1998 JTR(SC) 109
1999 AIR(SC) 595 ; 1998 AIR(SCW) 3885 ; 1998 2 AllCJ 899 ; 1998 33 AllLR 593 ; 1998 2 APLJ 27 ; 1998 3 AWC 2024 ; 1998 3 BomCR(SC) 643 ; 1998 1 CTC 629 ; 1998 DNJ 254 ; 1998 4 JT 312 ; 1998 2 MLJ 123 ; 1998 1 OLR 516 ; 1998 3 RLW(Raj) 415 ; 1998 3 SCC 112 ; 1998 2 SLJ 1254 ; 1998 2 SLR 721 ; 1999 KHC 1600
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. M. Punchhi, CJI., K. T. Thomas, M Srinivasan, JJ.
T. SRINIVASAN, APPELLANT
Versus
T. VARALAKSHMI (MRS.), RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeals Nos. 4904-05 of 1990,
decided on January 22, 1998.
Obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights without the intention to obey it, and actively preventing the spouse from joining, constitutes uncondonable misconduct under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, barring relief under Section 13(1-A).
Act
Referred
:HINDU MARRIAGE ACT
: S.23(1)(a), S.13(1)(a)(ii)
(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 23(1)(a) and Section 13(1-A) - Restitution of conjugal rights - Husband obtained decree for restitution but refused to allow wife to join him and drove her away - Such acts constitute positive wrongs amounting to "misconduct" which is uncondonable - Relief under Section 13(1-A) rightly denied. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
The husband obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. However, instead of obeying the decree, he refused to allow the wife to enter the house and drove her and her relatives away when they attempted to rehabilitate her.
Findings of Court:
The husband's actions were positive wrongs amounting to "misconduct" under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and were uncondonable.
Issues: Whether the husband's conduct in refusing to allow the wife to join him despite obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights amounted to misconduct under Section 23(1)(a), thereby barring relief under Section 13(1-A).
Ratio Decidendi: Obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights not to act in obedience thereof, but to keep the spouse deprived of the right to perform conjugal duties, constitutes uncondonable misconduct under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which disentitles the party to relief under Section 13(1-A).
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Facts of the case:
The husband obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. However, instead of obeying the decree, he refused to allow the wife to enter the house and drove her and her relatives away when they attempted to rehabilitate her.
Findings of Court:
The husband's actions were positive wrongs amounting to "misconduct" under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and were uncondonable.
Issues: Whether the husband's conduct in refusing to allow the wife to join him despite obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights amounted to misconduct under Section 23(1)(a), thereby barring relief under Section 13(1-A).
Ratio Decidendi: Obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights not to act in obedience thereof, but to keep the spouse deprived of the right to perform conjugal duties, constitutes uncondonable misconduct under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which disentitles the party to relief under Section 13(1-A).
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. The finding recorded by the courts below is that the husband obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights not to act in obedience thereof but, on the other hand, to keep the wife deprived of her right to perform her conjugal duties. The wife made a demand of the husband to let her join him but he refused to allow her enter the house, rather he drove her away as also her relatives, whoever attempted to rehabilitate the wife. These acts of the husband were positive wrongs amounting to "misconduct", uncondonable for the purposes of Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Hence, he was rightly denied relief under Section 13(1-A) of the said Act. The appeals, therefore, fail and are hereby dismissed.
2. It is stated by learned counsel for the respondent that a sum of Rs. 3000 lies deposited with the Registry towards costs of these appeals. Learned counsel says that the same be remitted to the wife-respondent directly by the Registry. It is so ordered.