MALATHI RAVI Vs. B.V. RAVI
LAWS(SC)-2014-6-21
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
June 30,2014
Malathi Ravi
Appellant
VERSUS
B.V. Ravi
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
LACHMAN UTAMCHAND KIRPALANI VS. MEENA ALIAS MOTA [REFERRED TO]SAVITRI PANDEY VS. PREM CHANDRA PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
G V N KAMESWARA RAO VS. G JABILLI [REFERRED TO]
PRANEEN MEHTA VS. INDERJIT MEHTA [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYKUMAR RAMCHANDRA BHATE VS. NEELA VIJAYKUMAR BHATE [REFERRED TO]
A JAYACHANDRA VS. ANEEL KAUR [REFERRED TO]
DURGA PRASANNA TRIPATHY VS. ARUNDHATI TRIPATHY [REFERRED TO]
NAVEEN KOHLI VS. NEELU KOHLI [REFERRED TO]
VINITA SAXENA VS. PANKAJ PANDIT [REFERRED TO]
SAMAR GHOSH VS. JAYA GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN KAPUR VS. SUDHIR KAPUR [REFERRED TO]
VISHWANATH SITARAM AGRAWAL VS. SARLA VISHWANATH AGRAWAL [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA GANGELE VS. SHAILENDRA KUMAR GANGELE [REFERRED TO]
K NARAYANAN VS. K SREEDEVI [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH VS. HARBANS KAUR [REFERRED TO]
U. SREE VS. U. SRINIVAS [REFERRED TO]
K. SRINIVAS RAO VS. D.A. DEEPA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
X VS. Y [LAWS(KER)-2021-5-131] [REFERRED TO]ASHUTOSH SARANGI VS. REETA DHARA [LAWS(ORI)-2015-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
APPLICATION WAS FILED VS. JAYA GHOSH [LAWS(ORI)-2019-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
C. SRIDHAR KIRAN VS. D. ANURADHA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-9-104] [REFERRED TO]
SUJOY GHOSH DASTIDAR VS. DAYITA GHOSH DASTIDAR [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-12-103] [REFERRED TO]
MEENU DEVI VS. AMIT KUMAR [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
DIGANTA DEKA VS. UPAMA DEKA [LAWS(GAU)-2016-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
M.J. SHIBIN VS. K.C. DIJI [LAWS(KER)-2017-8-118] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI SONI VS. MITHLESH SONI [LAWS(MPH)-2016-7-84] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK PARASHAR VS. NEHA PARASHAR [LAWS(MPH)-2023-1-100] [REFERRED TO]
SUBODH GUPTA S/O DR. HARISHANKER GUPTA VS. NEETU GUPTA W/O SUBODH GUPTA (RAUNIYAR) [LAWS(CHH)-2017-9-43] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANT KUMAR BARIK VS. DEEPANJALI BARIK [LAWS(CHH)-2015-8-48] [REFERRED]
SADHNA BAI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2016-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
PANATI MADHUSUDHANA REDDY VS. MADDALI RENUKA @ SUHASINI [LAWS(APH)-2015-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA PAL SINGH PAWAR VS. SMT. BALA [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-68] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR VS. PAVITRA GOWDA [LAWS(KAR)-2015-6-105] [REFERRED TO]
VIMAL KUMAR MISHRA S/O SHRI NARSINGH PRASAD MISHRA VS. SMT SAVITA W/O SH. VIMAL KUMAR MISHRA [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
MAHANTESH VS. SUJATA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-2-233] [REFERRED TO]
XXXXX VS. XXXXX [LAWS(KER)-2021-5-116] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITHRI W/O. S RAVINDRA REDDY VS. S.RAVINDRA REDDY [LAWS(KAR)-2017-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
GEETHA W/O MAHANTESH PATIL VS. MAHANTESH PATIL S/O V D PATIL [LAWS(KAR)-2016-9-54] [REFERRED]
VASIREDDY VS. VASIREDDY NAVEENA [LAWS(APH)-2015-9-84] [REFERRED TO]
PREMDEEP S/O. NISHIKANT MATLANE VS. MRS BHAVANA W/O. PREMDEEP MATLANE [LAWS(BOM)-2021-8-35] [REFERRED TO]
ANIRBAN GHOSH VS. SANCHITA GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-2017-12-198] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KUMAR SAINI VS. SHEETAL SAINI [LAWS(UTN)-2020-12-61] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL PAUL VS. NAMITA PAUL [LAWS(TRIP)-2021-3-41] [REFERRED TO]
ANUPAM GIRI VS. DIPMALA ROY [LAWS(TRIP)-2022-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
