G V N KAMESWARA RAO Vs. G JABILLI
LAWS(SC)-2002-1-77
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on
January 10,2002
G. V. N. Kameswara Rao
Appellant
VERSUS
G. Jabilli .
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
N G DASTANE VS. S DASTANE [REFERRED]V BHAGAT VS. D BHAGAT MRS [REFERRED 3.]
S HANUMANTHA RAO VS. S RAMANI [REFERRED 2.]
Cited Judgements :-
MAMTA VAISHNAV VS. GOVINDDAS VAISHNAV [LAWS(CHH)-2012-1-15] [REFERRED TO]SANDIP VS. ARUNA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-3-216] [REFERRED TO]
MONINDARPALSINHA N KOCHAR VS. JYOTINDER KAUR MOHINDARPAL N KOCHAR [LAWS(BOM)-2005-6-66] [REFERRED TO]
SWARUP TALAPATRA VS. GARGI TALAPATRA [LAWS(CAL)-2009-8-47] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMPA MUKHERJEE VS. PRANAB MUKHERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2009-8-50] [REFERRED TO]
MANGESH BALKRUSHNA BHOIR VS. SAU. LEENA MANGESH BHOIR [LAWS(BOM)-2015-12-84] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI RANJAN SAHA VS. PRANATI SAHA [LAWS(GAU)-2010-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
NIKUNJA DAS VS. RANJU PATHAK [LAWS(GAU)-2006-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
M.G. SIVARAMAN VS. V.JAYA [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-792] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. GYANU PRADHAN VS. RATNA KUMAR PRADHAN [LAWS(SIK)-2010-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
JASBIR KAUR VS. BALBIR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2002-11-65] [REFERRED TO]
APPLICATION WAS FILED VS. JAYA GHOSH [LAWS(ORI)-2019-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
JATINDRA KUMAR MISRA VS. MANORAMA SATPATHY [LAWS(ORI)-2003-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
R ANAND VS. P INDU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-11-584] [REFERRED TO]
MAN MOHAN VAID VS. MEENA KUMARI [LAWS(DLH)-2003-5-6] [REFERRED]
SUSMITA SAHA MAZUMDER VS. SUSANTA SAHA [LAWS(CAL)-2020-3-90] [REFERRED TO]
RAMPARKASH VS. SURESHWATI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-5-450] [REFERRED TO]
PARKASH KAUR VS. HAR BHAJAN DASS [LAWS(P&H)-2003-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
JAYAKUMARI VS. BALACHANDER [LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-431] [REFERRED TO]
PINKI VS. PAWAN RATHORE [LAWS(MPH)-2020-6-633] [REFERRED TO]
MUTHUVEL VS. VIJAYARANI [LAWS(MAD)-2007-10-85] [REFERRED TO]
J BALASUBRAMANIAM VS. S PITCHAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2007-3-550] [REFERRED]
S LATHA KUNJAMMA VS. K ANILKUMAR [LAWS(KER)-2008-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
RANJITA VS. GAGANDEEP SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2011-3-192] [REFERRED TO]
MANJU PANWAR VS. V.P.S. PANWAR [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-117] [REFERRED TO]
M VS. A [LAWS(DLH)-2018-8-315] [REFERRED TO]
POORNIMA MISRA VS. SUNIL MISRA [LAWS(ALL)-2010-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
GIRIGOWDA VS. GAJALAKSHMI [LAWS(KAR)-2015-3-376] [REFERRED TO]
SUMATHI VS. PALANICHAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2008-1-400] [REFERRED TO]
BAIKUNTH SAGAR VS. SARAV MANGLA SHARMA [LAWS(P&H)-2003-4-78] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR VS. RESHMI [LAWS(P&H)-2006-7-474] [REFERRED TO]
SADHANA SATISH KOLVANKAR VS. SATISH SACHIDANAND KOLVANKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2004-7-43] [REFERRED TO]
BALMUKUND AGARWAL SON OF SHRI RAGHUBIR PRASAD AGARWAL VS. SUNITA AGARWAL WIFE OF DR BALMUKUND AGARWAL [LAWS(GAU)-2012-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH SHETTY VS. AMEETA SHETTY [LAWS(BOM)-2020-3-63] [REFERRED TO]
GOPALAKRISHNA SURAPANENI VS. ANURADHA SURAPANENI [LAWS(APH)-2014-9-102] [REFERRED TO]
MEENA JHA VS. BIPIN KUMAR JHA [LAWS(JHAR)-2003-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
VENKAPPA SHETTY VS. SMT. LALITHA [LAWS(KER)-2018-5-201] [REFERRED TO]
SMITA TRIPATHI VS. VIKRAM SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2015-10-211] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT KUMAR WADHWA VS. MADHU WADHWA [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-454] [REFERRED TO]
P. SIMHACHALAM VS. YASODA [LAWS(CAL)-2021-6-73] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN SINGH VS. SHIV KUMAR [LAWS(ALL)-2013-11-62] [REFERRED TO]
SANGEETA PRASHANT KHOPKAR VS. PRASHANT MOHAN KHOPKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2014-9-141] [REFERRED TO]
JOHNSON M JOSEPH ALIAS SHAJOO VS. ANEETA JHONSON [LAWS(MPH)-2003-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
