Open Access Research Article
CASE ANALYSIS – SATENDRA KUMAR GUPTA V. KANCHAN GUPTA 2015 (112) ALR 382 – By K Chakra Pani
Published Paper
Article Details
CASE
ANALYSIS – SATENDRA KUMAR GUPTA V. KANCHAN GUPTA 2015 (112) ALR 382.
Authored By
- K Chakra Pani,
B.A.
L.L.B. (Hons.), School of Law
,
CHRIST (Deemed to be University)
,
Bengaluru (Karnataka)
CONCISE
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case was
filed as an appeal to the Allahabad High Court by the Plaintiff, or the
husband, against the Family Court’s order, which dismissed the suit filed by
the appellant under Section 13 of the Act.
The marriage was
solemnized between the two parties on 10 December 1999. The Respondent stayed
at the Appellant’s house for a few days and was refusing to cohabit with the
Appellant. The Respondent was very cruel towards the Appellant and his family
members. The Respondent became pregnant during this period and did not want to
give birth at this stage and insisted on her going to her parents’ house. The
Appellant and his family members feared that under her excuse, she would try to
abort the child and thus, tried to keep her at his home. This resulted in increased
cruel and abusive behaviour towards the Appellant’s family and an increase in
quarrels. Finally, the Respondent went to her parents’ house on Raksha Bandhan
along with all cash and jewellery.
The Appellant
requested the Respondent to come back to his house, but she refused, leading to
the Appellant sending a notice to the Respondent. The Respondent did not reply
to the notice, and later sent a wrong reply to the Appellant. The Respondent
refused to come back to the in-laws’ house and thus, filed a frivolous suit in
the Family Court on false allegations of demand for dowry. The Appellant and
family members were summoned to the Police Station for questioning, leading to
harassment by the police. This caused intense mental and physical torture to the
Appellant and his family members. It was forced to agree to keep the Respondent
in the Appellant’s house. But the Respondent did not come to the Appellant’s
house, and instead, filed a suit for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CrPC’).
The Appellant
was pressurized to invite the Respondent to his brothers’ marriages. The
Respondent came but left back to her parents’ house immediately after the
marriage. After returning to the Appellant’s house, she used abusive language
with the Appellant’s family and refused to cohabit. After some time, she again
left for her parents; house and filed a case against the Appellant and family
members. This caused the utmost mental and physical cruelty to the Appellant
and his family members. Thus, as a last resort and the only solution available,
the Appellant filed a suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Act.
The Respondent,
in her written statement, denied all allegations. The Respondent alleged that
immediately after the marriage, the Appellant was very cruel to her and that he
had demanded an Indica car, which could not be given due to her inability. Due
to this, the Appellant assaulted her. The Respondent never refused to cohabit
with the Appellant, and contrastingly, the Appellant and his family members
were forcing the Respondent to abort during pregnancy. She finally gave birth
to a male child in her parents’ house on 26 October 2000. Even on invitation by
the Respondent, the Appellant and his family members refused to see the child.
The Respondent
had given an Indica to the Appellant after marriage, but the Appellant sold the
car and illegally demanded an Indica car by issuing a wrong notice to the
Respondent. The Appellant and his family members were very cruel towards the
Respondent, intending to break the marriage. The Appellant wanted to commit to
a second marriage by taking a divorce under frivolous conditions for the
existing marriage. This caused the Respondent to file a case before the Family
Court, along with a maintenance suit. The Family Court ordering the Appellant
to restrain from performing second marriage annoyed him and his family members
and threatened the Respondent with dire consequences. For her safety, the
Respondent filed a complaint at the police station, where an amicable
settlement was arrived between the parties. The Respondent was coerced to
submit that the allegations against the Respondent were false.
ISSUES
IDENTIFIED BY THE COURT
1. Whether
the behaviour of the defendant is so cruel to the plaintiff that he cannot live
with the defendant?
2. Whether
the defendant has deserted the plaintiff without any reasonable ground?
3. Whether
the Plaintiff and his family members are harassing the defendant over the
demand for dowry?
4. Whether
the Plaintiff and his family members inflicted so much cruelty on the defendant
that it is not possible to live together?
5. Whether
the Respondent is entitled to maintenance for herself and her child?
LAWS APPLIED BY THE COURT
The Allahabad High Court referred to, examined, and analysed Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 along with its provisions and clauses,
which provides for divorce under various grounds. The case filed was for
divorce alleging cruelty and desertion.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT AND DECISION TAKEN
The Court, after considering all the evidence produced by both parties,
dismissed the appeal by the appellant and thus, upheld the decision of the
Family Court, which ordered for providing maintenance of Rs. 7000, which is,
Rs. 3500 each to the mother and the child, per month. It was held by the Court
that the evidence provided by the Appellant to support his case was based on
surmises and assumptions, and thus, could not be considered supporting
evidence, and the reliance on such evidence could not be satisfied by the
Appellant on the Court. The Court held that there were only allegations of
cruelty by the Respondent on the Appellant and his family members, but the
evidence displayed could not substantially support the allegations. The Court
held that the Respondent placed satisfactory evidence to support the evidence
of cruelty inflicted by the Appellant and his family members. The proof of
police complaint and other documentary and oral evidence was placed before the
Court to support the case. This led to the Court being satisfied with the
evidence supplied by the Respondent, thus dismissing the appeal.
