K.SRINIVAS Vs. K.SUNITA
LAWS(SC)-2014-11-31
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on
November 19,2014
K.SRINIVAS
Appellant
VERSUS
K.Sunita
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
RAMESHWAR PRASAD VS. SMT. SUGNA DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-60] [REFERRED TO]KAKULI MITRA VS. PRABIR KUMAR NAG [LAWS(CAL)-2020-1-68] [REFERRED TO]
K GANGATHARAN VS. SORNASUNDARI [LAWS(MAD)-2018-10-576] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY NARAYAN DAS, SON OF UPENDRA NARAYAN DAS VS. ASHA DEVI, WIFE OF AJAY NARAYAN DAS [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
SMT EKTA DEVI VS. BIJAY KUMAR KYAL [LAWS(PAT)-2016-11-91] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA KUMARI @ REKHA DEVI AND ORS. VS. MAHESH KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2018-1-271] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KR. BABBAR VS. SEEMA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-9-148] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH BHOYALE VS. MAHADEVI [LAWS(MPH)-2022-3-166] [REFERRED TO]
KULJIT SINGH VS. MEENA KUMARI SAINI [LAWS(P&H)-2022-2-45] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR JHA VS. NILAM JHA [LAWS(GAU)-2019-9-61] [REFERRED TO]
MANGESH BALKRUSHNA BHOIR VS. SAU. LEENA MANGESH BHOIR [LAWS(BOM)-2015-12-84] [REFERRED TO]
MANGESH BALKRUSHNA BHOIR VS. SAU. LEENA MANGESH BHOIR [LAWS(BOM)-2015-12-84] [REFERRED TO]
ANSHUL JAIN VS. NITIN JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2023-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
LEELAMMA, N.P. VS. MONI, M.A. [LAWS(KER)-2017-4-53] [REFERRED TO]
C. SRIDHAR KIRAN VS. D. ANURADHA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-9-104] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY CHOUDHARY @ SANJAY JAISWAL SON OF MAHENDRA PRASAD @ JAISWAL @ MAHENDRA CHOUDHARY R/O TARAPUR (RAJGURU), P.S. TARAPUR, DISTRICT MUNGER VS. ANJALI DEVI WIFE OF SANJAY CHOUDHARY @ SANJAY JAISWAL, D/O RAM PRASAD CHOUDHARY R/O RAJGURU TARAPUR, P.S. TARAPUR, DISTRICT MUNGER, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE PUPARI, P.S. PUPARI, DISTRICT MUNGER [LAWS(PAT)-2016-12-34] [RELIED ON]
HEMLATA SEVTA, W/O DINESH SEVTA VS. DINESH SEVTA, S/O LATE FATTESINGH SEVTA [LAWS(CHH)-2018-11-121] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRAJ JAIN VS. SHOBHINI GUPTA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-2-166] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT KUMAR JHA VS. SADHNA JHA [LAWS(MPH)-2024-1-169] [REFERRED TO]
VASUNDHARA W/O GAUTAM PATARE VS. GAUTAM S/O KESHAV PATARE [LAWS(BOM)-2018-10-121] [REFERRED TO]
KIRTI SHARMA VS. A D J COURT NO 1 AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-568] [REFERRED]
K S SHANKAR VS. K JYOTHI [LAWS(KAR)-2019-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
R. SEENU VS. N. PORKODI [LAWS(MAD)-2017-11-366] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH SHETTY VS. AMEETA SHETTY [LAWS(BOM)-2020-3-63] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVIN VIJAY PANPATIL VS. SUREKHA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-12-249] [REFERRED TO]
NAND LAL DEWANGAN VS. SHASHI DEWANGAN [LAWS(CHH)-2021-10-81] [REFERRED TO]
SADHNA SINGH (SADHNA JANA) WIFE OF JAGATPAL SINGH VS. JAGATPAL SINGH, SON OF RAMDAS SINGH [LAWS(CHH)-2020-2-216] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA SHRIVAS VS. BHAGWAT SHRIVAS [LAWS(CHH)-2019-1-94] [REFERRED TO]
ANJAN BHATTACHARYA VS. LATIKA ARPITA BHATTACHARYA [LAWS(CHH)-2019-7-199] [REFERRED TO]
RITESH BABBAR VS. KIRAN BABBAR [LAWS(DLH)-2022-3-78] [REFERRED TO]
RICHA VS. PRADHUMAN [LAWS(MPH)-2022-11-125] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH VS. SAU. CHITRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-11-76] [REFERRED TO]
SATBIR SINGH VS. KAMLESH [LAWS(P&H)-2015-1-452] [REFERRED TO]
AMARJEET SINGH VS. VIJAY LAXMI [LAWS(HPH)-2016-8-105] [REFERRED]
VEENA VS. NAVEEN [LAWS(P&H)-2021-9-64] [REFERRED TO]
DEVESH YADAV VS. MEENAL [LAWS(P&H)-2022-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
C.SIVAKUMAR VS. A.SRIVIDHYA [LAWS(MAD)-2022-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR VASTRAKAR VS. DHANESHWARI VASTRAKAR [LAWS(CHH)-2019-9-112] [REFERRED TO]
NAUSHAD HUSSAIN VS. RAZIA [LAWS(UTN)-2017-10-50] [REFERRED TO]
SNEHA PANDIT VS. TARUN PANDIT [LAWS(ALL)-2022-9-164] [REFERRED TO]
REETA VS. E PREM KUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-589] [REFERRED TO]
S RAMILA VS. E SRINIVASAN [LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-354] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI BIMLA VS. RUPESH KUMAR [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
MINABEN W/O NITINKUMAR MUKUNDRAI RAVAL D/O BHANUSHANKAR JOSHI VS. NITINKUMAR MUKUNDRAI RAVAL [LAWS(GJH)-2018-12-81] [REFERRED TO]