SWATI VS. ARVIND MUDGAL [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-214] [REFERRED TO]
BINA SARDAR VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-7-159] [REFERRED]
BANWARILAL S/O SHRIRAM SHARMA VS. LATA W/O BANWARILAL SHARMA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-11-63] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRANI SINHA, D/O LATE SHRI UTTAM SINGH SINHA VS. CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED, DAGANIYA, RAIPUR (C.G.) [LAWS(CHH)-2016-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH KUMAR PANDEY VS. SWATI PANDEY [LAWS(CHH)-2017-1-48] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVIN VIJAY PANPATIL VS. SUREKHA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-12-249] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VS. MANISHA SRIVASTAVA [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-314] [REFERRED TO]
RITA VASHISHTHA VS. ANIL KUMAR VASHISHTHA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-11-126] [REFERRED TO]
RITA VASHISHTHA VS. ANIL KUMAR VASHISHTHA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-11-126] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV MANGAL VS. RITU MANGAL [LAWS(MAD)-2017-7-50] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR NAIR VS. V. V. JAYA [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-374] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYA SUBRAMANIA VS. HARI SHANKAR DAS [LAWS(KER)-2017-7-77] [REFERRED TO]
RICHA VS. PRADHUMAN [LAWS(MPH)-2022-11-125] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. KIRAN PASI VS. SHRI SUBHASHCHANDRA PASI [LAWS(MPH)-2018-1-66] [REFERRED TO]
C. C. CHALUVARAJU VS. K. S. HEMALATHA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-1-35] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA RANI VS. SURINDER KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-623] [REFERRED TO]
SIVASANKARAN VS. SANTHIMEENAL [LAWS(SC)-2021-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI BIMLA VS. RUPESH KUMAR [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN PASI VS. SUBHASHCHANDRA PASI [LAWS(MPH)-2018-1-262] [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]
DEEPAK PADHI VS. GAYATRI PANDA [LAWS(ORI)-2023-11-74] [REFERRED TO]
URVIBEN JITENDRA DAVE VS. JITENDRA BIPINCHANDRA DAVE [LAWS(GJH)-2015-7-240] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. AMINA KUDCHADKAR, ALIAS AMINA NEVREKAR VS. DR. AMIT DILIP KUDCHADKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2018-6-221] [REFERRED TO]
PYLA SREERANGANAYAKULU VS. PYLA RATNAM [LAWS(APH)-2015-4-32] [REFERRED TO]
RANJAN BARUAH VS. SHRAVANI KHOUND BARUAH [LAWS(GAU)-2023-9-58] [REFERRED TO]
GULJARILAL VS. GENDA BAI [LAWS(MPH)-2015-4-34] [REFERRED TO]
C.R. SWAMY VS. M.V. LEELAVATHI [LAWS(KAR)-2022-11-865] [REFERRED TO]
RENUKA VS. SANGAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-12-249] [REFERRED TO]
BASANT KUMAR SON OF KHUMAN SINGH @ KHUBCHAND, PATWA VS. SMT BHAGWATI DAUGHTER OF NANDLALA (WIFE OF BASAND KUMAR) [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-2-306] [REFERRED TO]
SOM KUMAR BAHIDAR VS. SMT. JYOTI [LAWS(CHH)-2017-9-62] [REFERRED TO]
DEVASHISH SARKAR VS. SUPARNA SARKAR [LAWS(CHH)-2018-5-63] [REFERRED TO]
MANISHA SRIVASTAVA VS. ROHIT SRIVASTAVA [LAWS(ALL)-2015-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
SH. JANAK SINGH VS. SMT. RENU KUMARI [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-76] [REFERRED TO]
ALPANA @ UMA CHOUDHURY VS. ALOKE CHOUDHURY [LAWS(CAL)-2016-1-130] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN RAO VS. S. MEENA KUMARI [LAWS(CAL)-2016-3-80] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH PRASAD TANWAR SON OF SHRI LAXMAN SINGH TANWAR VS. KASTURI DEVI WIFE OF JAGDISH PRASAD TANWAR [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-8-83] [REFERRED TO]
DR. NARESH AGARWAL VS. SMT. PALLAVI [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
