Savitri Pandey V. Prem Chandra Pandey summary

SAVITRI PANDEY Vs. PREM CHANDRA PANDEY

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

2002

CASE FOR SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ON THE GROUNDS OF CRUELTY AND DESERTION

Facts of the case : 

The appellant - wife approached the court for the dissolution of marriage under section 13 of HMA alleging cruelty and desertion against the husband. 

Contention of the parties : 

Petitioner : Petitioner plead for the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the husband.

Respondent : Respondent - husband argued that no acts of cruelty were performed to the wife and the petitioner is trying to take advantage of her own wrong. 

JUDGEMENT : 

The trial court passed the decree in favour of the wife. The court observed that although nothing can establish cruelty against husband, desertion by husband provides sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage.  

High court opined that there was nothing to prove cruelty as against husband and further there was also nothing to prove the desertion by the husband in the present case. Therefore the decree of divorce was reversed by the High Court.

The appeal went to the Supreme Court as against the decision of the High Court. The supreme court in the very first instance noted that it is clearly established in this case that there is nothing to prove cruelty by husband. While defining cruelty for the purpose of this act the court observed that cruelty constitutes the acts of the respondent which cause or tends to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it is dangerous to live with the other spouse.  

Analysing the issue of desertion, the court observed that the wife herself agreed that she never cohabit with the husband and thus the marriage was never consummated. The court opined that desertion is not as same as seperation, therefore it can even be happened when the parties are living under same roof. Not cohabiting with the spouse and not discharging the matrimonial obligation could also amounts to desertion as it is to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of every case. Also animus deserendi is one of the essential ingredient for desertion as held in Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah Vs. Prabhavati. In the present case, the court observed that the respondent who here has been referred to as the deserting party never had the intention of animus deserendi. Moreover the wife was wrong denying to perform her matrimonial obligations and thus cannot take the advantage of her own wrong. 

The learned council on the behalf of petitioner argued that the decree of the trial court/ matrimonial court be upheld in the Interest of the society and justice as after the that decree of divorce that petitioner is married to the other man and has the child out of the other marriage. While addressing this issue the court observed that as atleast one chance of appeal is allowed under all system of civilised legal jurisprudence, if one party does any such act while the pendency of such appeal, then that party is deemed to undertaken adventure, the consequences for which has to be borne by it. No one can flout the course of justice by thier overt and covert acts. 

Thus the decision of matrimonial court was overruled and appeal is without merit, thus dismissed.