Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Case Law- Section 13(1A)(ii), 23 - Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar vs. Sunanda
Bench: Justice D.P. Mohapatra and Doraiswamy Raju.
Facts:
- The parties are married to each other. Sunanda, herein the Respondent initially filed a petition for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) on the ground of adultery committed by Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar, herein the Respondent and a decree was granted in her favour.
- The order of the Court directing the Respondent to pay Rs. 100 per month to the wife and Rs. 75 per month to the daughter as maintenance was not complied with.
- Thereafter, the Appellant himself filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage for a period of more than one year after passing of the decree for judicial separation.
Issue:
- Whether the husband, who has sought dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1-A)(i) of the Act be denied such relief on the ground that he has failed to pay maintenance to his wife and daughter despite such order of the Court?
- Whether the act of living with a mistress and refusing to pay maintenance to the wife, a 'wrong' within the meaning of Section 23 and whether he shall be deemed to be taking advantage of his own 'wrong' if he seeks the relief of divorce?
Contentions of the Appellant:
- There is only one condition for getting a divorce under section 13(1-A) that is no resumption of co-habitation between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for judicial separation.
- The right conferred by Section 13(1A) is absolute and unqualified and not subject to provisions of Section 23 of the Act.
- The 'wrong' allegedly committed by the Appellant has no connection with the relief of divorce sought.
Contentions of the Respondents:
- The Appellant continued to live with his mistress even after passing of the decree of judicial separation.
- The Appellant has failed to maintain the Respondent and their daughter.
Background:
The Respondent moved the High Court contesting the Appellant’s petition for divorce on the groundthat the Appellant having failed to pay the maintenance as ordered by the Court is trying to take advantage of his own wrong for getting the relief of divorce. The High Court refused the grant of divorce, aggrieved by which the Appellant filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. The judgment of the Supreme Court is furnished below.
Judgment:
While examining the provisions of Section 13(1A) and Section 23, the Court observed that both the parties are conferred with a duty to make a sincere contribution for successful cohabitation after a decree of judicial separation is passed. Also, there is no straight-jacket formula to decide the question whether refusal to pay maintenance constitutes ‘wrong’ under Section 23 as it is a matter of facts and circumstances of each case.
While upholding the view of the High Court dismissing the petition for dissolution of the marriagein the present case, the Court held that the Appellant clearly failed to do behave as a dutiful husband as he not only continued to live with his mistress after the passing of the decree and refused to maintain the Respondent and their daughter but also tried to take advantage of the said 'wrong' for getting the relief of divorce. Therefore, he committed a 'wrong' within the meaning of Section 23 of the Act which disentitles him to get a decree of divorce in his favour.
