Date of the Judgment: 15 February 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 127
Judges: Hon’ble Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka
Can a spouse be granted a divorce if the other spouse leaves the matrimonial home for an extended period? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on the interpretation of desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This case involves a husband seeking divorce from his wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, with the key issue being whether the wife’s actions constituted desertion as defined by law. The judgment was delivered by a division bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, with Justice Abhay S. Oka authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case revolves around the matrimonial dispute between Debananda Tamuli (the appellant-husband) and Smti Kakumoni Kataky (the respondent-wife). Their marriage was solemnized on 17th June 2009 in Tezpur, Assam. According to the husband, the wife left the matrimonial home on 30th June 2009, taking all her belongings. The husband alleged that from this date, the wife deserted him. The husband filed for divorce on 9th September 2011 in the District Court at Tezpur, citing cruelty and desertion. The allegation of cruelty was based on the wife’s consistent refusal to consummate the marriage, which the husband claimed caused him mental agony.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 17th June 2009 | Marriage of Debananda Tamuli and Smti Kakumoni Kataky. |
| 30th June 2009 | Wife allegedly leaves the matrimonial home. |
| 19th December 2009 | Wife visits Tezpur after learning about the illness of the husband’s mother. |
| 20th December 2009 | Husband allegedly tells the wife to leave Tezpur. |
| 21st December 2009 | Wife visits husband’s house after the death of his mother and leaves the next day. |
| 9th September 2011 | Husband files for divorce in the District Court at Tezpur. |
| 24th June 2015 | Wife files affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. |
| 15th February 2022 | Supreme Court of India delivers judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The District Court dismissed the husband’s petition for divorce. The husband then appealed to the Gauhati High Court, which also dismissed his appeal. The Supreme Court noted that efforts were made to bring about an amicable settlement, including mediation, but these efforts failed. The Supreme Court then interacted with the parties via video conference but no settlement could be reached.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which deals with divorce. Specifically, the court focused on clauses (ia) and (ib) of sub-section (1), which pertain to cruelty and desertion, respectively. The explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 defines desertion as:
“In this sub-section, the expression “desertion” means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.”
Arguments
Appellant (Husband)’s Arguments:
- The husband argued that the marriage was never consummated, and this refusal caused him mental cruelty.
- He contended that the wife left the matrimonial home on 30th June 2009 and never showed any intention to return or cohabit with him.
- He submitted that the wife’s visit on 21st December 2009 was only due to the death of his mother and did not indicate a resumption of the matrimonial relationship.
- He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena @ Mota [1964] 4 SCR 331, which defines desertion as the intentional abandonment of one spouse by the other without consent and without reasonable cause.
- He urged the Court to exercise its plenary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant a divorce due to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
Respondent (Wife)’s Arguments:
- The wife argued that the husband had not proven non-consummation of marriage.
- She contended that she did not have the intention to desert the husband.
- She argued that the husband made no effort to resume cohabitation.
- She relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Darshan Gupta v. Radhika Gupta (2013) 9 SCC 1, arguing that mere separation does not imply desertion.
- She submitted that no grounds for divorce were established under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and therefore, the Court should not exercise its powers under Article 142.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Cruelty | Non-consummation of marriage caused mental cruelty | Appellant (Husband) |
| Husband has not proven non-consummation | Respondent (Wife) | |
| Evidence is to the contrary | Respondent (Wife) | |
| Desertion | Wife left matrimonial home on 30th June 2009 and never intended to return | Appellant (Husband) |
| Visit on 21st December 2009 was for mother’s death and not resumption of relationship. | Appellant (Husband) | |
| No intention to desert the husband | Respondent (Wife) | |
| Husband made no effort to resume cohabitation | Respondent (Wife) | |
| Mere separation does not imply desertion | Respondent (Wife) | |
| Article 142 | Irretrievable breakdown of marriage warrants exercise of plenary jurisdiction under Article 142 | Appellant (Husband) |
| Article 142 | Court should not exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage | Respondent (Wife) |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issues that the court addressed were:
- Whether the wife’s actions constituted desertion as defined under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Whether the husband had proven cruelty as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Whether the court should exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant a divorce due to the irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the wife’s actions constituted desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. | Yes, the ground of desertion was established. | The wife left the matrimonial home on 30th June 2009 and did not make any effort to resume cohabitation. Her visit in December 2009 was for the death of the husband’s mother and not for resuming the matrimonial relationship. The court inferred animus deserendi (intention to desert) on the part of the wife. |
| Whether the husband had proven cruelty as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. | No, the court did not disturb the findings of the lower courts on the issue of cruelty. | The court found no reason to overturn the lower courts’ findings on the issue of cruelty. |
| Whether the court should exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant a divorce due to the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. | The court did not rely on Article 142. | The court granted the divorce based on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and did not find it necessary to invoke Article 142. |
Authorities
The following authorities were considered by the Supreme Court:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena @ Mota [1964] 4 SCR 331 | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case for the definition of desertion, which requires intentional abandonment without consent and without reasonable cause. |
