SMT. ROOPA SONI versus KAMALNARAYAN SONI

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 871 · Decided: 06-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 871 : 2023 INSC 814
871
CASE DETAILS
SMT. ROOPA SONI
v.
KAMALNARAYAN SONI
(Civil Appeal No. 5700 of 2023)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2023
[SANJIV KHANNA AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the trial Court and High Court were 
justifi ed in adopting a hyper-technical and pedantic approach in declining 
the decree of divorce, when both the parties had made serious allegations 
against each other and were living separately for decade and half.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – The appellant-wife registered a 
complaint u/s. 498A of IPC and ss.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 
1961 – The respondent-Husband had questioned the character of the 
appellant-wife – Petition for divorce – Trial Court and the High Court 
declined decree of divorce – Propriety:
Held: For a decade and half, the parties have been living separately 
– The marriage does not survive any longer, and the relationship was 
terminated otherwise except by a formal decree of divorce – The Trial 
Court and the High Court adopted a hyper-technical and pedantic approach 
in declining the decree of divorce – It is not as if the respondent-husband 
is willing to live with the appellant-wife – The allegations made by him 
against her are as serious as the allegations made by her against him – Both 
the parties have moved away and settled in their respective lives – There is 
no need to continue the agony of a mere status without them living together 
– The judgment of the Trial Court as confi rmed by the High Court set aside. 
[Paras 17, 19, 20]
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13(1)(ia) – Cruelty:
Held: The word ‘cruelty’ under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act of 1955 
has got no fi xed meaning, and therefore, gives a very wide discretion to the 
Court to apply it liberally and contextually – What is cruelty in one case 
872 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
may not be the same for another – It has to be applied from person to person 
while taking note of the attending circumstances. [Para 5]
Divorce – Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhawati – 
Clarifi cation of decision:
Held: The decision rendered in Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah v. 
Prabhawati, 1956 SCR 838 is clarifi ed, it is not a proposition to hold that 
the proof required from a petitioner in a matrimonial case alleging cruelty 
is of beyond reasonable doubt, and not of preponderance of probability 
– The Court in Bipin Chander was dealing with a case of desertion, and 
therefore, more onus was fi xed on the person who asserts it – The Court is 
not deciding and adjudicating an off ence, when a petition for divorce is a 
civil remedy. [Para 12]
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s. 23 – Decree in proceedings – 
Discussed. [Paras 13, 14]
Divorce – Socio-economic stigma and issues attached to woman 
– Discussed. [Para 8]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan 2023 (6) SCALE 402 – followed.
Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal (2012) 7 SCC 
288 : [2012] 7 SCR 607; Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and Another 
(2014) 1 SCC 188 : [2013] 10 SCR 259; N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane 
(1975) 2 SCC 326 : [1975] 3 SCR 967; Sivasankaran v. Santhimeenal 2021 
(10) SCALE 477; Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka 
(1982) 2 SCC 544 : [1983] 1 SCR 49 – relied on.
Reynold Rajamani and Another v. Union of India and Another (1982) 
2 SCC 474; Dr. Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhawati 1956 SCR 
838; Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena alias Mota (1964) 4 SCR 
331 – referred to.
873
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5700 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2014 of the High Court of 
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in FA No.115 of 2011.
Appearances:
Dushyant Parashar, Dinesh Pandey, Manu Parashar, Advs. for the 
Appellant.
Shantanu Sagar, Adv. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
M. M. SUNDRESH, J.
Leave granted.
2. Section 13(1) and 13(1A) of theHindu Marriage Act, 1955 
(hereinafter referred to as Act of 1955) provide for various grounds for 
granting divorce:
“13. Divorce.—(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after 
the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either 
the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the 
ground that the other party—
(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual 
intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or

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