In a significant legal decision, the Supreme Court of India restored the judgment in the case involving the breakdown of trust between the parties. The case, centered around the marriage dissolution, delved into issues of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown. Witness testimonies played a crucial role in the proceedings. Learn more about this legal battle and the quest for justice.
Facts
- The appellant, who is the wife of the original respondent, appealed against the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
- During the pendency of the appeal, the original respondent passed away.
- The High Court’s order dated 23.08.2006 in FAO No. 101-M of 1999 allowed the appeal and dissolved the marriage.
Also Read: Solapur Municipal Corporation vs. Majarewadi Gram Panchayat Employees
Analysis
- The trial court dismissed the petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of mental cruelty.
- The High Court found fault with the trial court’s observation that the parties were living happily until a third party intruded in the wife’s life.
- Allegations of illegitimate affair made by the husband against the wife were not accepted by the trial court as grounds for dissolution.
- The wife filed a police complaint and initiated legal proceedings to protect her rights and property.
- The High Court assumed an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage based on preconceived notions.
- The High Court’s view was not supported by the evidence presented in the case.
- The High Court incorrectly assumed that the husband’s allegations against the wife were proven before the trial court.
- The trigger for the dispute between the parties arose when the wife and children went to stay with the husband in Manipur.
- Various witnesses were examined during the trial, and the evidence of their testimonies was considered by the trial court.
- The wife’s legal actions to protect her rights were justified and did not amount to inflicting cruelty.
- Referring to the decision in Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Manju Sharma (2009) 6 SCC 379
- The decision was relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant
- The High Court was not justified in reversing the judgment of the trial court.
- The legal representatives No.1 and 3, though majors, were not examined in the proceedings.
- Certain issues raised on behalf of the legal representatives would not be of any assistance in taking a different view.
- Merely raising issues or allegations, even if based on misunderstanding, does not constitute mental cruelty required for a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Decision
- The judgment dated 23.08.2006 passed in F.A.O. No.101-M/1999 is set aside.
- The judgment dated 08.04.1999 passed in H.M.A. File No.133 of 16.12.1995 by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda is restored.
- The instant appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
- All pending applications also stand disposed of.
Also Read: Jagdishchandra v. Joint Charity Commissioner & Ors.
Case Title: RAVINDER KAUR Vs. MANJIT SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS.
Case Number: C.A. No.-002021-002021 / 2010
