IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 1850 of 2019
(@ SLP (Criminal) No 2338 of 2019)
Priya Prabhakaran & Anr. Appellant (s)
Versus
D Santhosh Kumar & Ors. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T

Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

1 Leave granted.

2 This appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala dated 24 October 2018. The first appellant and the first respondent got married on 9 November 2003. The second appellant is their child, who was born on 2 November 2005. On 27 September 2007, the first respondent filed a proceeding1 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Tirupur for dissolution of the marriage. On 24 October 2007, the first appellant filed a proceeding2 in the Family Court at Alappuzha for the restitution of conjugal rights. In 2008, the first appellant moved the JMFC-I, Haripad3 claiming maintenance and for the return of gold ornaments weighing fifty-one sovereigns belonging to her, the value of which was quantified at Rs 4,59,000 on the date of filing of the application. Certain other reliefs were also sought on which it is not necessary to dwell at this stage. The petition for dissolution was allowed ex-parte on 11 September 2008. Consequently, the application filed by the first appellant for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed. The Trial Judge granted maintenance in the amount of Rs 15,000 per month to each of the two appellants and directed the return of an amount of Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh). However, the prayer for the return of the gold ornaments or their equivalent value was rejected. Thereupon, the first appellant filed a Criminal Appeal4 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mavelikara. On 14 December 2011, the appeal was allowed in part. Insofar as is material to the present controversy, the first respondent was directed to return the fifty-one sovereigns of gold or the equivalent value at the market rate. Against the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, a criminal revision was filed before the High Court5. The High Court, by its impugned order dated 24 October 2018, modified the judgment of the appellate court by directing the first respondent to either return the fifty-one sovereigns of gold or, in the alternative, to pay a sum of Rs 4,59,000 within three months.

3 The main issue which falls for determination in the present appeal is whether the High Court was justified in modifying the order of the appellate court by restricting the value of fifty-one sovereigns of gold at Rs 4,59,000, the value which was quantified on the date of the filing of the application.

4 Having heard Mr. V Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Joseph Aristotle S, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and Mr.Nishe Rajen Shonkar, learned counsel for the State, we are of the view that there was no justification for the High Court to modify the order which was passed by the first appellate court. The appellant sought the return of her gold ornaments weighing fifty-one sovereigns and, in the alternative, the money equivalent which was quantified at Rs 4,59,000 on the date of the filing of the application. The Trial Court did not grant the relief which was sought but in appeal, the Additional District and Sessions Judge correctly directed the return of fifty-one sovereigns of gold or, in the alternative, the equivalent of their current market value. The order of the High Court directing the first respondent to pay an amount of Rs 4,59,000 which was the value in 2008 will result in a miscarriage of justice. If the first appellant cannot have the return of the fifty-one sovereigns of gold in her possession she is entitled to the refund of the value of the fifty-one sovereigns on the date of the repayment. Mr. Shonker has placed on record the applicable rates for gold which is not in dispute. The value of fifty-one sovereigns (equivalent to 480 gms) works out to Rs 15,25,920.

5 We accordingly direct the first respondent to pay an amount of Rs 15,25,920 to the first appellant on or before 31 January 2020 failing which, the first appellant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date on which refund has been directed.

6 The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

……………………..J.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
……………………..J.
[Hrishikesh Roy]

New Delhi;
December 6, 2019

FOOTNOTE
1 HMOP 176/2007
2 HMA 905/2007
3 MC 64/2008
4 262/2010
5 Criminal Revision Petition No.310/2012

The post Priya Prabhakaran & Anr. Vs D Santhosh Kumar & Ors. appeared first on B&B Associates LLP.

Sambasiva Rao, Ag. C.J.

1. Though the judgment of Venkatrama Sastry J., which is sought to be appealed against, is an affirming one. Sri P. Rama Rao learned counsel for the appellants-defendants raises many points in support of the appeal.

