CHETANDASS versus KAMLA DEVI

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 17-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHETANDASS 
v. 
KAMLADEVI 
.... 
APRIL 17, 2001 
B 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Hindu Lmv: 
c 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Sections 9, 13 and 23. 
lvfarriage-Irretrievable breaking down of-Dissolution of-By grant 
of decree of divorce-Principles-Husband filed application for divorce after 
about 2 years of marriage but got the petition dismissed after rel~tions 
between him and his wife improved-Thereafter, wife filed complaint under 
D S.494 read with S.120-B IPC-SubsequentZv, husband filed petition for 
restitution of conjugal rights under S.9 and converted it to one of dissolution 
of marriage-Wife contested the petition alleging illegitimate relationship of 
the husband with a Nurse-Wife was willing to live with husband provided 
--¥" 
he discontinued the illegitimate relationship with the said Nurse-Trial 
t 
E 
court refused to grant decree of divorce-High Court upheld the findings of 
trial court--Validity of-Held: Matrimonial matters are matters of delicate 
human and emotional relationship-"Irretrievable breaking down" of 
man-iage is not an automatic ground for grant of relief of divorce-Allegation 
of adulterous conduct of husband has been found to be correct-Husband'.'> 
behaviour falls in the category of misconduct on his part-Therefore, husband 
F cannot be given the advantage of his own wrong-Hence, decree of divorce 
on the ground of marriage having been irretr~e_vably broken down cannot 
be granted. 
" 
The appellant-husband filed an a11plication under Section 13 of the Hindu 
Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce after about 2 years of marriage but got the 
G petition for divorce <Jismissed after relations between the appellant and the 
respondent-wife improved. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint against 
··-
the appellant under Section 494 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code, 
1860. The appellant, therefore, filed a petition for restitution of conjugal 
rights under Section 9 of the Act. Subsequently, the appellant converted the 
!I 
H petition to one of dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Act. 
20 
''f 
CHETAN DASS v. KAMLA DEVI 
21 
The respondent contested the petition alleging that the appellant had A 
been carrying on illegitimate relationship with a Nurse. However, the 
) 
respondent was still willing to live with the a11pellant 1>rovided the appellant 
discontinued his relationship with the said Nurse. The trial court refused to 
,,. 
grant a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage. The High Court upheld 
the findings of the trial court. Hence this appeal. 
B 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the marriage between 
the appellant and the res1mndent had irretrievably broken down and, therefore, 
a decree of divorce should be granted. 
~ 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD : 1. Matrimonial matters are matters of delicate human and 
emotional relationship. It demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love and 
affection with sufficient play for reasonable adjustments with the spouse. 
The 1·elationshi11 has to confirm to the social norms as well. The matrimonial 
conduct has now come to be governed by the Statute framed, kee11ing in view D 
of such norms and changed social order. It is sought to be controlled in the 
interest of the individuals as well as in broader perspective, for regulating 
matrimonial norms for making of a well knit, healthy and not a disturbed and 
y-
porous society. Institution of marriage occupies an important place and role 
to play in the society, in general. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to 
ap1J1y any submission of "irretrievably broken marriage" as a straight .iacket E 
formula relief of divorce. This aspect has to be considered in the background 
of the other facts and circumstances of the case. [28-E-F] 
Chanderka/a Trivedi (Smt.) v. Dr. S.P. Trivedi, [1993] 4 SCC 232; Ramesh 
Chander v. Savitri (Smt.), [1995] 2 SCC 7 and Smt. Saro} Rani v. Sudarshan F 
).. 
Kumar, [1984] 4 SCC 90, held inapplicable. 
2. In the present case, the allegations of adulterous conduct of the 
appellant have been found to be correct and the courts below have recorded a 
finding to the same effect. In such circumstances the provisions contained 
under Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 would be attracted and the G 
appellant would not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Let the 
... 
things be not misunden1ood nor any llermissiveness under the law be inferred, 
allowing an erring party who has been foun

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.