K.N. LAKSHMINARAYAN VS. K.J. KAMAKSHI [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-339] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KOTWAL VS. ANJU KOTWAL [LAWS(P&H)-2017-4-50] [REFERRED TO]
BIRLA CORPORATION LTD. VS. BHUPEN HALDER [LAWS(CAL)-2015-6-126] [REFERRED]
SUBHRANSU SARKAR VS. INDRANI SARKAR (DAS) [LAWS(CAL)-2016-12-63] [REFERRED TO]
M/S VAJRA CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED VS. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(PAT)-2015-11-98] [REFERRED]
MAJOR SUMIT JOSHI VS. ADITI SHARMA [LAWS(P&H)-2023-4-57] [REFERRED TO]
MUDIREDDY DONTIREDDY VIJAYA LAXMI VS. MUDIREDDY YADAGIRI REDDY [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-7-208] [REFERRED TO]
MR. AJAY RAMRAO CHAVAN VS. MRS. SAMPADA AJAY CHAVAN [LAWS(BOM)-2017-10-236] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA PANDEY AND ORS. VS. COAL INDIA LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2016-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
NISHA SONI VS. MUKESH SONI [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-223] [REFERRED TO]
SUGUNA VS. KUBENDIRAN [LAWS(MAD)-2017-1-154] [REFERRED TO]
VALLABHI VS. R.RAJASABHAI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-11-78] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMVEER SINGH VS. LAJWANTI DEVI [LAWS(UTN)-2020-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. GEETA D/O SHRI MANGAL SINGH W/O RAGHUVEER SINGH VS. RAGHUVEER SINGH S/O SHRI CHUTTAN LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-146] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN CHOURAVSIYA VS. MANOJ CHOURASIYA [LAWS(MPH)-2016-3-198] [REFERRED TO]
NIKHILESH UPADHYAY VS. MANISHA UPADHYAY [LAWS(MPH)-2015-3-121] [REFERRED TO]
R BALASUBRAMANIAN VS. S NAMBI [LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-68] [REFERRED TO]
KARNA & ORS. VS. M. JOTHISORUPAN [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-968] [REFERRED TO]
DR.-X HUSBAND VS. DR.-Y WIFE [LAWS(BOM)-2016-1-38] [REFERRED TO]
JAYASHRI UMESH KITUKALE VS. UMESH BHASKARRAO KITUKALE [LAWS(BOM)-2016-10-122] [REFERRED TO]
DASARI RAJYALAKKSHMI VS. DASARI CHENNAKESWERARAO [LAWS(APH)-2015-3-98] [REFERRED TO]
KAMANA VENKATA SURESH KUMAR VS. KAMANA ANUSHA [LAWS(APH)-2023-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
DUMESHWARI VS. DEVENDRA KUMAR DEWANGAN [LAWS(CHH)-2019-10-115] [REFERRED TO]
MRS. CHRISTINE LAZARUS MENEZES VS. MR. LAZARUS PETER MENEZES [LAWS(BOM)-2017-4-140] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Marriage as a social institution is an affirmance of civilized social order where two individuals, capable of entering into wedlock, have pledged themselves to the institutional norms and values and promised to each other a cemented bond to sustain and maintain the marital obligation. It stands as an embodiment for continuance of the human race. Despite the pledge and promises, on certain occasions, individual incompatibilities, attitudinal differences based upon egocentric perception of situations, maladjustment phenomenon or propensity for non-adjustment or refusal for adjustment gets eminently projected that compels both the spouses to take intolerable positions abandoning individual responsibility, proclivity of asserting superiority complex, betrayal of trust which is the cornerstone of life, and sometimes a pervert sense of revenge, a dreadful diet, or sheer sense of envy bring the cracks in the relationship when either both the spouses or one of the spouses crave for dissolution of marriage-freedom from the institutional and individual bond. The case at hand initiated by the husband for dissolution of marriage was viewed from a different perspective by the learned Family Court Judge who declined to grant divorce as the factum of desertion as requisite in law was not proved but the High Court, considering certain facts and taking note of subsequent events for which the Appellant was found responsible, granted divorce. The High Court