YAMANAJI H JADHAV Vs. NIRMALA
LAWS(SC)-2002-2-88
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
February 01,2002
YAMANAJI H.JADHAV
Appellant
VERSUS
NIRMALA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
SAROJ BALA VS. KASTURI LAL [LAWS(P&H)-2018-10-214] [REFERRED TO]SULABHA LEELA MANDIRAM VS. SUSEELA [LAWS(KER)-2007-3-686] [REFERRED TO]
NIZAM SINGH VS. BENI BAI [LAWS(MPH)-2014-1-92] [REFERRED TO]
SANMET BAI W/O VISHWANATH RAJWAR VS. MU RASEKELIYA BAI, WD /O LATE AGHANSAI [LAWS(CHH)-2019-3-116] [REFERRED TO]
ANARKALI VS. SIYAWATI [LAWS(ALL)-2024-5-35] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYA D/O DAYALDAS JETHANI VS. HITESH [LAWS(BOM)-2019-3-84] [REFERRED TO]
KAPUR CHAND VS. SATYA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2022-6-63] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTIBEN VS. AMITBHAI VITTHALBHAI SOJITRA [LAWS(GJH)-2021-9-709] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVANAND DAMODAR SHANBHAG VS. SUJATA SHIVANAND SHANBHAG [LAWS(BOM)-2013-3-30] [REFERRED TO]
SILAPARASETTI RAMU VS. LALAM RAMANAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2013-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
SUDARSHAN S/O YAMAJI PANDHARE VS. SAU PALLAVI W/O SUDARSHAN PANDHARE [LAWS(BOM)-2019-9-29] [REFERRED TO]
ANIRUDH PRASAD KAMAL SEN VS. DASHMAT BAI SURYAVANSHI [LAWS(CHH)-2020-8-97] [REFERRED TO]
BHIKHUDAN A GADHAVI VS. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT [LAWS(GJH)-2002-12-40] [REFERRED]
JAGDISH SINGH VS. DHANNA BAI [LAWS(ALL)-2008-2-223] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN S/O PRALHAD KULKARNI VS. JAISHREE W/O KIRAN KULKARNI [LAWS(BOM)-2007-2-151] [REFERRED TO]
INDRA DEVI VS. RAJIV KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2014-6-88] [REFERRED TO]
LEKH RAM DECEASED, THROUGH HIS LRS & OTHERS VS. SH VIDYA SAGAR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-9-199] [REFERRED]
S LATHA KUNJAMMA VS. K ANILKUMAR [LAWS(KER)-2008-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
GOGINAPUDI VARALAXMI VS. GOGINAPUDI VARAJALAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2022-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN NANAJI LONARE AND ORS. VS. MINAKSHI BHAGWAN LONARE [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-191] [REFERRED TO]
P UMALAKSHMI VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-61] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANI VS. M CHANDRALEKHA [LAWS(SC)-2004-11-29] [REFERRED TO]
S. RAMU VS. L. RAMANAMMA @ RAJANI [LAWS(APH)-2013-8-105] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI SAHU VS. SHIV KUMAR SAHU [LAWS(CHH)-2018-4-72] [REFERRED TO]
BAGA TIRKEY VS. PINKI LINDA [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-4-25] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH NARAYAN SINGH AND ORS VS. LILAWATI DEVI AND ORS [LAWS(PAT)-2013-4-125] [REFERRED TO]
KASHIBAI NAMDEO JADHAV VS. YAMUNABAI W/O NAMDEO JADHAV [LAWS(BOM)-2016-2-73] [REFERRED TO]
SATPRAKASH MEENA VS. ALKA MEENA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-7-107] [REFERRED TO]
CHEERUTTY VS. DASAN [LAWS(KER)-2011-7-281] [REFERRED TO]
VIDYADHARI VS. SUKHRANA BAI [LAWS(SC)-2008-1-161] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The appellant in this appeal was the defendant in O.S. No. 156 of 1982 before the Principal Munsif, Bijapur, which suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff praying for a declaration that a divorce deed dated 26th of June, 1982 executed by her was obtained by coercion and threat and for cancellation of the same. The said suit came to be dismissed by the trial Court and an appeal against the said judgment being dismissed, the respondent-plaintiff appealed to the High Court. The High Court in a second appeal has reversed the finding of the Courts below and has decreed the suit with a further direction that the concerned District Judge should file a complaint against the plaintiff for an offence committed by him against his wife within three months from the date of the receipt of the said judgment. As noted above, the appellant-plaintiff is before us in this appeal.
(2.)We will refer to the parties in their status in which they were arrayed in the trial Court.
(3.)The case of the plaintiff in the trial Court was that her marriage with the defendant was solemnized on 26th of May, 1978 and though they lived as husband and wife for some time, she was constantly ill-treated by her husband consequent to which she was hospitalized. Susbequently the defendant had filed a matrimonial suit for divorce in the year 1979 and the said suit came to be compromised. However, the relationship between the two did not improve and husband was continuing to demand a divorce from her. Ultimately, she was sent back to her parental home because of which she was constrained to file a petition for maintenance. It is further claimed that the defendant forcibly took her and wrongly confined her which led her father to make an application under Section 97 of Cr. P. C. It is also stated that subsequently under threat and coercion she was taken to the office of the Sub-Registrar on the 26th of June, 1982 and signed a document which has turned out to be a deed of divorce. It is also stated that, unable to bear the suffering, she even tried to commit the suicide, but, however, she was saved by the neighbours. Subsequently, when she realised that the document executed by her was a divorce deed she filed a suit for a declaration that the said deed was obtained by fraud and coercion as also for the cancellation of the deed.
(2.)We will refer to the parties in their status in which they were arrayed in the trial Court.
(3.)The case of the plaintiff in the trial Court was that her marriage with the defendant was solemnized on 26th of May, 1978 and though they lived as husband and wife for some time, she was constantly ill-treated by her husband consequent to which she was hospitalized. Susbequently the defendant had filed a matrimonial suit for divorce in the year 1979 and the said suit came to be compromised. However, the relationship between the two did not improve and husband was continuing to demand a divorce from her. Ultimately, she was sent back to her parental home because of which she was constrained to file a petition for maintenance. It is further claimed that the defendant forcibly took her and wrongly confined her which led her father to make an application under Section 97 of Cr. P. C. It is also stated that subsequently under threat and coercion she was taken to the office of the Sub-Registrar on the 26th of June, 1982 and signed a document which has turned out to be a deed of divorce. It is also stated that, unable to bear the suffering, she even tried to commit the suicide, but, however, she was saved by the neighbours. Subsequently, when she realised that the document executed by her was a divorce deed she filed a suit for a declaration that the said deed was obtained by fraud and coercion as also for the cancellation of the deed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.