A VISWANATHAN VS. G LAKSHMI ALIAS SEETHA [LAWS(MAD)-2006-11-349] [REFERRED TO]
K. SRINIVAS RAO VS. D.A. DEEPA [LAWS(SC)-2013-2-53] [REFERRED TO]
ALKA VS. RAJENDRA KUMAR [LAWS(ALL)-2011-12-35] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA GOMES VS. ARTHUR GOMES [LAWS(BOM)-2002-2-86] [REFERRED TO]
SAINATH DATTATRAYA JADHAV VS. SHRADHA SAINATH JADHAV [LAWS(BOM)-2002-8-154] [REFERRED TO]
SHOBHA MHATARDEV LOMTE VS. MHATARDEV TUKARAM LOMTE [LAWS(BOM)-2009-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
HOMESHWAR SINGH VS. MIRA SINGH [LAWS(CHH)-2006-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
VINAY KUMAR PATHAK VS. SMT. ANNAPURNA AWASTHI [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-54] [REFERRED TO]
R @ R VS. M.S.C. [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-682] [REFERRED TO]
IFFATH JAMALUNNISA VS. MOHD SULEMAN SIDDIQUI [LAWS(APH)-2005-9-63] [REFERRED TO]
JAYASHREE VS. S.SURESH [LAWS(MAD)-2012-6-111] [REFERRED TO]
SRI B.N. GIRISH BABU VS. SMT. BRUNDA [LAWS(KAR)-2013-12-491] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. MEETA SHARMA W/O SHRI SHASHIKANT BHARDWAJ D/O LATE SHRI LAXMIKANT SHARMA VS. SHASHIKANT BHARDWAJ SHASHIKANT BHARDWAJ S/O LATE SHRI RAM SHARMA [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-183] [REFERRED TO]
AMARJIT KAUR VS. GURSEWAK SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2008-2-119] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR SON OF RAM SARAN DASS VS. ARUNA RANI [LAWS(P&H)-2007-11-64] [REFERRED TO]
MANMOHAN SINGH VS. ANEETA PREET [LAWS(P&H)-2002-10-42] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY A MEHTA VS. ANAR S MEHTA [LAWS(GJH)-2012-1-212] [REFERRED TO]
PETER MESSIAS VS. JENNIFER MESSIAS [LAWS(MPH)-2003-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
SUSEEL KUMAR K.K. @ SUSEELAN VS. SUDHARMMA [LAWS(KER)-2018-4-190] [REFERRED TO]
MALATHI RAVI VS. B.V. RAVI [LAWS(SC)-2014-6-21] [REFERRED TO]
YUDHISHTER SINGH VS. SARITA [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTHISHREE CHIDANANDA VS. R. CHIDANANDA RANGAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-1-55] [REFERRED TO]
Poonam Mehta alias Poonam Prasad VS. Naresh Prasad [LAWS(ORI)-2008-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
POONAM KAUR VS. JAGJIT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2005-5-125] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYA RANI VS. RAJIV KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2022-4-196] [REFERRED TO]
DAYACHAND PORTE VS. KAMLABAI [LAWS(CHH)-2018-4-62] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK VS. SEEMA [LAWS(CHH)-2021-12-78] [REFERRED TO]
BHARGAVKUMAR PRANSHANKAR SHUKLA VS. CHHAYABEN BHARGAVKUMAR SHUKLA [LAWS(GJH)-2002-10-31] [REFERRED]
ANIL YASHWANT KARANDE VS. MANGAL ANIL KARANDE [LAWS(BOM)-2015-12-83] [REFERRED TO]
NILIMA KISHORE MHASKE VS. KISHORE A MHASKE [LAWS(BOM)-2002-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
DEBJANI SINHA VS. BIKASH CHANDRA SINHA [LAWS(CAL)-2006-2-28] [REFERRED TO]
AMARNADH PALACHARLA VS. VENKATALAXMI PALACHARIA [LAWS(APH)-2005-8-115] [REFERRED TO]
CHIRANJEEVI VS. LAVANYA ALIAS SUJATHA [LAWS(APH)-2006-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
A B NATARAJAN VS. S MALA [LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-210] [REFERRED TO]
A JAYACHANDRA VS. ANEEL KAUR [LAWS(SC)-2004-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
ALKA DADHICH VS. AJAY DADHICH [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
USHARANI LENKA AND PANIGRAHI SUBASH CHANDRA DASH @ SAHOO VS. PANIGRAHI SUBASH CHANDRA DASH @ SAHOO AND USHARANI LENKA [LAWS(ORI)-2003-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
SUMITRA VS. LUNA RAM [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
S VALLI VS. N RAJENDRAN [LAWS(MAD)-2010-2-311] [REFERRED TO]
GOPSAI AVINANDAN SANGHA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2008-4-62] [REFERRED TO]
HARSHA INDUKUMAR BHOJANI VS. INDUKUMAR RATILAL BHOJANI [LAWS(BOM)-2003-6-58] [REFERRED TO]
AVINASH EKNATH NIKALJE VS. SOULEELA AVINASH NIKALJE [LAWS(BOM)-2002-10-54] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA KRISHNAKUMAR KACHBA VS. KRISHNAKUMAR RAMCHANDRA KACHBA [LAWS(BOM)-2002-12-93] [REFERRED TO]
SHEEL VS. UMESCHANDRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-2-152] [REFERRED TO]
MAMATA SHRIVASTAVA VS. TARESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA [LAWS(CHH)-2009-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