2. Firstly, he argues that the plaintiff-respondent who filed the suit for partition as the heir of her husband, had lost the status of wife, and so, she could not claim a share. That is on the ground that on 28th day of July, 1962, a decree for judicial separation was passed at the instance of the husband against the respondent. She was provided maintenance at the rate of Rs.200 per month. In execution of this decree for maintenance, she even applied for the arrest of the husband. Without anything more happening, he died in the year 1967 and she filed the suit for partition in 1968. Sri Rama Rao maintains that all the requirements of sub-section (1-A) of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (1955) have existed in this case, since there was a decree for judicial separation and there is no evidence of resumption of cohabitation between the spouse for a period of two years or upwards after passing of the decree. So, it is contended that it must be deemed that a dissolution of marriage has occurred under Section 13. It is not possible to accept this contention because dissolution or divorce can be granted only under a decree of the court . Sub-section (1-A) provides only a ground for applying for the dissolution of marriage. If the circumstances enumerated in that sub-section existed, then either party to be marriage can apply for dissolution. There was no such application in this case, much less a decree. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a dissolution of marriage, thereby the plaintiff-respondent losing the status as wife.

3. It is then submitted that even judicial separation has the effect of depriving the plaintiff-respondent of the status of wife. Once again, in our opinion, it is untenable agreement. If such were the intention of the legislature, there could not have been separate provisions for judicial separation and divorce. In fact, if sub-section (1-A) of Section 13 is read, it is quite manifest that the Act postulates resumption of marital relations between the spouse even after a decree for judicial separation has been passed. If a resumption has taken place, then the judicial separation comes to an end. If it does not, then it provides a ground for application by either party to a marriage for divorce. This clearly leads to the conclusion that judicial separation does not put an end to the marital status of the party, with the result, the plaintiff-respondent continues to enjoy the status of the wife.

4. The third contention is that the husband had left a will bequeathing all his properties to the defendants-appellants. On a thorough examination of the evidence, our learned brother agreed with the trial court in holding that the will was not proved. We have no reason to disagree with that conclusion.

5. The last submission is about the movables It complains that the learned Judge has not considered the question of movables. Obviously, it was not pressed before the learned Judge for the reason that a Commissioner was appointed to take an inventory of all the movables. He prepared an inventory, Ex. A-13 of the movables and only a share of such movables as mentioned in Ex. A-13 was given to the plaintiff-respondent by the trial court. In regard to the jewels, the Commissioner was prevented from making an inventor of the articles in the iron safe. So, the trial court drew an adverse inference that the jewels mentioned in the ‘C’ Schedule to the plaint were also existing. In view of the circumstances stated above, we think the defendants-appellants did not press their case in regard to movables.

6. Thus, we find no substance in any of the contentions raised by Mr. Rama Rao. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.

7. Appeal dismissed.

The post M. Narasimha Reddy and Ors. vs M. Boosamma appeared first on B&B Associates LLP.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5387 OF 2007
MANISHA TYAGI .….APPELLANT
VERSUS
DEEPAK KUMAR …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.
1. In this appeal the wife has challenged the judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in LPA No.1625/01 dated 25.8.2006 whereby the High Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and the Judgment of Ld. Single Judge and granted a decree of divorce to the husband.

2. Marriage between the parties was celebrated according to Hindu rites at New Delhi on 17.11.1991. For a short period after the marriage, the couple stayed at Meerut where the husband was posted as a Captain in the Indian Army. Mutual cohabitation of the parties seems to have come to an end on 30.12.1992. They have been living separately since 31.12.1992. They have a daughter who was born on 2.6.1993.

3. On 24.11.1993 the husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act being Matrimonial Case No.644 of 1993 for dissolution of the marriage. Later on the petition was amended and filed in the Court of District Judge of Gurgaon on 28.11.1995 pursuant to the order issued by this Court in a transfer petition.

4. The husband has mentioned numerous instances of cruelty in paragraph 7 of the divorce petition. He has described the wife as quarrelsome, rude and ill-mannered. He had gone to the extent of terming his wife to be schizophrenic, making his life a living hell. He goes on to narrate that all efforts at conciliation even by his parents did not yield any result. He then proceeds to state that his wife is misusing her position as a practising advocate. According to him she has been constantly threatening him as well as his family that since she and her two uncles are advocates they would make the lives of the husband and his family miserable. The husband then complains that the wife has been making baseless complaints to his superiors. This has affected his career prospects in the Army. He makes a special reference to a statutory complaint dated 10.12.1993 in which according to him the wife had made numerous false allegations about the behaviour of the husband and his family even prior to the marriage ceremony.

