SUJATA UDAY PATIL versus UDAY MADHUKAR PATIL

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 955 · Decided: 13-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

SUJATA UDAY PATIL 
A 
v. 
UDA Y MADHUKAR PATIL 
DECEMBER 13, 2006 
[G.P. MATHURANDA.K. MATHUR,JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-Sections 13(1) (i-a) and (i-b)-Divorce 
petition on the ground of cruelty and desertion by wife-Trial Court granting 
decree of judicial separation-Appellate Courts granting decree of divorce C 
and alimony to the wife and the child-Husband remarried after decree of 
divorce-In appeal, held: Decree of divorce rightly granted-In view of 
remarriage by husband, denial of decree of divorce to husband would not 
serve any useful purpose-Direction to pay lump sum amount of eight lakhs 
towards maintenance of wife and son. 
Matrimonial Law-Matrimonial disputes-Adjudication of-Held: 
Matrimonial disputes have to be decided by Courts in a pragmatic manner 
keeping in view the ground realities. 
Words and Phrases-' Cruelty'-Nature and meaning of in the context 
D 
of matrimonial law. 
E 
Respondent (husband) filed a petition for seeking decree of divorce 
against appellant (wife) on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Trial Court 
passed decree of judicial separation holding that the respondent was not able 
to make out a case of divorce. Both the parties filed appeals. Appellate Court 
allowed the appeal of the respondent dissolving the marriage by decree of F 
divorce. It also directed permanent alimony of Rs. 700/- per month to wife and 
Rs. 500/- per month to their son. Appeal of appellant (wife) was dismissed. 
second appeal by the wife was also dismissed. Other proceedings filed by wife 
were pending. Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The findings recorded by the District Judge and also by the 
High Court are fully born out from the material on record and cannot be 
faulted with on any ground. Therefore, the decree for divorce has to be 
955 
G 
H 
956 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. JO S.C.R. 
A maintained.1961-A-B] 
1.2. Matrimonial disputes have to be decided by courts in a pragmatic 
manner keeping in view the ground realities. For this purpose a host of factors 
have to be taken into consideration and the most important being whether the 
marriage can be saved and the husband and wife can live together happily and 
B maintain a proper atmosphere at home for the upbringing of their offsprings. 
This the court has to decide in the fact and cfrcumstances of each case and it 
is not possible to lay down any fixed standards or even guidelines. 
(961-G-H; 962-AI 
1.3. In the case in hand it is an established fact that the respondent has 
C married again and has a child from the second wife. In such circumstances 
even if the decree for divorce granted by the District Judge which has been 
affirmed by the High Court is set aside, as prayed by the appellant herein, no 
usefUI purpose would be served. The appellant cannot possibly live with the 
husband in such a scenario nor it will be conducive to the upbringing of her 
D son. 1962-A-B] 
1.4. The offer made by the respondent regarding giving of some 
immovable properties to the appellant and her son in lieu of maintenance may 
not be workable and may create complications, specially in vi1:w of the fact 
that the respondent has asserted the said properties to be the joint family 
E properties and there is no such enforceable d(lcument on record by which the 
consent of the father and other brothers may be clearly and unequivocally 
accepted. Payment of a lump sum amount of rupees eight lakhs by the 
respondent to the appellant would meet the ends of justice. The respondent is 
directed to pay a lump sum amount to the appellant as maintenance for herself 
and her son. 1963-C-D; 963-F-H) 
F 
1.5. After the entire amount of rupees eight lakhs has been paid by the 
respondent to the appellant, the proceedings of th~· cases instituted under 
Section 125 cr:P.C. and Section 494 IPC shall stand quashed and the 
proceedings under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 
G shall be itbated. 1964-B-C( 
2. A liberal approach has to be adopted in dealing with various clauses 
of sub-section (I) of Sect!on 13 of the Act and full meaning should be given 
to the words used by the legislature. [960-D-El 
3. The word "cruelty" and the kind or degree of "cruelty" necessary 
H which may amount to a matrimonial offence has not been defined in the Act. 
SUJATA UDAY PAT!Lv. UDAY MADHUKARPATIL [GP. MATHUR,J.) 
957 
What is cruel treatment is to a large extent a question of fact or a mixed A 
question of law and 

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