INTRODUCTION
Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar Vs Sunanda, 2001 is the case that determines whether the appellant husband should get a divorce under section 13(1-A) (i) of Hindu Marriage Act (for short the ‘Act’), 1955 after not paying a single penny to the respondent wife and daughter, as ordered by the Karnataka Court in 1981. The High Court of Karnataka ordered to pay Rs. 100/- to the mother and Rs.75/- to the daughter every month. Later on, the Husband appealed for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce that there had been no resumption of cohabitation between the parties to the marriage time after one year of judicial separation.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case was registered on 6th January 1981 by the Wife at Karnataka High Court, seeking judicial separation under Section 10 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the grounds of Adultery on the part of the Husband. The court viewed the facts and gave the decision in favor of the appellant Wife and ordered the husband to pay Rs.100/- per month to Wife and Rs.75/- per month to the Daughter as maintenance. But the husband didn’t follow the court’s instructions as no amount was received by the Wife and Daughter as maintenance amount.
The husband then took advantage of his wrong and filed a petition on 13th September 1983 in the High Court of Karnataka for a Decree of divorce under Section 13(1-A)(i) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He claimed that there has been no resumption of cohabitation between the parties to the marriage for a period of more than a year after the passing of the decree of judicial separation. Although the High Court rejected his petition, he then applied for Supreme Court through Special Leave, to get relief without paying any maintenance.
The Supreme Court on 20th March 2001 Heard the case and analyzed the situation and facts of both the parties. The appellant Husband stuck to his argument that the court’s verdict said the complete resumption of cohabitation of marriage between the two parties for more than one year after the passing of Judicial Separation. Hence, his legal team argued that there was no disobedience of the Court’s Order, else he followed the guidelines of the court itself and now he was eligible to get relief from paying the maintenance amount and also for the dissolution of his marriage.
The respondent on the other hand tagged the appellant to be liable for both not following the court’s jurisdictions and also for not paying the amount of Rs.100/- and Rs. 75/- to the respective recipients as maintenance. Moreover, he also continued to live with the respondent even after the court had the order of judicial separation.
The appellant voluntarily and intentionally refused to follow the high court’s guidelines. At last, after a year and a half, he filed the case in the High Court of Karnataka seeking divorce with no responsibility of maintenance to be provided to the respondent wife and daughter.
ISSUES RELATED
- Whether the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13(1-A)(i) of The Hindu Marriage Act,1955 can be declined on the grounds of not obeying the order of the high court?
- Whether the Supreme Court should upheld the decision of the Karnataka High Court and plead the husband guilty for not paying the maintenance amount?
- Does the “Wrong” done by the appellant fall under the domain of Section 23(A)?
CONTENTION OF APPELANT
- The “wrong” committed by the appellant is in no way related to the decree of divorce. Both have their individual and different reasoning and facts.
- The divorce is demanded on only one ground and that is under Section 13(1-A) (i); no resumption of cohabitation between parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upward after the passing of a decree for judicial separation.
- Section 23 isn’t related to Section 13; since Section 13 is an absolute and unqualified right.
CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT
- The husband didn’t pay the maintenance amount to the wife and daughter.
- The appellant didn’t follow the court’s order.
- The appellant was liable under Section 23 of the Act.
- The appellant continued to live with his mistress even after the passing of the decree of the judicial separation.
JUDGEMENT
The court held that both parties are responsible for making a sincere contribution to the cohabitation after a decree of judicial separation is passed. The husband and wife under the bracket of cohabitation don’t need any sexual intercourse with one another, else all they need to do is to live like more than mere residences, and their cohabitation period will be a success. But in this case, the appellant’s husband, neither paid the amount to the respondent’s wife and daughter nor did he sincerely follow the terms of cohabitation as he continued to live with his mistress, which makes the reconciliation impossible.
The court referred to the case of Soundarammal V. Sundara Mahalinga Nadar, in which the court held that a person is barred from filling the case under Section 23 of The Hindu Marriage Act, if he continues to live in adultery, at the instance of his wife, after the decree of judicial separation.
The court examined the provisions of Section 13 and Section 23 of the act to determine whether the ‘wrong’ committed by the husband falls under its criteria or not. Under Section 23(A) of the Act, if the party fails to grant any existing relief to the defendant, then the court can refuse the party to take advantage of his or her wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief, after being satisfied by those omitted grounds.
Section 13 Sub Clause 1 of the act originally had 9 grounds for dissolution of marriage through a decree of divorce. The C l. (VIII) defines that marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce by the petitioner husband or wife if the other party didn’t resume the cohabitation for the time period of 2 years after the decree of judicial separation. The Cl. (IX) defines that a marriage could be dissolved by a decree of divorce on a petition presented by the husband or the wife on the ground that the other party had failed to comply with a decree for Restitution of conjugal rights for a period of two years or upwards after the passing of a decree of Restitution against that party.
However in 1964, through amending Act No. 44, sub clauses (VIII) and (IX) of Section 13 of the Act were removed and a new subclause (1-A) was subsequently added to Section 13. the new section provides that the petition could be filled by either of the parties and is no longer restricted to the party failed to obtain the decree of judicial separation or for restitution of conjugal rights. Section 13(1-A) of the Act defines that, either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may also present a petition for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding to which they were parties.
The court observed that the appellant in no way behaved as a responsible husband as he refused to maintain the respondent’s wife and daughter, moreover, he also continued to live with his mistress after passing the decree. Therefore, he cannot take advantage of his wrong and file the case under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act.
Hence, after examining all the facts and provisions of the sections involved in the case, the court upheld the decision of the High Court to decline the relief of the decree of divorce to the appellant. The act of not paying maintenance to the wife and daughter constitutes the “wrong” done by the husband, that falls under the domain of Section 23 of the Act when read together with the provisions of Section 13. Therefore the court dismissed the appeal of the husband for decree of divorce under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act,1955.
CONCLUSION
The case concludes that a person cannot be allowed to get a decree of divorce under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, in case their actions fall under the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. Also, the Appellant can’t take advantage of his/her own “wrong” to get the decree of divorce; though it is mentioned under the provisions of Section 13, the court can decide whether the party can be provided with the decree of divorce or not.
REFERENCE
This article is written by Ansh Mishra, a student of Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Science (MAIMS), GGSIPU; an intern at Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments