Section 23(1), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Leading Case (T. Srinivasan v. T. Varalakshmi)

-

Facts:

1.     The marriage took place on 31.01.1975 at Madras and the consummation of the marriage took place on 01.02.1975. Thereafter he started teasing her alleging insufficiency of gifts by her parents and also the presence of a small congenital lump on the respondent’s shoulder. Even though it was known to him even before marriage, he ignored it as inconsequential. 

2.     On 13.02.1975 the respondent-wife was sent away from the house by the appellant-husband asking her to come back with larger presents and jewels. On 28.07.1975 the appellant issued a notice to the respondent alleging that she had left the house on her own accord, to which she sent a suitable reply on 02.08.1975 denying the allegations and stating she was deserted by the appellant and that she was anxious to join the appellant.

3.     Thereupon, he filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The court allowed the petition and granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

4.     Thereafter on 08.03.1977 the respondent wife sent a notice through her Counsel to the appellant that she was willing to join with the appellant and lead a conjugal life with the appellant and requested him to send some relation to take her back to his house. The appellant did not send any reply. The respondent who went to the house of the appellant on 23.05.1977, was not allowed to enter the house by the appellant and his mother.

5.     Hence, she claimed maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and appellant filed for divorce.





 

Issue: 

1. Whether the court below failed to apply the principle laid down in Section 13 (1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

2. Whether a decree for divorce automatically follows on the expiry of the period of one year from the date of decree for restitution of conjugal rights?

3. Whether the Court below is justified in refusing a decree for divorce for the appellant on the basis of Section 23(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

 

Ratio Decidendi: 

In Geetha Lakshmi v. G.V.N.K. Sarveswara Rao:

A decree for restitution of conjugal rights was obtained by the wife under Section 9 of the Act on the ground that the husband had without reasonable cause withdrawn from her society. A decree for restitution of conjugal rights was granted to the wife. After the decree, the husband not only, not complied with the decree, but did positive acts by illtreating her and finally drove her away from the house. It was not a case of mere noncompliance of the decree, but fresh positive acts of wrong. In such a case, the husband was not entitled to the relief under Section 13(1A) of the Act because it would mean taking advantage of his own wrong under Section 23(1).

 

Applying the ratio in the abovesaid case to the facts of this case, it is seen that the respondent/ husband cannot take advantage of his own wrong within the meaning of Section 23 (1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and in view of his conduct in filing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and subsequently not allowing her to enter into the house and join him and provide maintenance and driving her away, he is not entitled to the relief of dissolution under Section 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 

 

Judgement: 

The appeal was dismissed. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 319, Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence (Leading Case law: Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab )

-
Image
Facts: On June 24, 2004, Hardeep Singh was ploughing the land. The accused persons went there with deadly weapons and caused injuries to Hardeep Singh as well as other prosecution witnesses. First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against many of the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 336 and 427 read with Sections 120B, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as also for offences punishable under Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. Accused were arrested. Vijay Preet Singh (respondent No. 2) was one of them but the father of Vijay Singh interfered in investigation. Hence, he was discharged before framing of the charges. Moreover, Jagtar Singh (respondent No.3) whose name was not mentioned in the FIR, but as per witnesses also involved. The appeal is brought before the constitutional bench of Supreme Court because the division bench came onto differing opinion as to the additions of the respondent 2 and 3 to the case using sec...
Read more

Constitutionalism- Explained

-
Image
In simple words, Constitutionalism is a doctrine that a government’s authority is determined by a body of laws or constitution. More generally constitutionalism refers to efforts to prevent arbitrary government.   [1]    Constitutionalism is based on the idea of political theories of John Locke and the founders of the American republic, that government can and should be legally limited in its powers, and that its authority or legitimacy depends on its observing these limitations. The central point of Constitutionalism is a “Limited Government”. Constitutionalism recognises the need for a government but at the same time also insists upon restraining its (government’s) power.  [2]   Epitome of Constitutionalism is Magna Carta issued in 1215 that limited the power of England’s King John. Constitutionalism places limits upon the arbitrary    powers of the three government power: legislative power (making new laws), executive power (implementing laws) and j...
Read more

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 235 (Leading Case law: Ajay Pandit @ Jagdish Dayabhai Patel & Anr Appellant (s) Versus State of Maharashtra)

-
Image
Facts: Death sentence has been awarded by the High Court of Bombay to Ajay Pandit @ Jagdish Dayabhai Patel for double murder. The Bombay High Court confirming the order of conviction and enhancing the sentence of life imprisonment to death and ordered to be hanged till death against which this appeal has been preferred. The High Court heard the arguments of the advocate for the accused as well as the prosecutor on the point as to whether the High Court could enhance the sentence of the accused from life to death. Having noticed that the High Court has the power to enhance the sentence from life imprisonment to death, the High Court issued a notice on 1.12.2005 to the accused to show cause why the sentence of life imprisonment be not enhanced to death sentence. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: The accused was produced before the Court on but the advocate representing the accused was absent. Consequently, he Court on 13.12.2005 recorded the following statement of the ...
Read more