| Darshan Gupta v. Radhika Gupta (2013) 9 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | The Court distinguished this case, stating that mere separation does not imply desertion, and emphasized that in this case, there was evidence of animus deserendi on the part of the wife. |
| Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Parliament of India | The Court examined the provisions of this section, specifically clauses (ia) and (ib) relating to cruelty and desertion, to determine the grounds for divorce. |
| Explanation to Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Parliament of India | The Court referred to the explanation, which defines desertion and incorporates the principles laid down in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena @ Mota [1964] 4 SCR 331. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Non-consummation of marriage caused mental cruelty | The Court did not find sufficient evidence to disturb the findings of the lower courts on the issue of cruelty. |
| Wife left matrimonial home on 30th June 2009 and never intended to return | The Court accepted this submission, noting the wife’s lack of effort to resume cohabitation and inferred animus deserendi. |
| Visit on 21st December 2009 was for mother’s death and not resumption of relationship. | The Court agreed that this visit did not amount to a resumption of the matrimonial relationship. |
| No intention to desert the husband | The Court rejected this argument, finding evidence of animus deserendi on the part of the wife. |
| Husband made no effort to resume cohabitation | The Court noted that the husband was carrying on business at Tezpur, and the wife was working as a lecturer in Gauhati, and they were staying separately. |
| Mere separation does not imply desertion | The Court distinguished this case from Darshan Gupta v. Radhika Gupta (2013) 9 SCC 1, emphasizing that in this case, there was evidence of animus deserendi. |
| Irretrievable breakdown of marriage warrants exercise of plenary jurisdiction under Article 142 | The Court did not rely on Article 142 as it found the ground of desertion was established. |
| Court should not exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage | The Court did not need to invoke Article 142 as the ground of desertion was established. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena @ Mota [1964] 4 SCR 331* for the definition of desertion, emphasizing the need for intentional abandonment without consent and without reasonable cause.
- The Court distinguished Darshan Gupta v. Radhika Gupta (2013) 9 SCC 1*, stating that while mere separation does not imply desertion, in the present case, there was evidence of animus deserendi on the part of the wife.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the wife had left the matrimonial home on 30th June 2009 and had not made any effort to resume cohabitation. The Court noted that her visit in December 2009 was only for the death of the husband’s mother and did not indicate an intention to resume the matrimonial relationship. The Court also emphasized that the wife had not pleaded or established any reasonable cause for remaining away from her matrimonial home. The Court inferred animus deserendi on the part of the wife, which is a key element in establishing desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Wife’s lack of effort to resume cohabitation | 40% |
| Wife’s visit in December 2009 was not for resuming the relationship | 30% |
| Wife did not establish any reasonable cause for separation | 20% |
| Inference of animus deserendi | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the evidence presented, which showed that the wife had left the matrimonial home and had not made any effort to return. The Court also considered the definition of desertion as laid down in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena @ Mota [1964] 4 SCR 331 and incorporated in the explanation to Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court found that all the elements of desertion were present in this case, including the factum of separation and the intention to desert (animus deserendi).
The Court did not find it necessary to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant a divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, as the ground of desertion was already established.
The Court stated, “The law consistently laid down by this Court is that desertion means the intentional abandonment of one spouse by the other without the consent of the other and without a reasonable cause.”
The Court also observed, “There must be an absence of consent on the part of the deserted spouse and the conduct of the deserted spouse should not give a reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to leave the matrimonial home.”
Further, the Court noted, “In the facts of the case, the factum of separation has been proved. From the evidence on record, an inference can be drawn that there was animus deserendi on the part of the respondent.”
Key Takeaways
- Desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 requires both the factum of separation and the intention to desert (animus deserendi).
- A visit to the matrimonial home for a specific purpose, such as attending a funeral, does not necessarily imply a resumption of cohabitation.
- The deserted spouse must prove that the deserting spouse left without a reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of the deserted spouse.
- The court will draw an inference based on the facts and evidence brought on record to determine whether desertion is established.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the appellant-husband to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lakhs) in the Court within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the judgment. The respondent-wife was given the option to withdraw this amount, along with an additional sum of Rs. 50,000 already deposited by the appellant.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, requires both the factum of separation and the intention to desert (animus deserendi). The court reiterated the principles laid down in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena @ Mota [1964] 4 SCR 331, which have been consistently followed. This case clarifies that a temporary visit to the matrimonial home for a specific reason does not amount to a resumption of the matrimonial relationship. The decision reinforces the established legal position on desertion and provides a clear application of these principles to the facts of the case.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts. The Court granted a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, based on the ground of desertion. The Court ordered the appellant-husband to pay Rs. 15,00,000 to the respondent-wife as a settlement. The judgment underscores the importance of proving both the factum of separation and the intention to desert in cases of desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.