SUMAN SINGH versus SANJAY SINGH

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 788 · Decided: 08-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(2017] 2 S.C.R. 788 
SUMAN SINGH 
v. 
SANJAY SINGH 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7114-7115 of2014) 
MARCH 08, 2017 
[R: K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s.JJ(J){ia) - Divorce on the 
ground of cruelty - A petition seeking divorce on some isolated 
incidents alleged to have occurred 8-10 years prior to filing of the 
date of petition cannot furnish a subsisting cai1se of action to seek 
divorce - The incidents alleged should be of recurring nature or 
continuing one and they should be in near proximity with the filing 
of the petition - Few isolated incidents of long past and that too 
found to have been condoned due to compromising behavior of the 
parties cannot constitute an act of cruelty within the meaning of 
s. JJ(J)(ia) of the Act. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Almost all the grounds taken by the respondent 
in his petition were stale or/and isolated and did not subsist to 
e"nable the res'pondent to seek a decree for dissolution of 
marriage. In other words, the incidents of cruelty alleged had 
taken place even, according to the respondent, immediately after 
marriage. They were solitary incidents relating to the behavior 
of the appellant. Second, assuming that one or more grounds 
constituted an act of cruelty, yet the acts complained of were 
condoned by the parties due to their subsequent conduct 
inasmuch as admittedly both lived together till 2006 and the 
appellant gave birth to their second daughter in 2006. Third, most 
of the incidents of alleged cruelty pertained to the period prior to 
2006 and some were alleged to have occurred after 2006. Those 
pertained to period after t006 were founded on general allegations 
with no details pleaded such as when such incident occurred (year, 
month, date etc.), what was its background, who witnessed, what 
the appellant actually said etc. The incidents which occurred prior 
to 2006 could not be relied on to prove the instances of cruelty 
788 
SUMAN SINGH v. SANJAY SINGH 
• 
because they were deemed to have been condoned by the acts of 
the parties. So far as the instances alleged after 2006 were 
concerned, they being isolated instances, did not constitute an 
act of cruelty. Both the Courts below failed to take note of this 
material aspect of the case and thus committed jurisdictional error 
in passing a decree for dissolution of marriage. The High Court 
did not, in the first instance, examine the grounds taken in the 
petition to find out as to whether such grounds constitute mental 
cruelty or not. The finding, therefore, though concurrent did not 
bind this Court. An incident which occurred somewhere in 2010 
when the appellant visited the office of the respondent and alleged 
to have misbehaved with the respondent in front of other officers 
would not constitute an act of cruelty on the part of the appellant 
so as to enable the respondent to claim divorce. In the first 
place, no decree for divorce on one isolated incident can be 
passed. Secondly, there could be myriad reasons for causing such 
isolated lncident. Merely because both exchanged some verbal 
conversation in presence of others would not be enough to 
constitute an act of cruelty unless it is further supported by some 
incidents of alike nature. It was not so. [Paras 26, 27 and 30-32] · 
[794-A-H; 79~-Cl 
2. The contention that since the appellant had made 
allegation against the respondent of his having extra-marital 
relatiou and hence such allegation would also constitute an act of 
cruelty on the part of the appellant is also not tenable. Plea that 
since both have been living separately for quite some time and 
hence this may be considered a good ground to give divorce is 
not acceptable. The appellant is entitled for a decree for restitution 
of conjugal rights against the respondent. Now that the 
respondent failed to make out any case of cruelty against the 
appellant, it was the respondent who withdrew from the company 
of the appellant without reasonable cause and not the vice vers11. 
[Paras 33, 34, 37 and 38] [795-D-E; 796-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7114-
7115 of2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.05.2013 of the High 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in F.A.O. No. 108 of2013 and F. A. 0. No. 
109 of2013. 
789 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
790 
A 
SUPREME COU~T REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
D. N. Goburdhan, Ms. Pallavi Chopra,Advs. for the Appellant. 
Gaurav Goel, Rajesh Kumar (For E.C. Agrawa

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