perceived the acts of the Appellant as a reflection of attitude of revenge in marriage or for vengeance after the reunion pursuant to the decree for restitution of marriage. The justifiability of the said analysis within the parameters of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity "the Act") is the subject-matter of assail in this appeal, by special leave, wherein the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2009 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in MFA No. 9164 of 2004 reversing the decree for restitution of conjugal rights granted in favour of the wife and passing a decree for dissolution of marriage by way of divorce allowing the petition preferred by the Respondent-husband, is called in question.
(3.)The Respondent-husband, an Associate Professor in Ambedkar Medical College, Kadugondanahalli, Bangalore, filed a petition, M.S. No. 5 of 2001 Under Section 13(1) the Act seeking for a decree for judicial separation and dissolution of marriage. However, in course of the proceeding the petition was amended abandoning the prayer for judicial separation and converting the petition to one Under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage by way of divorce.
(2.)Marriage as a social institution is an affirmance of civilized social order where two individuals, capable of entering into wedlock, have pledged themselves to the institutional norms and values and promised to each other a cemented bond to sustain and maintain the marital obligation. It stands as an embodiment for continuance of the human race. Despite the pledge and promises, on certain occasions, individual incompatibilities, attitudinal differences based upon egocentric perception of situations, maladjustment phenomenon or propensity for non-adjustment or refusal for adjustment gets eminently projected that compels both the spouses to take intolerable positions abandoning individual responsibility, proclivity of asserting superiority complex, betrayal of trust which is the cornerstone of life, and sometimes a pervert sense of revenge, a dreadful diet, or sheer sense of envy bring the cracks in the relationship when either both the spouses or one of the spouses crave for dissolution of marriage-freedom from the institutional and individual bond. The case at hand initiated by the husband for dissolution of marriage was viewed from a different perspective by the learned Family Court Judge who declined to grant divorce as the factum of desertion as requisite in law was not proved but the High Court, considering certain facts and taking note of subsequent events for which the Appellant was found responsible, granted divorce. The High Court perceived the acts of the Appellant as a reflection of attitude of revenge in marriage or for vengeance after the reunion pursuant to the decree for restitution of marriage. The justifiability of the said analysis within the parameters of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity "the Act") is the subject-matter of assail in this appeal, by special leave, wherein the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2009 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in MFA No. 9164 of 2004 reversing the decree for restitution of conjugal rights granted in favour of the wife and passing a decree for dissolution of marriage by way of divorce allowing the petition preferred by the Respondent-husband, is called in question.
(3.)The Respondent-husband, an Associate Professor in Ambedkar Medical College, Kadugondanahalli, Bangalore, filed a petition, M.S. No. 5 of 2001 Under Section 13(1) the Act seeking for a decree for judicial separation and dissolution of marriage. However, in course of the proceeding the petition was amended abandoning the prayer for judicial separation and converting the petition to one Under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage by way of divorce.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.