LexDR. NIRMAL SINGH PANESAR versus MRS. PARAMJIT KAUR PANESAR @ AJINDER KAUR PANESAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 832 : 2023 INSC 896 832 CASE DETAILS DR. NIRMAL SINGH PANESAR v. MRS. PARAMJIT KAUR PANESAR @ AJINDER KAUR PANESAR (Civil Appeal No.2045 of 2011) OCTOBER 10, 2023 [ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Should the irretrievable breakdown of marriage necessarily result in the dissolution of marriage in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, when such is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13(1)(ia) and s.13(1)(ib) – District Court granted the decree of divorce, as prayed for by the appellant- husband, however, the Single Bench of the High Court reversed the same and the Division Bench of the High Court confi rmed the judgment – Propriety: Held: Appellant-husband had failed to prove that the respondent- wife had treated the appellant with “Cruelty” or that the respondent had “Deserted” the petitioner as contemplated in s.13(1)(ia) and s.13(1)(ib) respectively of the said Act – There is no dispute that the parties are staying separate since last many years and all the eff orts to bring them together have failed – The Court can depart from the procedure as well as the substantive laws, and exercise its discretion u/Art. 142 for dissolving the marriage between the parties by balancing out the equities between the confl icting claims of the parties, however, such discretion should be exercised with great care and caution – The institution of marriage occupies an important place and plays an important role in the society – Therefore, it would not be desirable to accept the formula of “irretrievable break down of marriage” as a strait-jacket formula for the grant of relief of divorce u/Art. 142 of the Constitution of India – In the instant case, 833 the appellant-husband is aged about 89 years and respondent-wife is aged about 82 years – The respondent all throughout her life has maintained the sacred relationship since 1963 and has taken care of her three children all these years, despite the fact that the appellant-husband had exhibited total hostility towards them – The respondent is still ready and willing to take care of her husband and does not wish to leave him alone at this stage of life – She has also expressed her sentiments that she does not want to die with the stigma of being a “divorcee” woman – The Court is of the opinion that exercising the discretion in favour of the appellant u/ Art. 142 by dissolving the marriage between parties on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, would not be doing “complete justice” to the parties, would rather be doing injustice to the respondent – Submission of the appellant to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage, rejected. [Paras 14, 15, 17, 18, 19] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Cruelty – Interpretation of: Held: The interpretation of the word “cruelty” is that it has to be construed and interpreted considering the type of life the parties are accustomed to; or their economic and social conditions and their culture and human values to which they attach importance – Each case has to be decided on its own merits. [Para 10] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan 2023 SCC Online SC 544 – followed. Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558 : [2006] 3 SCR 53; Bipin Chandra JaiSinghBai Shah v. Prabhavati AIR 1957 SC 176 : [1956] SCR 838; Lachman UtamChand Kirpalani v. Meena alias Mota AIR 1964 SC 40 : [1964] SCR 331; Debananda Tamuli v. Kakumoni Kataky (2022) 5 SCC 459 – relied on. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CIVIL APPEAL NO.2045 OF 2011. DR. NIRMAL SINGH PANESAR v. MRS. PARAMJIT KAUR PANESAR @ AJINDER KAUR PANESAR SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S.C.R. 834 From the Judgment and Order dated 18.02.2009 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No.195 of 2001 in FAO No. 44 of 2000. Appearances: Vipin Gogia, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Karanvir Gogia, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Rajendra Mal Tatia, Advs. for the Respondent. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. “Should the irretrievable breakdown of marriage necessarily result in the dissolution of marriage in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, when such is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.