SAMARGHOSH versus JAYA GHOSH

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 428 · Decided: 26-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

+-
-
A 
SAMARGHOSH 
'( 
v. 
JAYAGHOSH 
MARCH 26, 2007 
B 
[B.N. AGRAWAL, P.P. NAOLEKAR AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Matrimonial Disputes: 
4-
-... 
c 
Divorce-On ground of mental cruelty-'Mental cruelty '-Instances 
illustrated-On facts, Held: wife's unilateral decision immediately after 
marriage, not to have any child from the marriage, her refusal to respect 
marital bond and discharge obligations of marital life, her total indifference 
--
and neglect during husband's illness, coupled with other instances would 
certainly cause great annoyance to him leading to mental cruelty-Parties 
D living separately for more than 16 years, irresistible conclusion would be 
that matrimonial bond has been ruptured beyond repair because of mental 
cruelty caused by the wife. 
Respondent, mother of a girl child, sought for and was granted a decree 
of divorce with custody of the child. While the matter was pending before the 
E appellate court, she re-married another man, the appellant, on 13.12.1984. 
Later, the appellant also filed a suit for a decree of divorce against the 
respondent on the ground of mental cruelty. Both the parties were IAS 
Officers. The case of the appellant, inter alia, was that soon after the marriage 
he came to know that respondent's marrying him was merely an eye-wash as 
F 
she unilaterally declared her decision not to give birth to any child and asked 
J. 
him to keep himself away from her; that the respondent refused to cohabit 
with the appellant; that the respondent neglected him to the extent that when 
he fell ill she went to her brother and parents at a far off place without caring 
that there was no one to look after him during his illness; that at times she 
used to cook only for herself and not for him and he had either to take his 
G meals outside or have to cook again for himself; that she started insulting 
and humiliating him in the presence of her father and his servant and one 
day virtually turned him out from the house and he had to stay with his friend 
until he was allotted an accommodation; that from April 1989, the respondent 
;-
~-
started living with her parents, and since August, 1990, the parties were living 
H 
428 
+ 
SAMARGHOSHv. JAYAGHOSH 
-
42S 
) 
separately. In the circumstances the appellant pleaded that it would not be A 
possible to continue the marriage and prayed for a decree of divorce. The 
trial court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties decreed the 
'-
suit, but on appeal by the respondent, the High Court reversed the judgment 
' 
of the trial court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the husband filed the 
appeal 
B 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
_J 
HELD: 1.1. In the backdrop of the ratio and spirit of a number of decided 
cases, the trial court was fully justified in decreeing the appellant's suit for 
divorce. In a case of this nature, no other logical view is possible. The High c 
Court was not justified in reversing the judgment of the trial court, which is 
based on carefully watching the demeanour of the parties and their respective 
.. 
witnesses. [Paras 104 and 105] [466-F-G; G-H] 
1.2. Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued 
for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for D 
divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage bas broken down. The court, 
.,J 
no doubt, should seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if 
it is found that th·e breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be 
withheld. The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage 
which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery 
for the parties. In the instant case, the respondent appeared in person. Even E 
at this stage the Court made an effort that the parties should talk to each 
other so that if the parties could reconcile their differences then the case be 
deferred, but, despite the request from the Court there was no conversation 
between the parties. In this view of the matter, the parties cannot be compelled 
) 
to live together. [Paras 95 and 36] (462-D-F; 444-B-C] 
F 
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006] 4 SCC 558; N.G. Dastane v. S. 
Dastane, (1975] 2 SCC 326; Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. 
Haizunnisa Yasinkhan & Anr., (1981] 4 SCC 2501; Shobha Rani v. Madhukar 
Reddi, [1988] 1 sec 1052; 
Rajani v. Subramanian, AIR (1990) Ker. I; V. 
Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), [1994] 1 SCC 337; Chetan Dass v. Kam/a Devi, G 
(2001] 

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