- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
S. Jayalakshmi (Mrs) v. T. Prakash Rao .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, S. Jayalakshmi, married the respondent, T. Prakash Rao, on 3 May 1974. The couple had two daughters, aged about 20 and 18 at the time of the judgment. In 1978 the respondent obtained an ex parte divorce decree from the trial court on allegations of the appellant’s mental cruelty and unsoundness of mind. He remarried on 8 October 1978.
Instead of immediately challenging the decree, the appellant initiated maintenance proceedings in 1979, resulting in an award of Rs 50 per month for each daughter. In 1984 she unsuccessfully sought to set aside the ex parte decree and later filed a suit (11 October 1984) declaring the decree and the respondent’s second marriage void; that suit and subsequent first and second appeals were dismissed, culminating in dismissal by the High Court. A separate petition under Article 227 to annul the decree was also dismissed, and a special leave petition therefrom was rejected by the Supreme Court on 10 September 1986.
The present appeal, by special leave, challenges the High Court’s decision affirming dismissal of the appellant’s suit.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the trial court’s findings of mental cruelty and unsoundness of mind—rendered solely on the respondent’s testimony—were sustainable.
- If those findings were unsustainable, whether the divorce decree dated 3 August 1978 should nonetheless be set aside after the passage of time and subsequent events.
- The appropriate quantum of maintenance and financial support due from the respondent to the two daughters living with the appellant.
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 Supreme Court noted that the trial court had relied exclusively on the respondent-husband’s uncorroborated testimony; no medical or independent evidence supported allegations of mental cruelty or the appellant’s alleged unsoundness of mind. The Court therefore held those findings “wholly unjustified” and expressly set them aside.
Ordinarily, invalidation of those findings would warrant reversal of the divorce decree. However, exercising its equitable jurisdiction and “to do complete justice,” the Court considered the “chequered history” of the case: the appellant’s knowledge of the decree, her failure to promptly contest it, and the respondent’s remarriage and second family. Concluding that the appellant had effectively acquiesced, the Court declined to disturb the divorce decree despite nullifying the underlying factual findings.
Turning to the welfare of the two daughters, the Court found the existing maintenance (Rs 50 per month each) grossly inadequate and noted the respondent’s minimal prior support. Balancing both parents’ employment as Assistant Engineers, the Court directed substantial financial measures to secure the daughters’ education, ongoing upkeep, and eventual marriages.
Holding and Implications
Divorce decree of 3 August 1978 upheld. All adverse findings against the appellant (mental cruelty and unsoundness of mind) are set aside.
Maintenance and Financial Directions:
- The respondent must deposit Rs 30,000 for each daughter in separate fixed deposits within three months, with receipts handed to the appellant.
- He must pay monthly maintenance of Rs 1,000 to each daughter effective 1 January 1995 (arrears from January–May to be cleared by 15 May 1995, and thereafter before the 10th of every month).
- He shall contribute Rs 1,00,000 for each daughter one month prior to her marriage.
The Court also awarded costs of Rs 5,000 to the appellant.
Implications are limited to the parties: the substantive decree of divorce remains intact, but the respondent’s financial obligations toward his daughters are significantly enhanced. No new legal precedent was articulated beyond the equitable balancing of delay, acquiescence, and subsequent remarriage in deciding whether to annul an otherwise flawed divorce decree.
Order
1. S. Jayalakshmi, the appellant, married respondent T. Prakash Rao on 3-5-1974. Two daughters were born out of the wedlock who are aged about 20 years and 18 years. Unfortunately the parties fell apart and sometime in the year 1978 the husband filed a divorce petition on the ground of mental cruelty and also that the wife was of unsound mind. An ex parte decree was granted on 3-8-1978. Thereafter the husband remarried on 8-10-1978. The appellant did not file any application for setting aside the ex parte decree and instead filed a suit for maintenance some time in the year 1979. In the said proceedings Rs 50 per month each was finally granted as maintenance to the two daughters. In 1984 the appellant filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The application was not pressed. Thereafter on 11-10-1984 the appellant filed a suit seeking a declaration that the ex parte decree was a nullity and also that the second marriage of the respondent was void and non est. The suit was dismissed on 3-8-1987. The first and second appeals filed by the appellant were also dismissed. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the regular second appeal. While the suit was pending, the appellant filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the ex parte decree. That application was dismissed by the High Court on 26-3-1986. The special leave petition filed against the said order was also dismissed by this Court on 10-9-1986.
2. We have heard the appellant in person and also her learned counsel. We have also heard Mr A. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. The appellant is a government servant and is working as Assistant Engineer in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The respondent is also Assistant Engineer in the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board. As mentioned above the ex parte divorce decree was granted by the trial court on the ground of mental cruelty and unsoundness of mind. The findings of the trial court on merits are only based on the statement of the respondent-husband. No medical or any other evidence was led to show the unsoundness of mind of the appellant or even to prove mental cruelty. The trial court granted decree for divorce only on the ipse dixit of the respondent-husband, who was the sole witness before the trial court. We are of the view that the trial court was wholly unjustified in reaching the findings that the appellant was guilty of mental cruelty and she was of unsound mind. We have, therefore, no hesitation in setting aside both the findings reached by the trial court. Having held so, ordinarily we should have set aside the divorce decree, but keeping in view the chequered history of the case, we are not inclined to do so. It is obvious from the record that the appellant was fully aware about the ex parte decree and also of the fact that the respondent had remarried. It was only in 1984 that she filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree, which was also not pressed. We are of the view that the appellant almost acquiesced to the divorce decree which was granted on 3-4-1978.
3. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, and in order to do complete justice between the parties, while setting aside all the allegations against the appellant as we have already done, we are not inclined to set aside the decree of divorce granted by the court on 3-8-1978.
4. We, therefore, uphold the divorce decree.
5. The only other question which remains to be decided is the grant of maintenance to the two daughters who are admittedly living with the appellant. The respondent who married for the second time on 8-10-1978 has two children out of the second marriage. The elder daughter is studying for Engineering and the younger one is studying in the 12th Class. We have heard Mr A. Subba Rao on the question of quantum of maintenance. Apart from a petty sum of Rs 50 per month to each of the two girls there is nothing on the record to show that the respondent has ever rendered any financial assistance to the two girls. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the respondent T. Prakash Rao to deposit a sum of Rs 30,000 each in the name of the two girls separately in a scheduled bank in fixed deposit for a period of two years within three months from today. The fixed deposit receipts in the name of the girls shall be handed over to the appellant.
6. So far as the monthly maintenance is concerned, we direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs 1000 each to the two girls w.e.f 1-1-1995. The maintenance for the months of January to May shall be paid by 15-5-1995. Thereafter the maintenance shall be paid before the 10th of every month.
7. Respondent being the father is also duty bound to see that the girls are happily married. We direct that as and when the marriage of the girls is fixed, he shall pay Rs 1,00,000 (one lakh) on the marriage of each of the girls. This money shall be handed over to the appellant, one month before the date of marriage, for the purpose of spending on the wedding of the girls.
8. We dispose of the appeal in the above terms with costs which we quantify as Rs 5000.
Alert