SANJEETA DAS versus TAPAN KUMAR MOHANTY

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 1033 · Decided: 22-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

{ 
> ... 
·~'°'.'I 
1' - . 
, (2010] 11 S.C.R. 1033 
SANJEETA DAS 
A 
v. 
'"~ 
TAPAN KUMARMOHANTY 
. · 
·-
'(Civil Appeal Nos.8196-8197of 2010) · 
(. 
; :·· ;· 
.• ·, .. - -
! ', .___. 
' 1 ' i 
'~-- ; . : 
:__ ' '. . 
• ' 
.. . 
.'\.· .·"•, ,SEP,TE.MBE~,22,,2010 
-:---...._~ · . , ·'''' B 
' '• · [AFTAB ALAM.AND R.M: LODHA, JJ.] ' 
•_·• 
*.:~:-_,;·--·:····-
,;,:~~ ... -~·: ;• 
:--•;-
<• .. 
c 
·.~"\·~-; 
Hi~du Marriage ;.:ct. 19S5 .:... ss, 13 ahd 1 JB ~ Df~~~lution 
of marriage - Consent of parties -·Relevance of - Husband 
seeking divorce .. -; Family Court directed wife to resume co-
C 
habitation. with the husband - Husband filed appeal; and in 
the .appeal (iied affida_vit .declaring his willingness to pay 
specified sum in consideration for grarit of divorce."'." High 
Court paraphrased· the statement made in the affidavit and 
made it the order of the court while decreeing divorce -
D 
Decree challenged by wife - Husband contended that the 
divorce decree could not be set aside since it was' passed with 
the consent of the parties - Held: A Hindu marriage can be 
dissolved only on any of the grounds plainly and clearly· 
enumerated uls: 13 - The law does not permit the purchase 
E 
of a decree of divorce ·for consideration,> with or without the 
consent of the other side.- No court can assume jurisdiction 
to dissolve a Hindu m(!rriage simply on the basis. of. the 
consent of the parties", de hors the grounds enumerated ul 
s. 13, 'unless the consenting parties proceed ·!1/~."138 - 9n 
F, 
facts, in "any event, there is nothing to indicate. that the divorc~ 
decree was passed with the consent of the parties -, Order of 
High Court accordingly set a'side .:.·High Court directed to 
hear and dispose of. the matter afresh. , 
' · · · 
· 
• ';, 
,:.·, 
~::-~·.• '-.:._'. ;.-
:. 
_- .• ~ 
. -,· .--·.-
:'-~:. 
• 
.• 
:., 
·; 
•. c 
G 
· ·_ . .The respondent-husband filed a petition before the 
Fa~ily· court· 'under ,sectiol)s 13(1 )(ia) and (ib) of the 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of his marriage 
on 'uie g'rounds of cruelty and, desertion. The Family 
Court directedthe appellant-wife to resume cohabitation 
. . 
. 
. 
' 
. 
. 1033 
. 
H 
1034 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 
A with the respondent. 
Aggrieved, the respondent filed appeal before the 
High Court. In the appeal, he filed an affidavit declaring 
his willingness to pay a sum of Rupees Ten lakhs as life 
8 term maintenance of the appellant and for the expenses 
of marriage of their daughter, in consideration of the 
dissolution of his marriage with the appellant by a decree 
of divorce and compounding of a criminal case instituted 
against him by the appellant. 
c 
D 
E 
The High Court paraphrased the statements made in 
the affidavit filed by the respondent and made it the order 
of the court, and granted a decree of divorce for 
dissolution of the respondent's marriage. 
The question arising for consideration in the instant 
appeal was: whether the impugned order of the High 
Court was passed with the consent of the parties and for 
that reason it does not warrant any interference by the 
Supreme Court. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1. A Hindu marriage can be dissolved only on 
any of the grounds plainly and clearly enumerated under 
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The law does 
F not permit purchase of a decree of divorce for 
consideration, with or without the consent of the other 
side. [Para 5] [1037-1038-G-H] 
2. No court can assume jurisdiction to dissolve a 
Hindu marriage simply on the basis of the consent of the 
G parties de hors the grounds enumerated under Section 
13 of the Act, unless the consenting parties proceed 
under Section 138 of the Act. In any event, on facts, there 
is nothing to indicate that the impugned order was 
passed by the High Court with the consent of the 
H 
SANJEETA DAS v. TAPAN KUMAR MOHANTY 
1035 
appellant. The affidavit referred to in the order of the High 
A 
Court does not indicate that the appellant had given her 
consent for dissolution of her marriage with the 
respondent on payment of Rs. 10,00,000.00 (rupees ten 
lakhs only). The consent of the parties, therefore, is of no 
relevance in the matter, [Paras 6, 7] [1038-8-C; E-F] 
---.. 
B 
3. The order of the High Court is completely 
unsustainable. It is set aside and the appeal against the 
judgment and order passed by the Family Court is 
restored to its file. The High Court is directed to hear and 
C 
dispose of

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