DHARMENDRA KUMAR Vs USHA KUMAR

FACTS OF CASE

The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955’s section 13(1A) (ii) was used to grant the Respondent, Mrs. Usha Kumar, a divorce order. The appellant in this case, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, has appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of India.

In accordance with Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, the respondent’s wife requested a decree of restitution of conjugal rights before the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, on August 27, 1973.

According to Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 “When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.”

After that, on October 28, 1975, the Respondent filed a petition for a Decree of Divorce under section 13(1A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds that there had been no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties following the entry of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

The appellant acknowledged that there had been no restitution of conjugal rights for more than two years. He also claimed that he had made an effort to abide by the decree by sending the respondent registered letters with the intention of inviting her to cohabitate with him. However, the wife did not respond, preventing the restitution of conjugal rights, and was instead profiting from her own wrongdoing.

ISSUES

1. Whether mere non-compliance with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights constitutes “wrong” within the meaning of section 23(1)(a)?

RATIO DECEDENDI

According to Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the Act, either party to a marriage may file a petition for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the grounds that two years or more have passed since the passing of a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties and there has still been no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties to the marriage.

Regarding the Ram Kali case, the court determined that simple non-compliance with the decision of restitution of marital rights does not constitute the conduct of an offence under Section 23(1)(a).

Prior to the addition of Section 13, Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 already existed. The Parliament never meant to prevent a party who had committed a marriage offence and been awarded a judicial separation or restitution of conjugal rights from obtaining a divorce under Section 23 of the Act.

If not, Section 13 (1A) would have been rendered unnecessary and the guilty party would never be granted a divorce under Section 23. Therefore, Section 23 cannot be interpreted as rendering Section 13 (1A) nugatory.

It is not possible to interpret Section 23(1)(a) as allowing someone to profit from their own wrongdoing. Instead, it involves making use of the legal rights listed in Section 23 of the Act.

JUDGEMENT

From the given evidence, it was impossible to infer that the respondent’s wife had intended to profit from her own wrongdoing. Even if the accusation had been proven, it would not constitute misbehaviour serious enough to bar the Respondent wife from receiving the relief being offered.

Because there was no longer any hope of reconciliation, the Honourable J. Gupta dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Respondent had every legal right to obtain a divorce and to defy the decree of conjugal rights if she did not want to live with the Appellant.

REFERENCES

https://lawplanet.in/asha-qureshi-v-afaq-qureshi-case-summary-2002/

https://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/bja/PDF/UPLOADED/BJA/70.PDF

This Article is written by Anish Kumar student of Presidency University, Bangalore; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin