LexGURBUX SINGH versus HARMINDER KAUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 275 GURBUX SINGH v. HARMINDER KAUR (Civil Appeal No. 501 o of 2007) OCTOBER 8, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: s. 13 - Divorce on the grC!und of cruelty - Held: It is essential for the spouse, claiming relief, , A B to prove that a particular/part of conduct or behaviour resulted C in cruelty to him/her - The married life should be assessed as a whole and a few isolated iostances over certain period would not amount to cruelty - Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life which happens in day to day life in all families would not be adequate .for grant of o · divorce on the ground of cruelty - An isolated friction on some occasion like festival of Lohri even in the presence of others cannot be a valid ground for dissolving the marriage. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 142 - Request made1 before Supreme Court to exercise jurisdiction u!Art.142 in E order to grant dissolution of marriage on the ground that (he parties were living separately for long and it was impossible for their re-union - Held: Request not allowed in the absence of permissibility of such course in law, although, on a rare occasion, Supreme Court granted the extraordinary relief de F hors the grounds mentioned in s. 13, in view of the fact that the issue was under reference to larger Bench - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s. 13. The appellant-husband was a Principal in ITI College. G He filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the l;iindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent~wife who was working as a Librarian in Government Institute on the ground of cruelty. The trial court as also the High Court 275 H 276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 12 S.C.R. A dismissed the petition. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 B specifies the grounds on which a decree for divorce may be obtained by either party to the marriage. In the instant case, in the divorce petition, the appellant had sought divorce merely mentioning Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce, and he did C not specify the grounds on which he is entitled to decree of divorce. In the petition, the appellant highlighted only one aspect, namely, that after the marriage, on the first festival of Lohri, when they were enjoying the festival, the respondent-wife abused his mother and the father in the [) presence of relatives and neighbours. Except the said allegation, the appellant did not highlight any other instance about cruelty by the respondent. An isolated friction on some occasion like festival of Lohri even in the presence of others cannot be a valid ground for E dissolving the marriage. [Paras 7, 12] [280-H; 281-A-B; 286-H; 287-A] 1.2. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act. It is quite possible that a particular conduct may amount to cruelty in one case but the same conduct necessarily F may not amount to cruelty due to change of various factors, in different set of circumstances. Therefore, it is essential for the appellant, claiming relief, to prove that a particular/part of conduct or behaviour resulted in cruelty to him. No prior assumptions can be made in such G matters. Meaning thereby that it cannot be assumed that a particular conduct will, under all circumstances, amount to cruelty vis-a-vis the other party. It is true that even a single act of violence which is of grievous and inexcusable nature satisfies the test of cruelty. The H GURBUX SINGH v. HARMINDER KAUR 277 married life should be assessed as a whole and a few A isolated instances over certain period will not amount to cruelty. Making certain statements on the spur of the moment and expressing certain displeasure about the behaviour of elders may not be characterized as cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of B married life which happens in day to day life in all families would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Sustained unjustifiable and reprehensible conduct affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse may lead to mental cruelty.--Persistence in c inordinate sexual demands or malpractices by either spouse can be cruelty if it injures the other spouse. [Paras 11, 12] [285-G-H; 286-A-G] Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.