LexMANISHA TYAGI versus DEEPAK KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2010] 2 S.C.R. 554 MANISHA TYAGI v. DEEPAK KUMAR (Civil Appeal No. 5387 of 2007) B FEBRUARY 10, 2010 c [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: s.13(1)(i-a) - Divorce - On ground of cruelty- Standard required to establish cruelty - Held: It would be sufficient to show that the conduct of one of the spouses is so abnormal and below the accepted norm that the other spouse could not 0 reasonably be expected to put up with it- To establish cruelty it is not necessary that physical violence should be used - Continued ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference of one spouse to the other may lead to an inference of cruelty. E ss. 10 and 13 - Petition of husband for divorce on ground of cruelty - Dismissed by trial court - Single Judge of High Court found both the parties to be at fault and granted decree of judicial separation instead of divorce - Wife challenged the decree of judicial separation - Division Bench re-appreciated F the entire evidence and decreed divorce - On appeal, held: The husband had not challenged the decree passed by the Single Judge, yet the effect of the order passed by the Division Bench was as if an appeal ofthe husband against the decree of judicial separation was allowed - Also, it was not a Cpse G where it was necessary for the Division Bench to correct any glaring and serious effors committed by the court below which had resulted in miscarriage of justice - There was no . compelling necessity, independently placed before the 554 H MANISHA TYAGI v. DEEPAK KUMAR 555 Division Bench to justify reversal, of the decree of judicial A separation - Order passed by the Single Judge restored. The husband-respondent filed petition under Section . 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The petition was dismissed by the trial 8 court. Respondent challenged the order. A Single Judge of the High Court found both the parties to be at fault and granted decree of judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 instead of divorce. Aggrieved, the wife filed LPA before the Division Bench. The Division Bench re-appreciated the entire evidence C and held that the cruelty alleged by the husband stood proved and granted decree of divorce. The said judgment is challenged by the wife in the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. As regards the standard required to establish cruelty in matrimonial cases, now it would be sufficient to show that the conduct of one of the spouses D is so abnormal and below the accepted norm that the other spouse could not reasonably be expected to put E up with it. The conduct is no longer required to be so atrociously abominable which would cause a reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to continue the cohabitation with the other spouse. Therefore to establish cruelty it is not necessary that F physical violence should be used. However continued ill- treatm~nt, cessation .of marital intercourse, studied · neglect, indifference of one spouse to the other may lead to an inference of cruelty. However in the present case even with aforesaid standard both the Trial Court and the G Appellate Court (the Single Judge of High Court) had accepted that the conduct of the wife did not amount to cruelty of such a nature to enable the husband to obtain a decree of divorce. [Para 24] [569-G-H; 570-A-B] H 556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. A 1.2. In the present case, taking into consideration the conduct of the parties over a period of time, the Trial · Court as well as the Appellate Court concluded that the husband had failed to establish cruelty on the part of the wife which will be sufficient to grant a decree of divorce. 8 The Appellate Court further came to the conclusion that since both the parties made extremely serious allegations, it would be appropriate as the parties were not compelled to live together. The Appellate Court came to the conclusion that it would be more appropriate to C give the couple some time to ponder over the issue especially keeping in view the welfare of their daughter. If in due course they manage to reconcile their differences the decree of judicial separation would be of no consequence. On the other hand, if the parties continued with their adamant attitudes it would be D possible for either party to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.