrievably broken, even when traditional evidentiary requirements for cruelty have not been met. While the ruling primarily affects the immediate parties, it signals that prolonging a “dead” marriage can itself be deemed cruelty, potentially influencing future matrimonial litigation.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Romesh Chander v. Savitri (Smt) .

    R.M Sahai, J.— Should a marriage which is otherwise dead emotionally and practically be continued for namesake is the issue for consideration in this appeal.

    2. Twenty-five years have elapsed since the appellant, a sanitary inspector, and the respondent, his wife — a teacher, have enjoyed the company of each other as husband and wife. Within these 25 years this is the second round of litigation which routing through the trial court and the High Court has reached this Court. The earlier one founded on desertion was decided by this Court against the husband on 23-4-1980. This appeal is based on cruelty. Both the courts below have found that even though the wife had cast serious aspersions on the character of the appellant in the written statement filed by her earlier and alleged that he was in the habit of mixing with undesirable girls in the presence of respondent yet since neither any evidence was led nor it was proved consequently it could not be made basis for claiming divorce on cruelty.

    3. In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs) (1994) 1 SCC 337 this Court has explained the concept of cruelty both mental and physical which could entitle an applicant to claim divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In Chanderkala Trivedi (Smt) v. Dr S.P Trivedi (1993) 4 SCC 232 it was held that if a marriage was dead and there was no chance of its being retrieved it was better to bring it to an end. In this case the marriage is dead both emotionally and practically. Continuance of marital alliance for namesake is prolonging the agony and affliction. It cannot be disputed that the husband has not been dutiful and conscious of his responsibilities either towards his wife or his son. He did not contribute anything towards upbringing of the child. Yet the marriage being dead, the continuance of it would be cruelty, specially when the child born out of the wedlock of the appellant and the respondent as far back as 1968 having now grown and being in service. The appellant has expressed remorse for his conduct and is willing to compensate for his past mistakes by transferring the only house in his name in favour of his wife.

    4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case we, in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, direct that the marriage between appellant and the respondent shall stand dissolved subject to the appellant transferring the house in the name of his wife. The house shall be transferred within four months from today. The dissolution shall come into effect from the date the house is transferred and possession is handed over to the respondent.

    5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Romesh Chander v. Savitri (Smt) .
    (Jan 13, 1995)