JAGDISH SINGH versus MADHURI DEVI

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 1176 · Decided: 28-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 6 S.C.R. 1176 
.. 
A 
JAGDISH SINGH 
v. 
MADHURI DEVI 
(Civil Appeal No. 2997 of 2008) 
B 
APRIL 28, 2008 
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s.13 - Divorce - Husband 
filed divorce petition on grounds of desertion and cruelty -
c Family Court decided both issues in favour of husband and 
passed decree of divorce - High Court reversed the decree -
Challenge to - Held: High Court not right in setting aside 
findings of fact recorded by Family Court without recording 
reasons for such reversal - It did not keep in view the scope of 
D powers of first appellate Court - Order passed by High Court 
'cryptic' in nature and falling short of the grounds which would 
allow the first appellate court to reverse a finding of fact 
recorded by trial court - Hence, deserves to be quashed -
Disregarding plea of appellant-husband to come to a 
E 
conclusion one way or the other on basis of evidence led by 
the parties, Supreme Court remitted the matter to High Court, 
albeit with direction for expeditious disposal as parties 
(husband and wife) living separately since about a quarter 
century - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136. 
F 
Appeal - First Court of Appeal -' Power and duty of -
Discussed. 
., 
Appellant-husband filed divorce petition in the Family 
Court under s.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on two 
grounds, (i) desertion and (ii) cruelty. The Family Court 
G decided both the issues in favour of the Appellant and 
passed a decree of divorce granting dissolution of 
marriage. Respondent-wife preferred appeal in High Court 
which was allowed. The High Court reversed the decree 
of the Family Court and dismissed the divorce petition 
H 
1176 
JAGDISH SINGH v. MADHURI DEVI 
1177 
instituted by the Appellant-husband. 
A 
In appeal to this Court it was submitted that the High 
Court was wholly wrong in allowing the appeal and in 
reversing the well-considered judgment of the Family 
Court. It was submitted that the High Court without 
B 
considering the evidence properly and ignoring the 
:,. 
conclusions of the Family Court and reasons recorded 
for coming to such conclusions, interfered with findings 
of fact and hence the order passed by High Court 
deserved to be set aside. 
c 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
present appeal is whether the High Court did not keep in 
view the scope of powers of the first appellate Court and 
erroneously set aside the findings of fact recorded by the 
Family Court without recording reasons for such reversal. D 
Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to 
High Court for expeditious disposal in accordance with 
law, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court was not right in setting E 
aside finding of facts recorded by the Family Court without 
recording reasons for such reversal and without keeping 
in view the scope of powers of first appellate Court. The 
order passed by the High Court is 'cryptic' in nature. The 
Family Court considered the evidence in detail. The High 
F 
Court, on the other hand, did not consider the evidence 
at all. In fact, the High Court was wrong in observing that 
there were no specific instances of cruelty or desertion. 
The High Court al.so relied upon the defence evidence 
without considering the fact that the Family Court 
recorded reasons for not relying upon such evidence. G 
[Paras 22, 23, 39] (1194-H; 1195-A; 1187-D, H; 1188-A] 
2.1. No doubt the High Court was exercising power 
as first appellate court and hence it was open to the Court 
to enter into not only questions of law but questions of H 
1178 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 6 S.C.R. 
A fact as well. An appeal is a continuation of suit. It thus is a 
re-hearing of the main matter and the appellate court can 
re-appraise, re-appreciate and review the entire evidence 
-oral as well as documentary- and can come to its own 
conclusion. [Para 24] [1188-8-C] 
B 
2.2. At the same time, however, the appellate court is 
expected, nay bound, to bear in mind a finding recorded 
by the trial court on oral evidence. It should not forget 
that the trial court had an advantage and opportunity of 
seeing the demeanour of witnesses and, hence, the trial 
C court's conclusions should not normally be disturbed. No 
doubt, the appellate court possesses the same powers 
as that of the original court, but they have to be exercised 
with proper care, caution and circumspection. When a 
finding of fact has been recorded by the trial court 
D mainly on appreciation of

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