VISHNU DUTT SHARMA versus MANJU SHARMA

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 891 · Decided: 27-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 3 S.C.R. 891 
VISHNU DUTT SHARMA 
A 
v . 
... 
MANJU SHARMA 
(Civil appeal No. 1330 of 2009) 
FEBRUARY 27, 2009 
B 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: 
s. 13(1 )(i-a) - Petition for divorce by husband alleging c 
cruelty by wife - Dismissal by trial court as a/so by High Court 
- Plea that divorce be granted on the ground of irretrievable 
breakdown of marriage - HELD: No such ground is provided 
by legislature for granting a decree of divorce - Supreme 
Court cannot add such a ground to s. 13, as that would be 
D 
amending the Act, which is a function of legislature - Cases 
referred in this regard cannot be treated as precedent - In the 
instant case, divorce by mutual consent in terms of s.13-8 
cannot be granted as the wife is not willing to agree to a 
divorce - Finding of fact of both the courts below that it was 
E 
the husband who treated his wife with cruelty rather than the 
other way round not interfered with - Precedent. 
"' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1330 
of 2009. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2007 of the 
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in F.A.O. No. 302 of 1996. 
R.K. Chadha, Rajinder Mathur, Tarun Mathur for the 
Petitioner. 
G 
D.S. Paweriya, Rani Chhabra for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
891 
H 
892 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 3 S.C.R. 
• 
II""
A 
1. Leave granted. 
2. This Appeal has been filed against the judgment and 
.... 
order dated 07th May, 2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi 
in FAO No.302 of 1996 whereby the High Court has dismissed 
B 
the appeal filed by the husband-appellant. 
3. Facts giving rise to this appeal are: 
4. The marriage took place between the appellant and the 
respondent on 26.02.1993 and a female child was born on 
c 6.12.1993. In the petition filed by the appellant, it was alleged 
that soon after the marriage the respondent was behaving in a 
cruel manner derogatory to the appellant and the family 
members; that the respondent avoided staying in the 
matrimonial home and never remained there for more than 25 
0 
days together; and that after leaving the matrimonial home on 
19.5.1993 while she was pregnant with the child, the 
respondent never returned to live with the appellant. It was also 
alleged that the father of the respondent is a retired Sub-
Inspector of the Delhi Police and brother is a Constable and 
E both used to extend threats to the appellant and his family 
members that they would be implicated in false cases. 
5. Respondent in her written statement stated that on 
14.09.1994, the appellant and his family members gave her a 
severe beating which led to her being medically examined by 
F 
the doctors at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. A copy of the 
extract of the MLC register on that date was enclosed to the 
-
written statement. It was also stated that the appellant and his 
mother had taken the jewellery of the respondent and given it 
to the wife of the appellant's brother and on asking, respondent 
G was again assaulted and sought to be burnt alive by the family 
members of the appellant. 
6. The trial Court after examining the evidence came to the 
conclusion that no case of cruelty had been made out as alleged 
H 
VISHNU DUTI SHARMA v. MANJU SHARMA 
893 
/ 
·t 
by the appellant. The Trial Court held that considering that the 
A 
respondent had been turned out of the matrimonial house and 
had been given beatings for which she was medically 
examined, it was the respondent who was treated cruelty by 
the appellant. 
7. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal in 
B 
the High Court. 
8. The High Court, by the impugned order, while 
dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-husband, observed 
in paras 13 & 17 as under: 
c 
"13 .... The respondent has categorically stated in her 
examination-in-chief that the appellant and her in laws beat 
her mercilessly on 14.09.1994 as a result of which she was 
medically examined at the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, D 
New Delhi on 15.09.1994. She has also withstood the 
cross-examination on this aspect. On a reading of the 
entire evidence, it is not possible to conclude that the 
appellant has been able to establish that the respondent 
treated him with cruelty. 
E 
17. In the instant case, the respondent wife has both before 
• 
the trial Court and this Court been able to demonstrate that 
"" 
far from treating the appellant with cruelty, she in fact 
suffered cruelty at the hands
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.