- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Vishwanath v. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal
Factual and Procedural Background
This Second Appeal arises from a petition for divorce filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground of cruelty. The appellant, Vishwanath, alleged mental cruelty by his wife, claiming she behaved nastily, used tantrums, and addressed him with filthy abuses. The wife denied these allegations, stating that the marriage was peaceful for about sixteen years and that she left due to ill-treatment by the appellant. The trial Court dismissed the divorce petition, holding that the appellant failed to establish cruelty. The first appellate Court confirmed this finding and dismissed the appeal. Attempts at conciliation failed, and the parties have no intention to reconcile. The appellant offered a monetary settlement which was not accepted by the respondent. The son of the parties is grown and married, further indicating the parties' estrangement.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant established mental cruelty by the wife sufficient to grant a divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Whether the irretrievable breakdown of marriage can be considered as a ground to grant divorce in the absence of proven cruelty.
- The scope of the Supreme Court's extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant divorce in cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant claimed mental cruelty by the wife through tantrums, nastiness, and abusive language.
- He asserted that the marriage was irretrievably broken with no hope of reunion.
- The appellant offered a monetary settlement of Rs. 3,50,000/- to resolve the dispute, which was not accepted by the respondent.
- He urged the court to admit the appeal based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, citing Supreme Court precedents where such ground was considered under extraordinary circumstances.
Respondent's Arguments
- The wife denied allegations of cruelty and contended that the marriage was peaceful for about sixteen years.
- She claimed that she left the matrimonial home due to ill-treatment by the appellant.
- The respondent took an obstinate attitude and was not willing to reconcile or grant divorce, allegedly to harass the appellant.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur (2005 AIR SCW 163) | Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce but can be considered by the Supreme Court under extraordinary circumstances to do complete justice and shorten agony of parties. | The court acknowledged this principle but held that only the Supreme Court under Article 142 can grant divorce on this ground, not the present court. |
| Sanghamitra Ghosh v. Kajal Kumar Ghosh (2006 AIR SCW 5983) | Similar principle as in A. Jayachandra regarding irretrievable breakdown and Supreme Court's extraordinary powers. | Reinforced the court's view that such grounds are reserved for the Supreme Court. |
| Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006 AIR SCW 1550) | Affirmed the Supreme Court’s power to consider irretrievable breakdown under Article 142. | Supported the court’s position that this court cannot grant divorce on this ground. |
| Mst. Sugani v. Rameshwar Das (2006 AIR SCW 2606) | Principle regarding the requirement of establishing cruelty for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a). | Used to confirm that absence of cruelty renders the appeal untenable. |
| Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki (AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1975) | Similar principle on the necessity of proving cruelty for divorce. | Supported dismissal of the appeal due to concurrent findings of no cruelty. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the concurrent findings of fact from the trial and first appellate courts, which concluded that the appellant failed to prove mental cruelty by the wife. The court noted the failure of conciliation efforts and the absence of any intention by the parties to reconcile. Although the appellant argued that the marriage was irretrievably broken and cited Supreme Court precedents allowing divorce on this ground under extraordinary powers of Article 142, the court clarified that such relief is exclusively within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The court emphasized that in the absence of proven cruelty, the appeal was untenable. The court relied on established precedents to affirm that cruelty must be established to grant divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law.
Holding and Implications
The Second Appeal is dismissed.
The court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the appellant did not establish cruelty as required for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. It refused to consider the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce, stating that such a ground can only be entertained by the Supreme Court under its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The dismissal of the appeal means that the decree for divorce is denied at this stage, and no new legal precedent is established by this decision. The parties remain bound by the prior rulings, and no costs were imposed.
1. This Second Appeal arises out of concurrent findings in relation to petition for divorce U/s 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground of cruelty. A divorce petition (HMP No. 42/1995) was filed by the present appellant-Vishwanath. The main ground seeking divorce was that the wife subjected him to mental cruelty. Allegedly, she used to deal in tantrums, was behaving nastily and used to address filthy abuses. The wife denied the allegations. She contended that the matrimonial life for about 16 or more years was without problem but it was due to ill-treatment of the appellant that she had to leave the house. The trial Court held that the appellant could not establish the ground of cruelty. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the decree for divorce is not warranted when the appellant did not establish mental cruelty and, therefore, dismissed the petition. The first appellate Court also dismissed his appeal, confirming the finding that the ground of cruelty is not proved.
2. There are concurrent findings of facts. Initially an attempt was made for conciliation. The learned advocate for the Respondent Mr. Agrawal, himself made such attempt saying that he is relative of the parties. He informed the Court on previous occasion that all his attempts fizzled out. Learned advocate Mr. Dhorde, would state that the Respondent has taken obstinate attitude and is not ready to join the company of the appellant nor is ready to give him divorce because she wants to harass him. It appears that son of the parties has grown young and has been married. The parties have no intention, whatsoever, to patch up the matrimonial discord.
3. The learned counsel for the parties informed that the settlement may not be possible.
The appellant gave offer to the Respondent for settlement of the dispute on accepting amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lacs fifty thousand) but no favourable response is received from the Respondent. The appellant was ready to enhance the amount appropriately. Today, learned counsel for the Respondent is absent when the matter is called out. It is conspicuous that the attempts of the settlement have become fruitless.
4. Mr. Dhorde, learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the marriage has been irretrievably broken. There cannot be any duality of opinion that the marriage is broken with no hope of reunion. The record shows that there is nothing redeeming about the prospects of bringing spouses together and they are at logger heads to such an extent that they are not likely to join company of each other. Mr. Dhorde, would, therefore, submit that the appeal may be admitted because the marriage is irretrievably broken. Such ground cannot be considered by this court. The Apex Court in “A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur” (2005 AIR SCW 163), held that irretrievable breaking down of the marriage though is not a ground for dissolution of marriage, yet, in extreme cases Supreme Court with a view to do complete justice and shorten agony of parties, may direct dissolution of marriage. Similar view is taken in “Sanghamitra Ghosh v. Kajal Kumar Ghosh.” (2006 AIR SCW 5983) and “Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli.” (2006 AIR SCW 1550). It may be however, mentioned that such a ground can be considered only by the Apex Court under the extraordinary powers available under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, so as to do complete justice between the parties. Though, I am convinced that the marriage is broken down irretrievably, yet, in the Second Appeal I am unable to consider the request for grant of the decree of divorce. For, there is concurrent finding of fact regarding absence of alleged cruelty by the wife.
5. In view of the concurrent findings of the facts regarding cruelty, the Second Appeal is untenable as no other substantial question of law is involved, particularly in the light of observations in “Mst. Sugani v. Rameshwar Das” (2006 AIR SCW 2606) and Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki” (AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1975). The Second Appeal is therefore, dismissed. No costs.
(V.R KINGAONKAR, J.)
Alert