Supreme Court restores conjugal rights, overturns divorce decree based on unsubstantiated cruelty allegations: Mangayakarasi vs. M. Yuvaraj (2020)

Date of the Judgment: March 3, 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 218

Judges: R. Banumathi, S. Abdul Nazeer, A.S. Bopanna

Can a High Court overturn concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a matrimonial dispute based on a ground not originally pleaded? The Supreme Court addressed this question in the case of Mangayakarasi vs. M. Yuvaraj, where a wife appealed against a High Court decision granting divorce to her husband based on alleged mental cruelty stemming from a false dowry harassment complaint. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices R. Banumathi, S. Abdul Nazeer, and A.S. Bopanna, overturned the High Court’s decision, restoring the lower courts’ judgments that had favored the wife. Justice A.S. Bopanna authored the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, Mangayakarasi (referred to as ‘wife’), and the respondent, M. Yuvaraj (referred to as ‘husband’), married on April 8, 2005, after a period of courtship. The wife was older than the husband by six to seven years. They had a daughter on January 3, 2007. During their marriage, disagreements arose. The husband claimed that the wife was quarrelsome, used abusive language in front of relatives and friends, and insulted him at his workplace. He issued a legal notice on December 7, 2006, which was not responded to, and subsequently filed for divorce. Although the husband withdrew the divorce petition after the wife assured him of proper behavior, she allegedly repeated her behavior and left the marital home on April 12, 2007. The husband filed another petition for divorce based on the same allegations.

The wife disputed these claims, stating that she had lived peacefully with the husband and his family. She argued that the legal notice was issued under pressure from the husband’s parents and that she had been misled into withdrawing the earlier divorce petition. She also filed for restitution of conjugal rights.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The husband initially filed a petition for divorce, H.M.O.P No.65/2007, which was later withdrawn. He then filed H.M.O.P No.13/2010 (old No.532/2007) seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, H.M.O.P No.27/2008. The Trial Court clubbed these petitions and, on November 26, 2010, dismissed the husband’s divorce petition while allowing the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The husband appealed to the First Appellate Court, which dismissed the appeals. The husband then filed a second appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CMSA Nos.23 & 24 of 2016. The High Court allowed the husband’s appeals on July 20, 2018, setting aside the order for restitution of conjugal rights and dissolving the marriage. The wife then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which deals with grounds for divorce. Specifically, Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which addresses cruelty as a ground for divorce, is central to the dispute. The husband sought divorce based on the allegation of cruelty. The wife, on the other hand, sought restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The High Court allowed the appeal of the husband by holding that the criminal case filed by the wife alleging dowry demand, which ended in acquittal, amounted to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act states:

“13. Divorce.—(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party—
(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty;”

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act states:

“9. Restitution of conjugal rights.—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.”

Arguments

Husband’s Submissions:

• The wife was of a quarrelsome nature and used abusive language in front of relatives, friends, and at his workplace, causing him humiliation and mental agony.
• The wife filed a false criminal complaint alleging dowry harassment, which led to his arrest and judicial custody, further causing mental cruelty.
• The marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the continuous litigation and separation.

Wife’s Submissions:

• The allegations of cruelty were baseless. She had lived peacefully with the husband and his family.
• The legal notice and the first divorce petition were instigated by the husband’s parents.
• She was misled into withdrawing the first divorce petition.
• The criminal complaint was filed due to genuine grievances.
• The marriage had not broken down irretrievably.

The husband argued that the false dowry harassment complaint and the subsequent arrest constituted mental cruelty. The wife contended that the initial allegations of cruelty were not proven and that the criminal complaint was a result of genuine grievances. The husband relied on the fact that the parties had been litigating since 2007 and living separately, claiming the marriage had broken down irretrievably. The wife argued that the differences were not of such magnitude to warrant a divorce, especially considering their daughter’s future.

Innovativeness of the argument: The husband’s argument that a false dowry harassment complaint resulting in acquittal constitutes mental cruelty was innovative in the context of the case, as it was not the original basis for seeking divorce.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The High Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the courts below are correct and justified in failure to dissolve the marriage of the appellant and respondent on the ground of mental cruelty (when particularly the alleged complaint dated 24.11.2007 for dowry harassment lodged by the respondent against the appellant and her in-laws and the consequent arrest by the police would unquestionably constitutes cruelty as postulated in section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act?
2. Whether the judgments of the courts below in dismissing the petition for divorce overlooking the subsequent event regarding the lodging of false criminal complaint by the respondent-wife for dowry harassment against the appellant and her in-laws are sustainable in law?
3. Whether the judgment of the courts below are correct and justified when particularly the criminal prosecution initiated in C.C.No.149 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Pollachi for dowry harassment is ended in Honorary acquittal?
4. Whether the judgment of the courts below are perverse?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The Court held that the High Court had erred in framing substantial questions of law that were not based on the original cause of action. The High Court had also re-appreciated the evidence, which was not within its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Supreme Court also held that the acquittal in the criminal case could not automatically be a ground for divorce.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558*: The Court acknowledged this case, but did not apply it, stating that each case must be decided on its own facts.
• Sanghamitra Ghosh vs. Kajal Kumar Ghosh (2007) 2 SCC 220*: The Court acknowledged this case, but did not apply it, stating that each case must be decided on its own facts.
• Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511*: The Court acknowledged this case, but did not apply it, stating that each case must be decided on its own facts.
• Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act*: The Court clarified that cruelty must be the basis of the divorce petition and that the High Court erred in considering the criminal complaint as a ground for divorce.
• Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act*: The Court upheld the lower court’s decision to grant restitution of conjugal rights.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and framing substantial questions of law that were not based on the original cause of action.
• The original divorce petition was based on allegations of the wife’s behavior, not the subsequent criminal complaint.
• The acquittal in the criminal case did not automatically qualify as a ground for divorce.
• The Trial Court and First Appellate Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a concurrent decision.
• The parties belonged to a conservative background where divorce is considered a taboo, and the welfare of their daughter was a significant consideration.

The Court emphasized that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by re-evaluating factual findings and considering issues not originally raised in the divorce petition. The Court also underscored that the mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically translate into grounds for divorce. The welfare of the child and the societal context of the family were also important considerations.

Key Takeaways

• A High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code when the lower courts have given concurrent findings of fact.
• A divorce petition must be based on the grounds originally pleaded and proven with evidence.
• An acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically constitute mental cruelty for the purpose of divorce.
• Courts must consider the societal context and the welfare of children when deciding on divorce cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the lower courts’ judgments.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot overturn concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a matrimonial dispute based on a ground not originally pleaded. The Supreme Court clarified that an acquittal in a criminal case cannot automatically be a ground for divorce. This case reinforces the principle that divorce petitions must be based on the grounds originally pleaded and proven with evidence. It also emphasizes the importance of considering the societal context and the welfare of children in divorce cases. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the application of existing legal principles.

Conclusion

In the case of Mangayakarasi vs. M. Yuvaraj, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision to grant a divorce, emphasizing that a divorce petition must be based on the grounds originally pleaded and proven with evidence. The Court restored the lower courts’ judgments, which had favored the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures and considering the broader societal context in matrimonial disputes.