- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Case law - Narendra vs K.Meena.
- Bench: Anil R. Dave, L. Nageswara Rao
Facts:
- The Appellant husband had married the Respondent wife on 26th February, 1992. Out of the wedlock, a female child named Ranjitha was born on 13th November, 1993.
- The case of the appellant was that the Respondent did not live happily with the Appellant even for a month after the marriage.
- The reason for filing the divorce petition was that the Respondent wife had become cruel because of her highly suspicious nature and she used to level absolutely frivolous but serious allegations against him regarding his character and more particularly about his extra-marital relationship.
- Behaviour of the Respondent wife made life of the Appellant husband miserable and it became impossible for the Appellant to stay with the Respondent for the aforestated reasons.
Issues:
- Whether forcing the husband to leave his parents, who are dependent on his income amounts to cruelty?
Contentions of the Appellant:
- According to appellant, the Respondent wanted the Appellant to leave his parents and other family members and to get separated from them so that the Respondent can live independently; and in that event it would become more torturous for the Appellant to stay only with the Respondent wife with her such nature and behaviour.
- The main ground was cruelty, as serious allegations were levelled about the moral character of the Appellant to the effect that he was having an extra- marital affair with a maid, named Kamla.
- Another important allegation was that the Respondent would very often threaten the appellant that she would commit suicide.
Contentions of the Respondent:
- The respondent wife alleged that the her husband had an extra marital relationship with the maid of the house, named Kamla.
- The wife also alleged that she was subjected to torture and cruelty by the husband and his family members.
Background:
- The Respondent wife filed Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the High Court as she was aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17th November, 2001, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act filed by the Appellant husband seeking divorce.
- The Appellant husband filed the appeal in Apex Court, whose decree for divorce passed by the trial Court has been set aside by the impugned judgment dated 8th March, 2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Miscellaneous First Appeal.
Judgment:
- Dealing with the case, the Court said that in a Hindu society, it is a pious obligation of the son to maintain the parents.
- If a wife makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice and normal custom of the society, she must have some justifiable reason and hence, the Karnataka High Court erred in holding that mere monetary consideration was a justifiable reason to separate the husband from his parents.
- The Bench of A.R. Dave and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ added that no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income, the Court also said that the persistent effort of the wife to constrain the husband to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband and will constitute as an act of ‘cruelty’.
- The bench therefore quashed and set aside the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court. The decree of divorce dated 17th November, 2001 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore was finally hereby restored.
