SANAT KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. NANDINI AGARWAL
LAWS(SC)-1990-1-28
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on January 24,1990

SANAT KUMAR AGARWAL Appellant
VERSUS
NANDINI AGARWAL Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

BHARGAVKUMAR PRANSHANKAR SHUKLA VS. CHHAYABEN BHARGAVKUMAR SHUKLA [LAWS(GJH)-2002-10-31] [REFERRED]
SIPRA DAS VS. RANA PRATAP DAS [LAWS(GAU)-1998-4-26] [REFERRED TO]
MUTYALA TATA RAO VS. MUTYALA SATYAVATHI [LAWS(APH)-1991-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
IFFATH JAMALUNNISA VS. MOHD SULEMAN SIDDIQUI [LAWS(APH)-2005-9-63] [REFERRED TO]
CHIRANJEEVI VS. LAVANYA ALIAS SUJATHA [LAWS(APH)-2006-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
GAJENDRA VS. MADHU MATI [LAWS(MPH)-2001-3-40] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH GUPTA VS. PRABHA GUPTA [LAWS(MPH)-2006-5-42] [REFERRED TO]
GOPSAI AVINANDAN SANGHA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2008-4-62] [REFERRED TO]
SOU RUTA SANJAY KARKHANIS VS. SANJAY SURENDRA KARKHANIS [LAWS(BOM)-1993-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN DAMODAR SAPRE VS. SUMIDHA RAJAN SAPRE [LAWS(BOM)-2005-6-80] [REFERRED TO]
LALITA DEONATH NIMJE VS. DEONATH GOPICHAND NIMJE [LAWS(BOM)-2010-4-49] [REFERRED TO]
GURDIP KAUR VS. BALBIR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1994-12-32] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP KUMAR VS. SONILA KUMAR [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
SEEMA VS. SURENDER KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2001-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
ADHYATMA BHATTAR ALWAR VS. ADHYATMA BHATTAR SRI DEVI [LAWS(SC)-2001-11-56] [REFERRED]
DURGA PRASANNA TRIPATHY VS. ARUNDHATI TRIPATHY [LAWS(SC)-2005-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
GUNUVEENA SINGH VS. CAPT PANKAJ PUNEET SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-1993-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH DEO VS. SHANTI [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
S VS. Y [LAWS(BOM)-2013-8-140] [REFERRED TO]
MEENA DEVI VS. SANTOKH SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2010-11-404] [REFERRED TO]
MABEL TREEZA PINTO VS. FRANCIS PINTO [LAWS(KAR)-2015-9-94] [REFERRED TO]
GEETA PANDEY VS. SHEKHAR PANDEY [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
NEELAM RALLY VS. SATISH KUMAR RALLY [LAWS(MPH)-1993-1-81] [REFERRED TO]
SMITA DIPESH NIKAM D/O BALWANTRAI VAGH VS. DIPESH DINKARRAO NIKAM [LAWS(GJH)-2018-2-70] [REFERRED TO]
ANUSHA VS. ARJUN [LAWS(MAD)-2017-8-330] [REFERRED TO]
RAMKISHOR, S/O RAMDHAN SHUKLA VS. MANGALA, W/O RAMKISHOR SHUKLA [LAWS(CHH)-2019-4-61] [REFERRED TO]
D SUBRAMANYAM RAJU VS. D LAKSHMI DEVI [LAWS(APH)-2019-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR JYOTI CHAUDHARY VS. ALKA CHAUDHARY SRIVASTAVA [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-102] [REFERRED TO]
SHALINI SINGH VS. ALOK KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-299] [REFERRED TO]
SANKET MISHRA VS. URVASHI [LAWS(ALL)-2020-4-99] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL PAUL VS. NAMITA PAUL [LAWS(TRIP)-2021-3-41] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Kasliwal, J. - (1.)Special leave granted.
(2.)This case reveals how a pernicious custom known as 'GURAWAT' (Salta-Palta) resulted in matrimonial casualty in respect of two families of Agarwal Community. There is a custom prevailing in Agarwal Community of Chhatisgarh region in the State of Madhya Pradesh known as 'GURAWAT'. According to this custom brothers and sisters of one family are married to brothers and sisters of another family. The parties in the present case belong to educated families of Agarwal Community of Durg in Chhatisgarh region of Madhya Pradesh. Sanat Kumar Agarwal appellant was married to Smt. Nandini, respondent and Shivnarain elder brother of Nandini was married to Shakuntala, sister of Sanat Kumar on 11-6-1978 at Durg. At the time of marriage Sanat Kumar was employed at Balchand Nagar (Pune). Both the brides went to the respective houses of their in-laws after their marriage. In Chhatisgarh area, the women celebrate the festival of Teez at their parents houses and, therefore, Shivnarain took his sister to their parents house and similarly Shakuntala came back to her parents house. It appears that there was a dissension between Shivnarain and Shakuntala and on that account she remained at her parents house and as such Nandini also remained at her parents house. Sanat Kumar along with his sister Shakuntala and mother on 28-11-1978 tried to resolve the matrimonial friction between the two families. On 1-12-1978 a talk was held between Sanat Kumar and Shivnarain at the house of the father of Nandini and ultimately on 3-12-1978 Shivnarain took Shakuntala to his house and Sanat Kumar also brought Nandini to his house after Vida ceremony.
(3.)Thereafter again some differences arose between Shivanarain and Shakuntala and as such on 8-12-1978 Shakuntala came to her parents house from her in-laws house and on 9-12-1978 Nandini also went to her parents house from her matrimonial home. Thereafter Nandini as well as Shakuntala continued to live at their parents houses respectively. Both Shivnarain as well as Sanat Kumar filed petitions of divorce against their wives on the ground of cruelty and desertion as contemplated under Section 13(1), (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petition for divorce filed by Shivnarain was dismissed by ,the trial Court but was allowed in appeal by the High Court and an appeal fileld against the judgment of the High Court was dismissed by this court on 16-1-1990 in Civil Appeal No. 835 of 1987 Smt. Shakuntala v. Shivnarain Agarwal. Petition for divorce filed by Sanat Kumar against Smt. Nandini was dismissed by the trial Court and the order was affirmed by the High Court. Sanat Kumar aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court has filed the present Special Leave Petition No. 2187 of 1988.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.