The Court examined whether the conditions for ‘cruelty’ as per Section 13
of the Act were satisfied by the Appellant when he was allegedly inflicting the
same on the Respondent, or vice versa, as it Is alleged by both parties about
the same. The Court observed that the Appellant has failed miserably to provide
satisfactory evidence and proof to establish cruelty being inflicted by the
Respondent. The Respondent alleged that she was treated harshly by the
Appellant and his family and was left with no option but forced to file
criminal and civil suits against the Appellant to protect herself from further
harassment and consequences. The Appellant did not take sufficient steps to
bring the Respondent back to the house if he intended to do the same. There is
also no application for Restitution of Conjugal Rights filed by the Appellant
under Section 9 of the Act. The Court held that the Appellant failed to prove
the factum of mental cruelty. And with regards to physical cruelty, the
Appellant failed to provide any evidence and facts that prove the same, thus it
was left un-interfered and ultimately dismissed by the Court.
It was submitted by the Appellant that the relationship between him and
the Respondent had been strained so much, along with the fact that they stayed
separately for so long, that it is virtually impossible for the parties to live
jointly and has reached an irrevocable point. The Court rejected this argument
and observed that the party at fault cannot file a suit for divorce due to the
irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The Court relied on the judgements of Vishnu
Dutt Sharma v. Manju Sharma[1], Ram
Babu Babeley v. Smt. Sandhya[2], and
Dr. Tara Charan Agarwal v. Smt. Veena Agarwal[3].
In Ram Babu Babeley v. Smt. Sandhya, the Court observed that ‘The
irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce by itself. But
while scrutinizing the evidence on record to determine whether the grounds on
which divorce is sought are made out, this circumstance can be taken into
consideration.’ It further referred to Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chand Pandey[4] and
V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat[5],
where the Supreme Court took a similar holding. ‘No divorce can be granted on
the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage if the party seeking divorce
on this ground is himself, or herself, at fault for the above breakdown.’
The Court also observed that a decree of divorce can be granted that
marriage was irretrievably broken down where the relationship between the
parties is practically dead and cannot live together[6],
and in cases where the conduct of one party was so painful for the other party
that it is not expected to live with the offending party[7].
In Dr. Tara Charan (Supra), the Court opined that the appellant cannot
take advantage of their fault.
A clear reading of Section 13 of the Act does not provide for an
‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ as a ground for divorce, although other
grounds like cruelty, adultery, desertion, etc. The Court cannot decide to add
the above grounds as a new ground for divorce, which results in amending the
Act, a function of the legislature. The Supreme Court, however, recommended the
amendment to Section 13 of the Act in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli[8].
Thus, on the above observations and lack of substance in the Appellant’s
arguments, the Court dismissed the Appeal. The Appellant approached the Supreme
Court, challenging the dismissal of the suit by the High Court. But the suit
was barred by limitation i.e., the time period for filing the suit was
completed, and the suit was dismissed.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
Marriage, especially in Indian society, is a unique special event in a
person’s life. The institution of marriage holds great significance in India.
It is a sacrament, a social obligation, and its essence is upheld by both, the
family, and the society. Just like how marriage is placed on a higher pedestal,
the concept of divorce is also considered important, but not in the same
essence. It is a taboo, that is, divorce signifies the break of a significant
bond committed by two people towards each other. When a person is divorced,
theoretically it does not make much difference, except in the category of
marital status. But socially, society views it as a change in the perception
towards the divorced person. The person is socially excluded, intentionally or
unintentionally, by society. The status imposed upon them makes them feel
‘socially’ uncomfortable. To avoid this, there is every possible attempt,
effort, and endeavour to preserve the sanctity of marriage, so that two lives
can live happily together. But there are circumstances where the people in a
marriage are not happy together, due to the behaviour of either party on
another, due to interference of external parties, etc. This affects the
aggrieved party mentally, physically, emotionally, financially, and socially.
And in Indian society, it is viewed, and assumed, that the aggrieved party is
the wife, due to the predominant culture of patriarchy invisibly ruling in our
actions, traditions, and mindsets. Just because the wife must ‘preserve the
sanctity’ of her marriage, it does not restrict her ability to avail remedy in
significantly disturbing or ‘marriage-affecting’ circumstances, like cruelty,
desertion, adultery, bigamy, etc. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 gives relief
under various grounds for a claim for divorce, but this is to be seen as the
last option by the party, where there is no turning back and the situation is
glaringly disturbing that it is impossible to sustain the marriage. Thus,
Section 13 must be exercised with caution and only when significant grounds
along with satisfactory evidence are available.
