Judgements Sec B

Saroj Rani v Sudarshan Kumar, AIR 1984 SC 1562
FACTS OF THE CASE

The Appellant, i.e. the wife, was allegedly maltreated and thrown out of their
marital home by the Respondent i.e. the husband, two years after their marriage
and after the birth of their second daughter. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a suit
for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the HMA before the sub-judge
1st class, who passed a consent decree. While the Appellant claimed that she had
briefly cohabited with the Respondent following the decree, this was not believed
by subsequent courts. The Respondent after one year filed for divorce under
Section 13 of the HMA before the district judge, on the ground that a year had
lapsed since the consent decree was passed, but no cohabitation had taken place
between the parties. The district judge dismissed the divorce petition because the
decree for restitution of conjugal rights was a consent decree, following which
the Respondent filed an appeal before the High Court, where the Single Judge
referred the matter to the Chief Justice. He requested the Chief Justice to
constitute a Division Bench to consider the question of whether a decree for
restitution of conjugal rights could be passed with the consent of the parties. The
Division Bench held that the consent decree could not be termed as collusive and
granted the Respondent the decree of divorce. The Appellant preferred an appeal
before the Supreme Court.
LEGAL ISSUES
• Whether the decree passed under section 9 of HMA, 1955 violates the Article
13, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950?
• Whether the Court should grant the petition for divorce in favor of respondent
against the consent decree passed under section 9 of HMA, 1955?
CONTENTIONS
• The appellant argued the respondent was not willing to live with appellant
and wanted to have divorce with her. The appellant said that respondent wants
to get the decree of restitution of conjugal rights and also dishonor the same
by having divorce in this ground.
• Respondent should not have been allowed to take advantage of his ‘wrong’
under section 23 of the HMA, 1955 and therefore not to grant divorce, the
appellant added on.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The Court observed the remedy passed under section 9 of HMA, 1955 does not
violate Articles 13,14, and 21 of the Constitution of India by citing the case Smt.
Harvinder Kaur vs Harmendar Singh by stating that remedy passed under section 9
of HMA, 1955 is to bring cohabitation between them that parties may live peacefully
and happily with proper understanding and does not limit to a sexual relationship
only but also draw mutual understandings towards each other so they can live
happily at their matrimonial home.
The word ‘wrong’ mentioned in section 23(1) of HMA, 1955 does not entitle the
husband to get a decree of divorce. The apex court cited that statements about the
refused cohabitation by the husband after the passing of decree are no factual
allegations and therefore the husband is in the possession of view to get the decree
of divorce by not reversing the decision of a single bench.
DECISION
The apex court dismissed the appeal of the appellant wife by considering the above
facts and upheld the judgment which was passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana of a decree of divorce in favor of the respondent, i.e. the husband.
The apex court also considered their relationship of husband and wife by stating that
which was noncooperative and therefore appeals of the wife easily dismissed and
stand to affirm the decision. In addition, the apex court directed the respondent, i.e.
the husband, to pay the maintenance of Rs. 200 per month to the wife and Rs. 300
per month to her daughter until she remarries and maintains the one living daughter
until his marriage.
Sanjay Kumar Sinha v Asha Kumari, (2018) 5 SCC 33

FACTS OF THE CASE:
The dispute is between the husband and wife. The appellant is the husband
whereas the respondent is the wife.
The appellant (husband) has filed the divorce petition under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the
respondent (wife) before the Family Court, Bagusarai. It is pending for its final
disposal.
The respondent (wife) filed an application under Section 24 of the Act in the
aforesaid Divorce petition and claimed from the appellant (husband) pendente lite
monthly maintenance for herself and her daughter. The appellant contested it.
By order dated 15.07.2016, the Family Judge awarded Rs.8000/- per month to the
wife and Rs.4000/- per month to her minor daughter towards the maintenance and
Rs.2500/- per month towards the litigation expenses.
It may be mentioned here that the respondent (wife) had also filed one application
under Section 125 of CrPC,1973 seeking maintenance before the Family Court,
Samastipur. By order dated 03.01.2011, the Family Judge allowed the application
and awarded Rs.4000/- per month to the wife (petitioner therein) and Rs.2000/-
per month to the daughter towards the maintenance and Rs.5000/- towards the
litigation expenses.
The appellant (husband) felt aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2016 by the
Family Judge and filed civil miscellaneous application in the High Court at Patna.
The Single Judge upheld the order dated 15.07.2016 of the Family Judge,
Begusarai and dismissed the application filed by the appellant.
LEGAL ISSUES:
i. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant holds validity or not?
ii. For how much duration the appealant has to pay maintenance?
HELD
The appellant (husband) shall, during pendency of main divorce case, continue to
pay in cash a sum of Rs.8000/- p.m. (Rs.6000/- to the wife and Rs.2000/- to the
daughter) and for the balanced sum, i.e., Rs.4000/- p.m., the appellant would
furnish security.
Depending upon the outcome of the main case, appropriate orders towards
permanent maintenance and its arrears be also passed.
Payment of monthly maintenance amount, as fixed by this Court, be paid on 1 st

of every month by the appellant to the respondent.
Security for the balance amount (at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month) be furnished
within one month to the satisfaction of the Family Judge after calculating the
monthly maintenance and arrears liability.

Judgements Sec B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judgements Sec B

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judgements Sec B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saroj Rani v Sudarshan Kumar, AIR 1984 SC 1562

FACTS OF THE CASE

Sanjay Kumar Sinha v Asha Kumari, (2018) 5 SCC 33

Payment of monthly maintenance amount, as fixed by this Court, be paid on 1 st

You might also like