KARUNA @ VISHAKHA W/O ABHAYRAJ HANMANTE VS. ABHAYRAJ S/O SHANKAR HANMANTE [LAWS(BOM)-2017-10-225] [REFERRED TO]
DR.-X HUSBAND VS. DR.-Y WIFE [LAWS(BOM)-2016-1-38] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KR JHA VS. NILAM JHA [LAWS(GAU)-2019-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA KUMAR SHARMA VS. ANITA DEVI [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-7-50] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR VS. POONAM [LAWS(UTN)-2017-12-54] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK JHA VS. PRATIBHA JHA [LAWS(ALL)-2023-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
NUTHALAPATI SRINVIAS VS. NUTHALAPATI SUMA [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK VS. RADHA RANI [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-148] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR S/O SHYAM LAL THAKUR VS. SMT. SARSWATI THAKUR, W/O RAKESH THAKUR [LAWS(CHH)-2017-12-46] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK GANGARAM AHIRRAO VS. SUNITA DEEPAK AHIRRAO [LAWS(BOM)-2019-8-157] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVANAND VS. NAGUBAI [LAWS(KAR)-2023-6-226] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY DAS @ SANJAY KUMAR VERMA VS. GEETA DEVI @ SANGITA DEVI [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-7-77] [REFERRED TO]
GAUTAM MAHANTY VS. JAYSHREE MAHANTY [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-2-35] [REFERRED TO]
TARUN MAHANT VS. SURABHI MAHANT [LAWS(HPH)-2018-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
DR. MANIMARAN VS. DR. NALINI [LAWS(MAD)-2017-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
C.M.SURESH VS. HEMAMALINI [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-178] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL YASHWANT KARANDE VS. MANGAL ANIL KARANDE [LAWS(BOM)-2015-12-83] [REFERRED TO]
SUCHITRA KUMAR SINGHA ROY VS. ARPITA SINGHA ROY [LAWS(CAL)-2020-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK S/O KAILASH SHUKLA VS. MINAL W/O VIVEK SHUKLA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-9-270] [REFERRED TO]
ACJ VS. RJ [LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-92] [REFERRED TO]
X VS. Y [LAWS(DLH)-2022-3-99] [REFERRED TO]
SARITA VS. GOURAV [LAWS(MPH)-2022-8-113] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN C. VS. LATHA T.G. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
ROHIN KUMAR VS. SILVIA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-484] [REFERRED TO]
ANU SETH VS. SUNIL SETH [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-58] [REFERRED TO]
URMILA DEVI VS. UMA SHANKAR [LAWS(DLH)-2023-12-77] [REFERRED TO]
NEHA SOHIL SHARMA VS. SOHIL RAMLUBHAYA SHARMA [LAWS(CHH)-2017-9-58] [REFERRED TO]
GORELAL SWARNKAR VS. MOHINI DEVI SWARNKAR [LAWS(CHH)-2020-1-153] [REFERRED TO]
RATANDEEP SINGH AHUJA VS. HARPREET KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2022-10-127] [REFERRED TO]
SARITA VS. VIKAS KANAUJIA [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-116] [REFERRED TO]
SHEEL KUMARI VS. ASHARAM [LAWS(MPH)-2016-7-76] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)In this Appeal, counsel for the Appellant has sought to draw our attention to all the arguments that had been addressed before the High Court on behalf of the Appellant-Husband in support of his claim for dissolution of his marriage to the Respondent by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. We have, however, restricted him to the ground of alleged cruelty on account of the filing of a criminal complaint by the Respondent against the Appellant and several members of his family under Sections 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). We did this for the reason that if this ground is successfully substantiated by the Petitioner, we need not delve any further i.e. whether a marriage can be dissolved by the Trial Court or the High Court on the premise that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. This nature of cruelty, in the wake of filing of a false criminal case by either of the spouses, has been agitated frequently before this Court, and has been discussed so comprehensively and thoroughly that yet another Judgment on this well-settled question of law, would be merely a waste of time. A complete discourse and analysis on this issue is available in a well- reasoned judgment in K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa, 2013 5 SCC 226, in which numerous decisions have been cited and discussed. It is now beyond cavil that if a false criminal complaint is preferred by either spouse it would invariably and indubitably constitute matrimonial cruelty, such as would entitle the other spouse to claim a divorce.