5. We may notice here the contents of the statutory complaint. She complained about the exorbitant demands made by the husband’s family for dowry. She complained that within days of the marriage the husband started behaving in a strange manner; throwing household articles and clothes all around in the room and also mimicking the sound of different animals and sometimes barking like a dog. She had also claimed that she had never seen a human being behaving that way even if very heavily drunk, as he was most of the times she remained in his company. She has stated that the husband and in-laws had willfully and cruelly treated her and had spared no effort to cause her mental harm and inflicted grave injuries. She also complains that there is danger to her life, limb and health. They had pressurised her to meet not only their unlawful demands of money but also for spurious reasons. She ends the complaint with the comment that she has a child to support. She requested that an enquiry be held into the conduct of the husband which is not only rude, indiscreet, disgraceful and unbecoming of an Army officer but he has committed the offences under the Penal Code.

6. The husband further complains that even during this short period of cohabitation the behaviour of the wife was erratic, inhuman and unbearable. In order to cause mental agony to the husband the wife would deliberately indulge in erratic sexual behaviour. She would intentionally interrupt the coitus. On many occasions she even refused to share the bed with him.

7. The husband then makes a grievance that the wife had made a complaint to the Women Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi where notice was received by the husband for appearance on 28.1.1994. She had also registered FIR No.10 on 19.1.1994 with Police Station, Keshavpuram, Delhi under Section 406, 498-A, IPC. The police raided the flat of the parents of the husband at Noida on 22.1.1994 along with the wife. She even took away all her belongings including the Maruti car. The husband in fact goes on further to allege that she even took the ornaments belonging to the husband and his parents. It is further alleged that the husband and the parents had to approach the court for anticipatory bail. She then filed a petition for maintenance before the Family Court, Meerut. She also lodged an FIR on 18.8.1999 under Section 354/506/34. She made false allegations against his father, advocate and the son of the advocate. With these allegations the husband had gone to court seeking divorce.

8. The Trial Court also took notice of the counter allegations made by the wife. She claimed that the husband and his family had started treating her with cruelty when the unwarranted demands for dowry were not met by her parents. She also claimed that the husband is deliberately disrupting the marriage as he wants to get married to someone else. She however admitted that the couple had separated on 31.12.1992. She complains about the deliberate neglect by the husband of his matrimonial as well as parental duties towards the new born daughter. She denied all the allegations made by the husband with regard to her erratic behaviour. She dwells on the illegal demands made by the in-laws for cash, jeweler and electronic items. She states that the marriage was celebrated under shadow of extortion. She was harassed by the in-laws and rudely informed that they were expecting a sum of more than 30-lakh rupees to be spent in the marriage as her father was working abroad. On the very first day when she went to the matrimonial home she was informed by the mother-in-law that her son was destined to marry twice as per the horoscope. She reiterates the allegations about the erratic behaviour of the husband. She states that in his show of temper he threw household things at her. She was constantly beaten on one pretext or the other. Denying the allegations with regard to sexual misbehaviour she stated that in fact the respondent tried to have sexual intercourse during menstruation period or after conception. She had asked him to desist from acting in such an unnatural manner but to no effect. She further admitted having made the complaint but she denied that these are made as a counter blast to the divorce petition filed by the husband.

9. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Trial Court framed the following issues:
“1. Whether respondent has been exercising such cruelty towards the petitioner so as to entitle the petitioner to the dissolution of the marriage? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner has been illtreating the respondent and as such, cannot take benefit of his own cruel and tortuous acts, if so, to what effect? OPR
3. Whether the petitioner is bad as premature? OPP
4. Whether the petition is malafide? OPR
5. Relief.”

10. The Trial Court on evaluation of the entire evidence however held as follows:
“Although the circumstances mentioned above clearly reveal that it is a case of broken marriage, however, there is no ground given in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, where a decree of divorce can be founded on the proof of irretrievably broken marriage. In this regard, I may cite a recent judgment of our own Hon’ble High Court reported as Rupinder Kaur Vs. Gurjit Singh Sandhu (1997-3) P.L.R. 553. It is laid down in this decision that even if the marriage is assumed to have (illegible) for irretrievably, it is not ground to dissolve the marriage. However, the situation reached between the parties is of the doing of the petitioner and it is well cherished principle laid down in Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act that a party cannot be permitted to take benefit of his own wrongs. For the discussion made above and the conclusions reached thereon, I hold that the petitioner has been unsuccessful in proving the respondent to have treated him with cruelty of the nature as to entitle him to a decree of divorce. It is however, proved on the other side that the petitioner had harassed the respondent for getting his demand and the demands of his parents fulfilled. However, the respondent has prayed for no relief on that ground. Issue No.1 is, therefore, decided against the petitioner while Issue No.2 is decided in favour of the respondent.”

