LexDARSHAN GUPTA versus RADHIKA GUPTA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 937 DARSHAN GUPTA v. RADHIKA GUPTA (Civil Appeal Nos. 6332-6333 of 2009) JULY 1, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - ss.13(1)(ia) and (iii) - Plea under, of appellant-husband for dissolution of marriage - Held: A B Not tenable, since appellant-husband failed to prove the C ingredients of either clause (ia) or clause (iii) of s.13(1) - The husband failed to establish, that he was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the wife - On the issue of alleged aggressive and abnormal behavior of the wife, no material evidence before the Court - Such alleged behavior could have easily D been established through attendants of respondent-wife, but such witnesses were withheld, despite being easily available to appellant-husband - PW4, the expert witness produced by appel/ant-husband admitted that while examining respondent-wife, he did not observe any signs of E aggressiveness in her - Interaction of PW4 with respondent- wife in the court-ha/I when PW4 appeared to depose in the matter demonstrated that the behavior of respondent-wife was far from erratic - A/so, the appellant was not able to prove, that his wife was suffering from any incurable unsoundness of F mind and/or mental disorder - Respondent-wife merely suffered from cognitive deficiency which was acquired by her during her second pregnancy - Besides, she was found to have substantially improved from her cognitive deficiency, during the course of her treatment - Appellant-husband failed G to establish, that the mental unsoundness of mind or mental disorder of respondent-wife was of such degree, that he could not be expected to live with her - Further, appellant husband - cannot be permitted to use his own fault to his advantage - 937 H 938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A He did not heed the advise of the gynecologist, after abortion of the respondent's first pregnancy - The Gynecologist had advised the couple against planning any further conception, for a period of at least two years - Despite the advice, the appellant impregnated his wife, just after eight months of the B said abortion - In regard to plea of appellant for dissolution of marriage on the ground, that matrimonial fies between the parties had irretrievably broken down, it is questionable as to whether such relief is available - Even otherwise, on facts, decree of divorce cannot be granted on such ground since c the breakdown was only from the side of the husband and the respondent did not consent to the severance of matrimonial ties right from the beginning - Further plea of appellant for dissolution of marriage by invoking jurisdiction u!Art.142 of the Constitution also not tenable as, on facts, the same cannot 0 be viewed as doing justice to respondent-wife - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 142. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s.13(1) - Divorce und.er - Grounds - Nature of - Held: The grounds are based on the 'fault' of the party against whom dissolution of marriage is E sought - It is only on the ground of an opponent's fault, that a party may approach a Court for seeking annulment of his/her matrimonial alliance - The party seeking divorce under the "matrimonial offence theory" I the "fault theory" must be innocent - A party suffering ''guilt" or "fault" disentitles himself/ F herself from consideration - Matrimonial jurisprudence - 'Matrimonial offence theory' - 'Fault theory'. The appellant-husband filed petition before the Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage on two G grounds. First and foremost, he claimed to have been subjected to cruelty on account of the intemperate behaviour of respondent-wife, and in this regard, relied on clause (ia) of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The second ground. on which the appellant- husband sought dissolution of marriage was, that the H DARSHAN GUPTA v. RADHIKA GUPTA 939 respondent-wife was of incurable unsound mind, and A suffered from such a mental disorder, that the appellant could not be reasonably expected to live with her. In regard to the second ground, the appellant-husband relied on clause (iii) of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As against the aforesaid, the respondent-wife B filed petition, before the same Court, seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,' 1955. Both the cases were clubbed together. The Family Court dismissed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.