J.L. NANDA versus SMT. VEENA NANDA

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 11-12-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

J.L. NANDA 
A 
v. 
SMT. VEENA NANDA 
DECEMBER 11, 1987 
' .
8 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
Plea for divorce by husband on grounds of cruelty and desertion 
r-
by wife. 
The appellant and the respondent, husband and wife, were mar-
~
ried under the Hindu Customs in February, 1961. Disagreement and 
c disharmony between the two ensued from the very beginning after the 
marriage. The parties by and large lived together till February, 1971, J
and separately ever since thereafter except for a short period in 1975. 
The respondent-wife, as alleged by the appellant, did not like to live in 
the joint family and always created ugly. scenes by quarrels, etc. The 
> 
; 
D 
appellant was forced to live separately from the joint family, but even 
then, according to him, the conduct of the wife continued to be the same 
bad. The appellant alleged that he suffered a nervous breakdown be-
cause of her behaviour and had to be hospitalised. He, therefore, filed a 
petition for a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 
The trial Court granted the divorce. On appeal by the respondent, the 
E 
High Court reversed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the 
petition for divorce. A Letters Patent Appeal by the appellant was 
dismissed by the High Court. The appellant appealed to this Court for 
relief by special leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
F 
HELD: It could not be held that the respondent was behaving 
with the appellant in a manner which could be termed as cruelty, which 
entitled the appellant to get a decree of divorce. Sometimes, the tern-
perament of the parties may not be conducive to each other, resulting in 
petty quarrels, but it could not be held on the basis of any material that 
G 
the ailment of the appellant was the direct result of the respondent's 
conduct. The High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that 
' • 
there was no material to prove that the respondent treated the appellant 
with such a cruelty as would entitle the appellant to a decree of divorce. 
~ 
The judgment of the High Court maintained. [350G-H; 351A-B] 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3946 
of 1987. 
348 
J.L. NANDA v. SMT. VEENA {OZA, J.] 
349 
~ 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.7.1983 of the High 
A 
Court of Delhi in L.P.A. No. 141 of 1982 (M) . 
, • 
P.N. Misra for the Appellant. 
Krishan Kumar and Vimal Dave for the Respondent. 
B 
1 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
--) 
OZA, J. Leave granted. 
This appeal arises out of SLP(Civil) No. 14149/83 filed by the 
petitioner husband against the judgment of High Court of Delhi in c 
-t-
Letters Patent Appeal No. 141/82 decided on 22.7.83: The present 
appellant husband filed a petition in the trial court for decree of 
divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The trial court granted 
... • 
the decree of divorce but on appeal by the respondent wife learned 
Single Judge of High Court of Delhi reversed the decision and dismis-
sed the petition filed by the appeliant husband. It is against this that a 
D 
Letters Patent Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent was filed 
before the High Court wherein it was heard by a Division Bench of the 
High Court and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. It is 
' 
against this that the present special leave petition was filed. 
~ 
Considering the circumstances of the case and the age of the 
E 
parties we issued notice and also directed the parties to appear before 
us in chambers and in spite of our best efforts it is unfortunate that no 
reconciliation was possible. 
It is _one of those unfortunate cases where the husband and wife 
are of mature age not only that but they hav.e a grown-up son who is 
F 
maturing into a lawyer as he is studying in law and unfortunately even 
these circumstances were not able to bring about an amicable settle-
men! in the matter. 
The parties to these proceedings were married at Delhi in 
~ > 
accordance with the Hindu customs on February 7, 1961. It seems that 
G 
' 
~ 
there was disagreement and disharmony from the very beginning. A 
male child, however, was born out of this wedlock on August 30, 1964. 
The parties by and large lived together till February 1971. They have 
lived separately ever since except for a short duration in the middle of 
1975 when they were together. The main allegation of the appellant 
was that from the very beginning the respondent wife did not like to 
H 
A 
B 
c 
350 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[

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