11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings the respondent filed F.A.O. No.16-M of 2000 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Learned Single Judge independently examines the entire evidence and the material on the record. Upon evaluation of the entire evidence the Learned Single Judge observed that both the parties are at fault. According to the Learned Single Judge the wife had crossed “Lakshman Rekha”. Apart from what was stated by the Trial Court, the Learned Single Judge notices that the wife had not only made allegations about the unnatural demands of the husband for sexual intercourse when she was pregnant but she had also made an allegation that he had wanted to commit the act of sodomy with her which she resisted. The Learned Single Judge concludes that the evidence led by the husband with regard to cruelty of the wife is not such that he can be granted a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. At the same time, adverting to the behaviour of wife the Learned Single Judge observed as follows:

“I have considered the contentions of the parties with reference to the documents and first of all I must say here that respondent had crossed “Lakshman Rekha”. I do not deny that a woman has no rights after the lawful marriage. She expects love and affection, financial and physical security, equal respect and lots more but at the same time, the wife must remain within the limits. She should not perform her acts in such a manner that it may bring incalculable miseries for the husband and his family members She should not go to hat extent that it may be difficult for her to return from that point.”

12. The final conclusion reached by the Learned Single Judge is as follows:
“I have made an independent assessment of the oral evidence and am of the opinion that both the parties are at fault. The respondent exceeded the limits of decency when she went to the extent of lodging a false FIR and when she tried to humiliate the appellant in the eye of his superiors by writing a very damaging letter Ex. PW2/1 without knowing its consequences.”

13. In view of the aforesaid conclusions the Learned Single Judge granted the alternative relief to the husband by passing a decree for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This decree was passed with the hope that the parties would ponder upon the situation and may be able to re-unite for the welfare of the child. If, on the other hand, the parties do not reconcile within the statutory period of one year it will be open to either of them to seek a decree of divorce.

14. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the wife went in appeal before the Division Bench in LPA No.1625/01. The Division Bench noticed the extensive pleadings as well as the evidence led by the parties. On a reevaluation of the evidence the Division Bench concluded that all efforts of reconciliation between parties have failed. They have been living separately since 31.12.1992. According to the Division Bench the marriage has irretrievably broken down. The Division Bench sums up the entire matrimonial scene of the parties in the following words:

“The allegations and counter allegations had flown thick and proper in this case. To an extent these did receive support by the evidence led by the respective parties. The learned Single Judge chose a middle-path by holding that both the parties were at fault and accordingly granted decree of judicial separation instead of divorce. To what effect and what difference it has made to the lives of parties can not really be made out. The parties are living separately since 31.12.1992. Though not revealed from the record but we can assume that efforts must have been made for reconciliation between the parties at the trial and at the first appellate stage. Both the parties continue to differ and have refused to patch up. As noticed earlier, we also failed in our efforts to bring this matrimonial dispute to some agreed solution. What is left of this marriage? Both the parties though educated but are still standing firm on their respective stands. They both seem to be totally unconcerned about their young child and have continued with their combatant attitude without any remorse. This marriage, if we may say, has irretrievably broken down. That of course cannot be a ground for granting divorce between this fighting couple. No wonder, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a latest decision in Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli, 2006 (3) Scale 252 has made a recommendation to the executive to provide this as a legal ground for divorce. Till the law is amended, we will remain handicapped to act even in those cases where one finds that a marriage just cannot work and existence thereof is nothing but an agony for both the parties. We, as such, are required to decide if the allegations of cruelty made by the respondent were proved or not.”

15. While reappreciating evidence the Division Bench notices the averments made by the wife in paragraphs 13 and 31 of the Statutory Complaint dated 10.12.1993 wherein she had stated as follows:

“13. On 2.12.1991, my husband started behaving in a strange manner throwing the household articles and clothes all around in the room and also mimicking the sound different animals and some times barking like a dog. I was not only stunned but also shocked because I had never seen a human being behaving that way even if very heavily drunk as he was most of the time I remained in his company. I was not allowed to touch any thing which belong to him. When I told my mother-in-law, she warned me to ensure that I obeyed all orders given to me, either my husband or in laws.”

“31. My health started deteriorating. My mind was disturbed to the extreme. Now another form of torture, unnatural sex. He would thrust on me at odd hours. I was no longer a human being but a slave to his wild passions.”

