HIRACHAND SR!NIVAS MANAGAONKAR versus SUNANDA

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 491 · Decided: 20-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

HIRACHAND SR!NIVAS MANAGAONKAR 
A 
v. 
SUN ANDA 
MARCH 20, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Law: 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Sections 10(2), 13(1-A)(i) and 23(l)(a). 
Judicial Separation-Maintenance not paid-Divorce petition-
C 
Maintainability of-Decree for judicial separation passed on wife's application 
on ground of husband's adultery-Husband did not pay maintenance to wife 
and daughter-Husband continued to live in adultery-Husband filed petition 
for divorce as cohabitation not resumed for a period of more than one year-
Held : It is nor mandatory to grant decree of divorce merely because there is 
D 
no cohabitation for the requisite period-After judicial separation it is the duty 
of both spouses to do their parts for cohabitation-Husband in refusing to pay 
maintenance to his wife and daughter and also living in adultery committed a 
'wrong' within the meaning of S. 23( 1 )( a)-Hence, High Court rightly refused 
to grant a decl"ee of divorce. 
Wonts and Phrases : 
"Wrong"-Meaning of-In the con/ext of S. 23(1)( a) of the Hindu Mar-
riage Act, 1955. 
E 
The respondent-wife had filed a petition seeking judicial separation 
F 
on the ground of adultery on the part of the appellant-husband. The High 
Court passed a decree for judicial separation and directed the appellant to 
pay maintenance to the respondent and his daughter. 
Thereafter, the appellant presented a petition for dissolution 
of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground that there had been no 
resumption of cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage for a 
period of more than one year after passing of the decree for judicial 
separation. The High Court rejected the petition on the ground that the 
appellant was trying to take advantage of his own wrong by not paying any 
amount towards maintenance. Hence this appeal. 
491 
G 
H 
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] 2 S.C.R 
A 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that even after the 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
decree of judicial separation the appellant was living in adultery and, 
therefore, the appellant's petition for divorce should be rejected. 
The following questions arose before this Court : 
1. Whether the husband who had filed a petition seeking dissolution 
of the marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1-A) of the Hindu 
Marriage Act, 1955 could be declined relief on the ground that he had 
failed to pay maintenance to his wife and daughter despite order of Court? 
2. Whether in a petition for divorce filed under Section 13(1 ·A), it 
was open to the Court to refuse to pass a decree on any of the grounds 
specified in Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in so far ·as any 
one or more of them may be applicable? 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Section 13(1-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 confers 
a right on either party to the marriage so that a petition for divorce can be 
filed not only by the party which had obtained a decree for judicial separa-
tion or for restitution of conjugal rights but also for the party against 
whom such a decree was passed. The object of sub-section (1-A) is merely 
to enlarge the right to apply for divorce and not to make it compulsive that 
a petition for divorce presented under sub-secticn (1-A) must be allowed 
on a mere proof that there was no cohabitation or restitution for the 
requisite period. The very language of Section 23 shows that it governs 
every proceeding under the Act and a duty is cast on the Court to decree 
the relief sought only if the conditions mentioned in the sub-section are 
satisfied, and not otherwise. [ 499-B-E] 
2. After the decree for jucticial separation was pas.<ed, on the petition 
filed by the wife, it was the duty of both the spouses to do their part for 
cohabitation. The husband was expected to act as dutiful husband towards 
the wife and the wife was to act as a devoted wife towards the husband. 
The husband in refusing to pay maintenance to the "ife failed to act as a 
husband. Thereby he committed a 'wrong' within the meaning of Section 
23 of the Act. Therefore, the High Court was justified in declining to allow 
the p<ayer of the husband for dissolution of the marriage by divorce under 
H 
Section 13(1-A) of the Act. (500-B-D] 
J - . 
..... 
H.S. MANAGAONKAR v. SUNANDA 
493 
3.1. Section 13(1·A) of the Act only enables either party to a mar-
riage to file an application for dissolntion of the marriage by a decree of 
divorce on any of the grounds sta

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