(2.)The marriage of the parties was celebrated according to Hindu rites at Hyderabad on 11th February, 1989. A male child was born to the parties on 8th May, 1991, after which the Respondent-Wife, as per her pleadings, started suffering from Sheehan's syndrome. On the night of 29th/30th June, 1995, the Respondent left the matrimonial house and ever since then she has been living with her brother, who is a senior IAS officer. On 14th July, 1995, the Appellant filed an original petition praying for divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as of the irretrievable breakdown of their marriage. The Respondent-Wife retorted by filing a criminal complaint against the Appellant as well as seven members of his family for offences under Section 307 read with Sections 34, 148A, 384, 324 of the IPC, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is pursuant to this complaint that the Appellant-Husband and seven of his family members were arrested and incarcerated. The Respondent-Wife also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. On 30th June, 2000, the Learned Vth Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, acquitted the Appellant and his family members, and this Order has attained finality. Meanwhile, by its Judgment dated 30th December, 1999, the Family Court at Hyderabad, granted a divorce to the Appellant on the ground of cruelty as also irretrievable breakdown of marriage; it rejected the Respondent's petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Respondent-Wife successfully appealed against the said Judgment in the High Court, and it is this Order dated 7th November, 2005 that is impugned before us.
(3.)Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce has not found statutory acceptance till date. Under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has plenary powers "to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any case or order pending before it". This power, however, has not been bestowed by our Constitution on any other Court. It is for these reasons that we have confined arguments only to the aspect of whether the filing of a false criminal complaint sufficiently proves matrimonial cruelty as would entitle the injured party to claim dissolution of marriage. It will be relevant to mention that the Law Commission of India in its Reports in 1978 as well as in 2009 has recommended the introduction of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for dissolution of marriage; the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill of 2013 incorporating the ground has even received the assent of the Rajya Sabha. It is, however, highly debatable whether, in the Indian situation, where there is rampant oppression of women, such a ground would at all be expedient. But that controversy will be considered by the Lok Sabha.
(2.)The marriage of the parties was celebrated according to Hindu rites at Hyderabad on 11th February, 1989. A male child was born to the parties on 8th May, 1991, after which the Respondent-Wife, as per her pleadings, started suffering from Sheehan's syndrome. On the night of 29th/30th June, 1995, the Respondent left the matrimonial house and ever since then she has been living with her brother, who is a senior IAS officer. On 14th July, 1995, the Appellant filed an original petition praying for divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as of the irretrievable breakdown of their marriage. The Respondent-Wife retorted by filing a criminal complaint against the Appellant as well as seven members of his family for offences under Section 307 read with Sections 34, 148A, 384, 324 of the IPC, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is pursuant to this complaint that the Appellant-Husband and seven of his family members were arrested and incarcerated. The Respondent-Wife also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. On 30th June, 2000, the Learned Vth Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, acquitted the Appellant and his family members, and this Order has attained finality. Meanwhile, by its Judgment dated 30th December, 1999, the Family Court at Hyderabad, granted a divorce to the Appellant on the ground of cruelty as also irretrievable breakdown of marriage; it rejected the Respondent's petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Respondent-Wife successfully appealed against the said Judgment in the High Court, and it is this Order dated 7th November, 2005 that is impugned before us.
(3.)Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce has not found statutory acceptance till date. Under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has plenary powers "to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any case or order pending before it". This power, however, has not been bestowed by our Constitution on any other Court. It is for these reasons that we have confined arguments only to the aspect of whether the filing of a false criminal complaint sufficiently proves matrimonial cruelty as would entitle the injured party to claim dissolution of marriage. It will be relevant to mention that the Law Commission of India in its Reports in 1978 as well as in 2009 has recommended the introduction of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for dissolution of marriage; the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill of 2013 incorporating the ground has even received the assent of the Rajya Sabha. It is, however, highly debatable whether, in the Indian situation, where there is rampant oppression of women, such a ground would at all be expedient. But that controversy will be considered by the Lok Sabha.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.