Case No.: CA 7763-64 of 2004

Date: 02/12/2004

This appeal has been filed before the Honorable Supreme Court pursuing to the Appellant and respondent herein were doctors by profession, the appellant and respondent tied their nuptial knot on 10/10/1978. The appellant and respondent had two children out of the wedlock and are major now it was to the court’s attention that the marriage that was carried out was “Love Marriage”. The appellant and respondents herein were supposedly college students in the same college but are of different religion the appellant (husband) is the Telugu Brahmin and the respondent (wife) is Sikh by the religion. They were both working in the hospital found and established by the father of the appellant Dr. A Ram Murthy. The appellant-husband sent a notice to the wife pursuant to her behaviour which was supposedly obnoxious, humiliating and was a majorant for mental stress on 05/03/1997 to seek a divorce by mutual agreement and to further curb the unnecessary conditions and complications. It was submitted that the husband and wife were not sharing a bed for almost of period of 2 years it was also provided in the submission due to evil treatment and mental cruelty there was a dissertation for a period of two years. The respondent filing her response said that to sort out things that had taken the wrong turn need a healthy discussion wherein she states that the discussion needs to be “for heart to heart” neither party to such petition deciding the course of action for the matter to be dealt with resulted in a petition filed under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

1. Should court grant the sum of the alimony fixed at 13,000 pm to the spouse in case of qualification?

2. Should the injunction to be treated as valid as prayed by the husband?

The Honourable Supreme Court after hearing the learned counsels representing the parties in the matter at length and considering the facts in the above matter with the precedents submitted in the matter established by the Honourable judges to support the prayer and pleadings of the parties above observes that in the matter herein. The Court state states that there was made a submission wherein the learned counsel stated that there was enough evidence that satisfied the criteria to term the action as cruelty where it established by this court that there is no criteria, to sum up, an action or series of action as cruelty, also considering the Act there is no rigid definition provided for the cruelty it can be either physical or mental and/or both.  The primary reason that is presented here is the cruelty for dissolution of marriage which is to be considered by the court in the light of slightest reason if any exist which might culminates in to harm to the body of the life, limb or mental state of the spouse. The court believes it is established that mental cruelty falls within the purview that is considerable for martial wrong. Cruelty should not necessarily mean physical harm and also need no extended substance to establish. The court further also agrees that in the cases of matrimonial disputes various probabilities have to be seen. The benefit of doubts should be allowed to certain in the criminal matter but it will bring futile litigation if applied to civil matters and especially to matter with such sensitivity and delicacy. Therefore the court has to agree and acknowledge the probabilities in the case and in facts above the cruelty has not be established as a matter of fact but has to considered its effect on the mind of the person involved in such matrimonial relationship. The court has to give investigative approach when there is no direct evidence to prove such matter the evidence and instances as to be considered in the normal approach of life and its effect off mental state of the spouse.

The Court is of the opinion that all the cases and precedents mentioned by the learned counsel in maintaining the above the argument that even though the marriage has broken down irretrievably the decree maintaining the divorce cannot be passed or provided. The Court also stated that it is only a case of extreme difficulty that court can consider such matter and go ahead with dissolution of marriage to be the only solution for such complexities. The Honorable Court states physical disharmony or lack of physical presence cannot be the ground for divorce and especially when such ground is bases on the husband conduct. In the precedents as mentioned by the learned counsel in Shiv Suder’s case, it was decoded that such person (husband) was living an adulterous life and also was pleading to the take the advantage of his wife dissertation. Due to the factual difference between the cases nor one or the other can be relied on each other and decision provided in the matter above will be not be provided the legal back up by the court by take refuge in the same interpretation, although High Court deciding the matter failed to notice the difference and only saw the mere small facts that were similar but were insignificant in nature.

Though deciding to end the marriage is never the first resort court approaches also it believes that the irretrievable marriage seems no reason for providing the reason as to dissolve the marriage, it believes in the harmony of the party at the end of the day. The Honorable Supreme Court does wish to further add the agony or a feeling of anguish and be stressed out of the resolving approach decides to grant the divorce and with further condition and to provide the justices to the matter and further translating the pleaders contemplation into reality it is wise to dissolve the marriage.

The Honorable Supreme Court thinks it is right and just in the eye of law that this condition and factual background seems inevitable, whereby the dissolution of the marriage is pathway to justice. So, deciding the matter the Honorable Supreme Court grants the decree of divorce to the parties to proceeding the direct the decree accordingly. The appeal filed is allowed by the Court without any cost.