SANGEETA SHUKLA VS. GANESH SHUKLA [LAWS(CHH)-2014-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDER KUMAR VS. MANJU [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-562] [REFERRED TO]
SARITA VS. VIKAS KANAUJIA [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-116] [REFERRED TO]
J MUTHU KRISHNAN VS. G RADHIKA [LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-443] [REFERRED TO]
D SUBRAMANYAM RAJU VS. D LAKSHMI DEVI [LAWS(APH)-2019-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR T., S/O. THATTARAKKAL RAMANKUTTY VS. SINDHU, D/O. SURENDRAN [LAWS(KER)-2018-2-419] [REFERRED TO]
M. PUSHPALATHA VS. E.K. PRASAAD [LAWS(KER)-2018-4-208] [REFERRED TO]
BIJU P JOHN VS. PRIYA SYRIAC [LAWS(KER)-2017-3-183] [REFERRED TO]
SAPNA VS. NEERAJ KHANDELWAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-12-69] [REFERRED TO]
C RAJAMANI VS. RATHNA BAI [LAWS(MAD)-2009-10-479] [REFERRED TO]
M.D. DAVID VS. K.G. MERCY [LAWS(KER)-2013-8-118] [REFERRED TO]
DAVID, M.D. VS. MERCY, K.G. [LAWS(KER)-2013-8-182] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH VS. SMT. POONAM SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-157] [REFERRED TO]
VANITA ANIL KRIPALANI VS. ANIL PARSRAM KRIPALANI [LAWS(BOM)-2015-5-97] [REFERRED TO]
KUSUM VS. R K SAXENA [LAWS(DLH)-2004-3-92] [REFERRED TO]
M G SIVARAMAN, S/O LATE M GOPALAKRISHNAN VS. V JAYA, D/O LATE RAMKUMAR [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-188] [REFERRED TO]
P KALYANASUNDARAM VS. K PAQUIALATCHAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2003-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
USHARANI LENKA VS. PANIGRAHI SUBHASH CHANDRA DASH [LAWS(ORI)-2004-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
Edna Adeline, D/o. Late Christy Soans VS. Renold Praveen Kumar, S/o. Late Lamuel Jathanna [LAWS(KAR)-2010-10-132] [REFERRED TO]
SWAPAN KUMAR KARMAKAR VS. SUTAPA MONDAL [LAWS(CAL)-2009-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP KUMAR CHATTERJEE VS. RITA CHATTERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2003-8-92] [REFERRED TO]
SANDIP GOPINATH BHALKE VS. ARUNA SANDIP BHALKE [LAWS(BOM)-2009-3-52] [REFERRED]
P. PANKAJAVALLI VS. BALAKRISHNAN. A. [LAWS(KER)-2015-1-144] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH MANGTANI VS. GEETA JAGDISH MANGTANI [LAWS(GJH)-2002-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK ACHARYA VS. HEENA ACHARYA [LAWS(MAD)-2016-7-122] [REFERRED]
SUSMITA ACHARYA VS. RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA [LAWS(ORI)-2002-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
ARUNDHATI TRIPATHY VS. DURGA PRASANNA TRIPATHY [LAWS(ORI)-2003-12-29] [REFERRED TO]
NEELAM KUMARI VS. GURNAM SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2003-5-43] [REFERRED TO]
RENU RAI VS. BUDDHA KUMAR RAI [LAWS(SIK)-2015-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
H S RUPASHREE VS. S SURESH [LAWS(KAR)-2002-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
DURGA PRASANNA TRIPATHY VS. ARUNDHATI TRIPATHY [LAWS(SC)-2005-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
PRANEEN MEHTA VS. INDERJIT MEHTA [LAWS(SC)-2002-7-3] [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
K. G. Balakrishnan, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The husband who had been unsuccessfully fighting litigation for the past more than 15 years for snapping his marital ties with the respondent wife is the appellant before us. The appellant is double doctorate holder - one in Mathematics from Andhra University and another from U.S.A. and had been working in United States during the relevant period. The respondent is a post-graduate in Home Science and was working as a lecturer in the year 1979. The appellant came to India in 1979 and gave advertisement in the newspaper seeking matrimonial alliance from a suitable bride. The relatives of the respondent responded to the advertisement and there was mutual consultation between the parties, which led to the marriage of the appellant with the respondent on 30-7-1979. After the marriage, the appellant and respondent stayed together for some period and thereafter, the appellant left India for United States. The respondent was asked to join him after having obtained the visa and completing other formalities. The respondent, after a period of six months, joined the appellant in United States. It appears that the marital life of the appellant and the respondent ran into rough whether from the very beginning of their stay in United States. There used to be occasional quarrel between the parties. A daughter, Sandhya, was born to them, on 10-6-1981. In 1982, the appellant, respondent and their daughter Sandhya came to India, but the appellant returned to United States in November, 1982 itself and the respondent joined him only in April, 1983. In January, 1985, the respondent along with her daughter returned to India and it seems that the misunderstanding between the parties deepened and ultimately the appellant filed application for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 alleging that after the solemnization of their marriage, the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty.
