Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Case Law- Section 13(1A)(ii), 23(1)(a) - Dharmendra Kumar vs. Usha Kumar
Bench: Justice A.C. Gupta and Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali.
Facts:
- The parties are married to each other. Usha Kumari, herein the Respondent initially filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and a decree was granted in her favour.
- After two years, she filed a petition against Dharmendra Kumar, seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Act and again a decree was passed in her favour.
- The Appellant questions the validity of the decree of dissolution of marriage before the Court as she did not comply with the decree of restitution which was passed in her own favour.
Issue:
Whether mere non-compliance with decree for restitution constitutes wrong within the meaning of Section 23 (1) (a) of the Act?
Contentions of the Appellant:
- Appellant made persistent efforts to comply with the decree of restitution of conjugal rights by writing registered letters to the Respondent and inviting her to live with him.
- Respondent ignored some letters and refused to receive others.
- Respondent has herself prevented the restitution of conjugal rights and seeks to make a capital out of her own wrong.
Contentions of the Respondents:
There had been no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties to the marriage after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
Background:
Appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court against the decree of divorce, but it was summarily dismissed. Thereafter, the Appellant questioned the validity of the decree of divorce granted in favour of the Respondent by approaching the Supreme Court which gave its judgment below.
Judgment:
The Court while discussing Section 13(1A)(ii) and Section 23 of the Act, observed that Section 23 entitles both the parties to get a decree of divorce, in a case where there has been no restitution of conjugal rights for one year or more after passing of the decree of the restitution of conjugal rights, irrespective of who did not insist on compliance with the aforesaid decree aforesaid decree in the first place.
It would not be very reasonable to deny relief of divorce to the spouse who did not comply with the decree of restitution passed in his or her favour. In order to be a 'wrong' within the meaning of Section 23(1)(a) “the conduct alleged has to be something more than a mere disinclination to agree to an offer of reunion, it must be misconduct serious enough to justify denial of the relief to which the husband or the wife is otherwise entitled.”
The Court while dismissing the appeal and upholding the order of the High Court, held that it would be unreasonable to disentitle the Respondent to the relief she asked for, only on the ground that she did not respond to the Appellant’s invitation to live with him. The said allegation does not constitute misconduct or ‘wrong’ on the part of the Respondent, grave enough to disentitle her of relief of divorce.