16. It is also observed that the wife has not denied the aforesaid averments while giving her evidence. She had in fact further elaborated the allegation of sodomy made by her in the complaint. The conclusion recorded by the Division Bench is as follows:
“We have given our thoughtful consideration to the while issue. It cannot be disputed that the appellant had made the averments in paras 13 and 31 of the complaints, which have been reproduced above. She has also not denied the same, rather while giving her evidence, she had further elaborated the allegations of sodomy made by her in the complaint. Wife cannot deny that she had compared her husband to a barking dog that she also made allegations against him for having behaved in a strange manner. She had also referred to him as heavy drunkard. Even if we leave aside the other allegations as made by the husband, we think that describing husband as dog and mimicking as animals and making allegations of sodomy would be enough to say that these amounted to cruelty on her part towards her husband. It cannot be denied that the wife had lodged various complaints and criminal proceedings against the respondenthusband. FIR under sections 498-A and 406 IPC was got registered by the wife. Respondenthusband, however, earned acquittal in this case. Another complaint filed before the Police Station Civil Lines, Meerut ended in dropping of the proceedings. Yet in another FIR got registered under Sections 417, 419 and 420 IPC, the respondent-husband was discharged. The record also reveals that still another FIR was got registered under Sections 354 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC on 18.8.1999 against the fatherin- law, an Advocate and son of an Advocate by the appellant-wife. We think that this conduct would exceed all bounds of moderation. A daughter-in-law making an allegation against her old and infirm father-in-law for molesting her would certainly be an intolerable behaviour, which can be termed nothing but an act of immense cruelty for a son, who was none else than the husband of such complaint-wife. This FIR was quashed on 20.3.2002. Seeing the cumulative effect of all these allegations, we would not have any hesitation to hold that the allegations of cruelty made by the respondenthusband stand established.”

17. Since the allegation of cruelty made by the husband had been accepted, the Division Bench further observed as follows:
“We would, accordingly, hold that the finding of the learned Single Judge in grating partial relief and that of the trial Judge in declining the relief of divorce cannot be sustained. We would, accordingly, set aside both the judgments and hold that the cruelty alleged by the respondent husband stands proved. As a result, we will dismiss the appeal and modify the judgment of the learned Single Judge to hold that the decree of divorce prayed by the respondent-husband is granted.”
The aforesaid judgment has been challenged by the wife in the present appeal.

18. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, appearing for the appellant, submitted that order passed by the High Court could not have been passed in an appeal filed by the wife. The husband had not filed any appeal. Both the courts below had given concurrent findings that that the allegations of the husband about cruelty of the wife have not been proved. These findings were based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence by the Trial Court as well as the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The Division Bench reversed the findings without any recording any independent reasons. Learned Counsel made a reference to the observations of the Trial Court wherein it has been observed that averments made in paragraph 13 would not amount to calling her husband a dog. The District Judge had observed “to say that a person started barking like a dog and that that person is a dog are two different things. In Para 13 of exh. PW2/1, the respondent only speaks about unhuman behaviour of her husband and she cannot be taken as addressing her husband as dog in this paragraph”.

19. The Trial Court also observed that the allegations made in paragraph 31 of the Statutory Complaint about unnatural sex cannot be equated with sodomy. The Trial Court also came to the conclusion that it is a case of broken marriage. However, in the absence of a ground under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act where a decree of divorce can be founded on the proof of irretrievable broken marriage, it would not be a ground to dissolve the marriage. It is also pointed out that these findings were not rejected by the Appellate Court. According to the learned counsel on this short ground the judgment of the Division Bench is liable to be set aside.

20. On the other hand, Mr. Rajender Kumar, appearing for the husband submitted that the High Court possibly could not have granted the decree on the basis of irretrievable break down of marriage. However, the High Court has granted the decree of divorce upon reappreciation of the evidence and recording an independent finding that the conduct of the wife amounts to cruelty which would entitle the husband to a decree of divorce. According to the learned counsel substantial justice has been done between the parties and the judgment does not call for any interference. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel that, a petition was filed for divorce on the basis of the decree of judicial separation which had been granted by the learned Single Judge. However proceedings in the aforesaid case have been kept in abeyance due to the pendency of the appeals in the High Court and this Court. Learned counsel submitted that there is absolutely no room for reconciliation between the parties. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court need not be reversed at this stage.

21. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have both concluded that the behaviour of the husband as well as the wife falls short of the standard required to establish mental cruelty in terms of Section 13(1) (i-a).