(3.)The respondent contested the proceedings and denied all the allegations made by the appellant in the petition and also made counter-allegations alleging that the appellant was responsible for wrecking the marriage. Parties on either side examined witnesses to substantiate their allegations. The learned Family Court Judge after assessing the rival contentions and the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondent had treated the appellant with mental cruelty and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to get a decree for dissolution of marriage. This was challenged by the respondent before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the decision of the Family Court holding that the appellant was at fault and he had been trying to take advantage of his own wrongs; hence, he was not entitled to get a decree in his favour in view of Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The judgment of the Division Bench is challenged before us.
(2.)The husband who had been unsuccessfully fighting litigation for the past more than 15 years for snapping his marital ties with the respondent wife is the appellant before us. The appellant is double doctorate holder - one in Mathematics from Andhra University and another from U.S.A. and had been working in United States during the relevant period. The respondent is a post-graduate in Home Science and was working as a lecturer in the year 1979. The appellant came to India in 1979 and gave advertisement in the newspaper seeking matrimonial alliance from a suitable bride. The relatives of the respondent responded to the advertisement and there was mutual consultation between the parties, which led to the marriage of the appellant with the respondent on 30-7-1979. After the marriage, the appellant and respondent stayed together for some period and thereafter, the appellant left India for United States. The respondent was asked to join him after having obtained the visa and completing other formalities. The respondent, after a period of six months, joined the appellant in United States. It appears that the marital life of the appellant and the respondent ran into rough whether from the very beginning of their stay in United States. There used to be occasional quarrel between the parties. A daughter, Sandhya, was born to them, on 10-6-1981. In 1982, the appellant, respondent and their daughter Sandhya came to India, but the appellant returned to United States in November, 1982 itself and the respondent joined him only in April, 1983. In January, 1985, the respondent along with her daughter returned to India and it seems that the misunderstanding between the parties deepened and ultimately the appellant filed application for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 alleging that after the solemnization of their marriage, the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty.
(3.)The respondent contested the proceedings and denied all the allegations made by the appellant in the petition and also made counter-allegations alleging that the appellant was responsible for wrecking the marriage. Parties on either side examined witnesses to substantiate their allegations. The learned Family Court Judge after assessing the rival contentions and the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondent had treated the appellant with mental cruelty and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to get a decree for dissolution of marriage. This was challenged by the respondent before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the decision of the Family Court holding that the appellant was at fault and he had been trying to take advantage of his own wrongs; hence, he was not entitled to get a decree in his favour in view of Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The judgment of the Division Bench is challenged before us.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.