MANGAYARKARASI versus M. YUVARAJ

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 1036 · Decided: 03-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1036
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
MANGAYARKARASI
v.
M. YUVARAJ
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1912-1913 of 2020)
MARCH 03, 2020
[R. BANUMATHI, S. ABDUL NAZEER
AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – ss.9, 13 – Respondent-husband
filed petition being H.M.O.P  No.13/2010  (old  No.532/2007)
seeking  dissolution  of  marriage – Appellant-wife filed petition for
restitution of conjugal rights – Petitions clubbed – Vide judgment
dtd. 26.11.10, the petition filed by husband was dismissed while
that of the wife’s was allowed – Husband’s appeal dismissed – High
Court allowed the second appeal filed by husband and dissolved
the marriage between the parties – Held: Husband filed petition at
the first instance, seeking dissolution of marriage in H.M.O.P No.65/
2007 (petition not pressed) alleging that the behaviour of wife was
intemperate – Subsequent petition was filed on same set of allegations
– It was alleged that she had also gone over to husband’s place of
employment and demeaned him – Trial Court concluded that the
evidence was insufficient to prove the allegations made – In a
proceeding of the present nature where the Trial Court referred to
the evidence and First Appellate Court being the last Court for
reappreciation of evidence undertook the said exercise and arrived
at concurrent decision on the matter, neither the High Court in the
limited scope available to it in a second appeal u/s.100, CPC is
entitled to reappreciate the evidence nor Supreme Court in the instant
appeals is required to do so – Questions of law framed by High
Court disclose that they do not qualify as substantial questions of
law – Further,, though a criminal complaint was also lodged by the
wife wherein husband was acquitted, the basis on which the husband
approached the Trial Court is not of alleging mental cruelty in that
regard but w.r.t her intemperate behaviour regarding which both
the courts below concluded that the same was not proved – In that
background, High Court was not justified in its conclusion –
Impugned judgment set aside – Judgment dtd. 26.11.10 is restored
– Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100.
 [2020] 2 S.C.R. 1036
1036
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1037
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Trial Court having taken note of the
evidence tendered through PW1 to PW4 had arrived at the
conclusion that the said evidence was insufficient to prove the
allegations made in the petition. In such circumstance, in a
proceeding of the present nature where the Trial Court has
referred to the evidence and the First Appellate Court being the
last Court for reappreciation of the evidence has undertaken the
said exercise and had arrived at a concurrent decision on the
matter, the position of law is well settled that neither the High
Court in the limited scope available to it in a Second Appeal under
Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is entitled to
reappreciate the evidence nor this Court in the instant appeals
is required to do so. The very perusal of the questions framed
would disclose that the questions raised does not qualify as
substantial questions of law when the manner in which the parties
had proceeded before the Trial Court is noticed. The questions
framed in fact provides scope for re-appreciation of the evidence
and not as substantial questions of law. [Paras 12, 13][1043 A-C;
1043 E-F]
1.2 Though the subsequent petition was filed by the husband
in H.M.O.P No.13/2010 which was originally numbered as
H.M.O.P No.532/2007, the same was also filed on the same set
of allegations. Further at that point in time the wife had also filed
a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that
background, though subsequently in the proceedings before the
Trial Court a reference is made to the criminal proceedings, as
on the date when the cause of action had arisen for the husband
who initiated the proceedings seeking dissolution of the marriage,
the criminal case filed against him was not the basis whereby a
ground was raised of causing mental cruelty by filing such criminal
complaint. If that be the position, a situation which was not the
basis for initiating the petition for dissolution of marriage and
when that was also not an issue before the Trial Court so as to
tender evidence and a decision be taken, the High Court was not
justified in raising the same as a substantial question of law and
arriving at its conclusion in that regard. The tenor of the
substantial questions of law as framed in the instant case

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