LexROHINI KUMARI versus NARENDRA SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H ROHINI KUMAR! v. NARENDRA SINGH December 2, 1971 [K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J 657 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955--Section 10(1) (a) and. Exp/a11ation- Desertion, elements necessary to · constitute-TVife leaving. 111atrinionial honie without reasonable cause and lVithout consent and lllith intention of bringing cohabitation to an end-Husband contracting second 1narriage- Second marriage did not have any inzpact on the 1ni11d of the lt>ife as to cause her to continue to live apart and to continue the desertion-Desertion cannot be said_ to be 1rit/z reasonable cause. The appellapt and the respondenl were married in 1945. In 1947 the appellant went to her parental home. She never returned thereafter. In 1955, prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the respondent cont:r:acted a second 111arriage. AJter the Act can1e into iorce he filed a petition for judicial separati0n from the appellant, under s. 10 of the Act, on the ground of desertion. The trial court allowed the peti- tion. This decision was affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court. The concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appc!:ate court which were not questioned before the High Court "·ere : ( i) that the wife had left for her parental ho111e \\ith the intention oi permanently giving up her n1arital relation with the husband and not to return to the husband; (ii) that the wife left her matrimonial home without any reason- able cause -and without the consent of the husband and with the intl.'.'ntfon of bringing cohabitation to an end; (iH) that thr second n1arriage con- tracted by the husband did not have anv such in1pact on the n1ind of the wife as to cause her to conti-nue to live apart and to continue the de5ertion: and (iv) that during her stav at the 1natrii110nial hon1e she \vas !_coked after well and was not ill-treated. Jn the appeal to this Court it ,,·a~ con- tended on behalf of the appellant that (i) in view of the Explanation to 0 ection JO(! )(3) it could not 1'c Sl.id On th•o date On which the petition was filec\ that tbe wife had deserted the husband \\'ithout reasonahie couse. because. the latter had contracted a second marriage and as sud1 that had to be regarded 38 a "reasonable cause" for staying 'a\VUV frOOl hin1; and (ii) because of the r~ovisions contained in the Hindu Women's Righ.t to Separate Residence and 1\faintenance, Act, 1~56. as well as the . Hmdu Adoption anti t.:!aintenance Act. 1956. desertion could ,no~ be .des~nbed as one without reQsonable cause if the h•1:;band had 1narned again since that n1arriage afforded justifiable cause· to the \Yife to live aoart fron1 the hus· hand. Disn1issing the appeal. HELD : ( t) To constitute desertion there n1ust be f\YO elements pre- sent on the side of the deserting spouse. rnn1clv. 1he factnn1 of phvsic&.1 separation and the anilnus deserendi, i.e .. the .intention to bring cohabifation permanently to ~n end. and. so far as the deserted spouse is con~erncd. the absence of consent :ind :.1hscncc of conduct ghing rcasonabte ctJ.use to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the intention. [661 A-Cl Jn order that desertion might come to an end t'1ere 111ust be conduct on the part of the deserted spouse which afford just and reasonable cause for the deserting spouse not to seek reconciliation, and, it is also of equal importance that the conduct of the d-,scrtcd spouse should have had such an in1pact on the n1ind of the deserting spouse that in fact it c:i.uses the dc<crting spouse to live apart. [661 G] 658 SUPREME COU&T REPORTS [1972] 2 S.C.R. In th~ present case, ordinarily, the fact that the respondent had con- tracted a second marriage would have furnished a just cause to the wife to desist trom making any attempt at reconciliation or resuming cohabita- tion. But the finding of the courts, including the High Court, was that the second marriage of the husband did not have any such impact on tbe mind of the wife as to cause her to continue to live apart and continue the desertion. This together with the other findings would conclude the matter, bec~use, it is quite clear that within the meaning of the Explanation to s. IO(l)(a) the desertion by the wife had been proved without reason- able caUSl! and without the consent of the husband. (661 F] Lac/unan Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena alia; Mota, (1964] 4 S .C.R. 331 and Bipin Chander Jaisinghbh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.