LexASHOK KUMAR JAIN versus SUMATI JAIN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 841 ASHOK KUMAR JAIN v. SUMATI JAIN (Civil Appeal No. 3861 of 2013) APRIL 15, 2013 [G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955: ss.13 and 23- Petition for divorce by husband on the grounds of cruelty and desertion - Dismissed by courts below ·A B c - Held: Both the courts below have noticed the relevant facts and have come to a definite conclusion that appellant has not only been cruel ..to respondent, but has also brought the 0 situation to the point where respondent had no option but to leave the matrimonial home - In this situation, as appellant was trying to take advantage of his own wrong, courts below rightly disallowed the relief sought for - Order of High Court does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity- Non E interference is called for. The appellant-husband filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage uls 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty and desertion alleged to have been caused to him by the respondent-wife. The petition was F dismissed. The High Court also dismissed husband's appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is not in dispute that even prior to the G present marriage the appellant had married and from that marriage he has a son. This fact was never revealed by the appellant to the respondent or to her parents prior to 841 H 842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R. A · the solemnisation of the present marriage or thereafter. [para 10] [846-H; 847-A] 1.2. Th 0e High Court perused the divorce petition as was filed by the appellant against his first wife as well as 8 the divorce petition filed by the appellant against the present respondent and noticed that they are almost identical in their content. This clearly shows the modus operandi of the appellant. Taking into consideration this fact and the fact that even during the pendency of the C appeal the appellant came out with a fresh matrimonial advertisement to re-marry for the third time even before getting divorce from his second wife, the High Court rightly held that the appellant played fraud upon the respondent. [para 11] [847-D-F] D 1.3. In view of s.23(1 )(a) of the Act, if it is found that the person is taking advantage of his or her wrong or disability it is open to the court to refuse to grant relief. In the instant case, both the courts below noticed the relevant facts and came to a definite conclusion that the E appellant has not only been cruel to the respondent, but has also brought the situation to the point where the respondent had no option but to leave the matrimonial home. In this situation as the appellant wc.s trying to take advantage of his own wrong, the courts rightly F disallowed the relief as was sought for. The order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity and no interference is called for. [para 13-14] [848-C-F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. G 3861 of 2013. H From the Judgment & Order dated 09.03.2007 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 332 of 1998. ASHOK KUMAR JAIN v. SUMATI JAIN 843 S.K. Keshote, Shashank P., for the Appellant. Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Anurag Gohil for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Co14rt was delivered by A B SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 9th March, 2007 passed by the Rajasthan High , Court at Jaipur in DB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 332 of C 1998 whereby the Division Bench upheld the judgment dated 13th February, 1998 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jaipur dismissing the appellant's petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). D 3. The facts of the case are as follows: The ,appellant and respondent are married to each other. The appellant preferred a petition for dissolution of marriage E under Section 13 of the Act before the Judge, Family Court, Jaipur and brought on record the following facts: The appellant and the respondent were married according to Hindu rites on 30th October, 1990 at Jaipur. For the first few days the respondent stayed at her matrimonial home and F behaved well with family members of the appellant. However, upon her return from her parental house, after a few days of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.