The Court has rightly decided in the above case, holding that an
‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ is not a ground for divorce. Divorce may
be filed on grounds mentioned in the Act, but a new ground cannot be claimed by
the party, nor can the Court insert a new ground in the legislation. The ground
of ‘cruelty’ under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act includes many acts, which may
be mental, physical, or of any nature. These acts must be considered together
and not separately. A single act of violence, when considered with other minor
acts, can constitute cruelty. In this case, the proof of the Appellant kicking
the Respondent out of the house without clothes, although a single act of
violence or humiliation, if considered with eh previous and subsequent minor acts
inflicted on her, can be strong proof for proving cruelty.
The ground of mental cruelty, as considered valid by the Court, can be a
valid ground for divorce, as rightly decided in this case. When the conduct of
the spouse shows instances of ill-treatment, and abusive language and uses
language which demoralises the spouse, causing mental agony and stress, it is
proved to be mental cruelty. It can be seen from the facts, and it is also
proved in the Respondent’s case that the Appellant and his family members had
used abusive language towards her, without any reason, but intending to break
the marriage and unhappiness of the existing marriage. Thus, the Court has
rightly upheld another component for proving mental cruelty as a ground for
divorce.
While considering the factor of cruelty, it is to be seen by the Court
whether the facts, along with the evidence submitted, tilt towards favouring
which side of the cruelty it is being alleged. In Mohini Chawla v. Subhash
Chander Chawla[9], the
Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a spouse repeatedly, without any
justification and deliberately, refused conjugal relations and sexual
intercourse, though the other spouse had the intention of motherly instinct and
readiness of bearing a child, amounts to mental cruelty. In the present case,
the Respondent was willing to cohabit with the Appellant but was repeatedly
denied for unknown and deliberate reasons, which resulted in even more
infliction of cruelty and abuse by the Appellant and the family members on the
Respondent.
There were also instances of demand for dowry by the Appellant and his
family members on the Respondent, that is, through a demand for a Tata Indica
car. The said demand was met before the marriage was held. But it was alleged
that the Appellant and family members had illegally sold the car and were
unlawfully demanding another car from the Respondent. The Supreme Court, in the
landmark and significant judgement of Shoba Rani v. Madhukar Reddi[10],
held that demand for dowry – by parents of the husband in support of the
husband – can amount to cruelty within the ambit of the expression ‘treated.’
In the present case, the facts clearly satisfy the conditions and holding by
the Court in the mentioned case.
There is also the ground for desertion as contended by the Appellant for
the suit for divorce. Desertion can be of two types: actual desertion, where
the spouse, without any justification, actively deserts the other spouse from
the matrimonial house, and constructive desertion, where there is no obvious
and complete abandonment of the spouse, there is expulsive conduct regarding
the same. This can be seen in the present case, where the Respondent was
willing to come back from her parents’ house to the matrimonial house, i.e.,
the Appellant’s house, but was repeatedly denied and was thus, forced to take
her back, and subjecting her to more cruelty. To satisfy the rule of desertion,
it is enough that the abandonment was without reasonable cause, which can be
seen through the repeated refusal by the Appellant to allow the Respondent to
come back, and without consent. It is a total repudiation of the obligations of
marriage.
In the present case, it can be observed that the wife was driven out of
the Appellant’s home, without clothes, as a part of their infliction of cruelty
upon her. In similar cases of Butti v. Gulab Chand[11]
and Surjit Kaur v. Tirash Singh[12],
the Courts held that, when the wife was forced to leave the matrimonial home
due to mistreatment, the man cannot claim that the wife had deserted him, nor
can he claim cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage as grounds of
divorce. Thus, the Court, in the present case, rightly upheld the Family Court
order which dismissed the suit for divorce and ordered payment of maintenance
to the Respondent and her child.
CONCLUSION
The Allahabad High Court, in the case of Satendra Kumar Gupta v. Kanchan
Gupta (2015 (112) ALR 382), held that an irretrievable breakdown of marriage is
not a valid ground for divorce and that there are other suitable grounds
provided under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, thus upholding the
order of the Family Court, directing the Appellant to pay maintenance of Rs.
3500 each to the mother and son per month and dismissed the petition for
divorce filed under Section 13.
[1] Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Manju
Sharma 2009 (7) SCC 5.
[2] Ram Babu Babely v. Smt. Sandhya
2006 (1) AWC 183.
[3] Dr. Tara Charan Agarwal v. Smt.
Veena Agarwal 2911 ADJ 118.
[4] Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chand
Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73.
[5] V Bhagat v. Mrs. D Bhagat AIR
1994 SC 710.
[6] Chandra Kala Trivedi Vs. Dr.
S.P. Trivedi 1993 (4) SCC 232.
[7] Romesh Chander Vs. Savitri 1995
(2) SCC 7.
[8] Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli: AIR 2006 SC 675.
[9] Mohini Chawla v. Subhash Chander
Chawla, AIR 2009 P&H 33.
[10] Shoba Rani v. Madhukar Reddi,
AIR 1988 SC 121.
[11] Butti v. Gulab Chand, AIR 2002 MP
123.
[12] Surjit Kaur v. Tirash Singh,
(1979) PLR 732.
Article Information
CASE ANALYSIS – SATENDRA KUMAR GUPTA V. KANCHAN GUPTA 2015 (112) ALR 382 – By K Chakra Pani
Authors: K Chakra Pani
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2022/11/11
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.