22. At this stage we may notice the observations made by this Court in the case of Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558. In this case the Court examined the development and evolution of the concept of mental cruelty in matrimonial causes. In paragraph 35 it is observed as follows:

“35. The petition for divorce was filed primarily on the ground of cruelty. It may be pertinent to note that, prior to 1976 amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cruelly was not a ground for claiming divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. It was only a ground for claiming judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act. By the 1976 amendment, cruelty was made a ground for divorce and the words which have been omitted from Section 10 are “as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party”. Therefore, it is not necessary for a party claiming divorce to prove that the cruel treatment is of such a nature as to cause an apprehension–reasonable apprehension – that it will be harmful or injurious for him or her to live with the other party.”

23. The classic example of the definition of cruelty in the pre-1976 era is given in the well known decision of this Court in the case of N.G. Dastane vs. S. Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326, wherein it is observed as follows:

“The enquiry has to be whether the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner as reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent”.

24. This is no longer the required standard. Now it would be sufficient to show that the conduct of one of the spouses is so abnormal and below the accepted norm that the other spouse could not reasonably be expected to put up with it. The conduct is no longer required to be so atrociously abominable which would cause a reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to continue the cohabitation with the other spouse. Therefore to establish cruelty it is not necessary that physical violence should be used. However continued ill-treatment cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference of one spouse to the other may lead to an inference of cruelty. However in this case even with aforesaid standard both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had accepted that the conduct of the wife did not amount to cruelty of such a nature to enable the husband to obtain a decree of divorce.

25. We may notice here the observations made by this Court in the case of Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi (1988) 1 SCC 105 wherein the concept of cruelty has been stated as under:

“The word “cruelty” has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been used in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act in the context of human conduct or behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. It if it mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. The absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot b e denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or willful ill-treatment.”

26. In the case of V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337, this Court while examining the concept of mental cruelty observed as follows:
“16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made.”

27. Taking into consideration the conduct of the parties over a period of time, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court concluded that the husband had failed to establish cruelty on the part of the wife which will be sufficient to grant a decree of divorce.

28. The Appellate Court further came to the conclusion that since both the parties made extremely serious allegations, it would be appropriate as the parties were not compelled to live together. The Appellate Court came to the conclusion that it would be more appropriate to give the couple some time to ponder over the issue especially keeping in view the welfare of their daughter. If in due course they manage to reconcile their differences the decree of judicial separation would be of no consequence. On the other hand, if the parties continued with their adamant attitudes it would be possible for either party to seek dissolution of the marriage on the basis of the aforesaid decree of judicial separation.

29. As noticed earlier the husband did not challenge the aforesaid decree of the Appellate Court, he was content to wait for one year and there after seeking decree of divorce. In fact upon the expiry of one year he has actually filed the necessary proceedings seeking decree of divorce in the Court of District Judge, Gurgaon on 9.5.2002. These proceedings are still pending.

30. On the other hand the wife had filed the Latest Patent Appeal challenging the grant of decree of judicial separation to the husband by the Appellate Court. We are of the opinion that the High Court erred in granting a decree of divorce to the husband. She had come in appeal before the Division Bench complaining that the Appellate Court had wrongly granted the decree of judicial separation even after concurring with the findings of the Trial Court that the husband had failed to establish cruelty by the wife. Therefore even if the appeal had been dismissed, the findings recorded by the Trial Court in her favour would have remained intact. The effect of the order passed by the Division Bench is as if an appeal of the husband against the decree of judicial separation has been allowed. Both the parties had failed to make out a case of divorce against each other. The husband had accepted these findings. Therefore he was quite content to wait for the statutory period to lapse before filing the petition for divorce, which he actually did on 9.5.2002. On the basis of the proven facts the Trial Court was more inclined to believe the wife, whereas the learned Single Judge of the High court found both the parties to be at fault. Hence the middle path of judicial separation had been accepted. Therefore, it was not a case where it was necessary for the Division Bench to correct any glaring and serious errors committed by the court below which had resulted in miscarriage of justice. In our opinion there was no compelling necessity, independently placed before the Division Bench to justify reversal, of the decree of judicial separation. In such circumstances it was wholly inappropriate for the Division of High Court to have granted a decree of divorce to the husband.

31. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to uphold the judgment and the decree of the Division Bench. Consequently, we allow the appeal. We set aside the Judgment and the Order passed by the Division Bench and restore the Order passed by the learned Single Judge in FAO No. 16-M of 2000.

32. There shall be no order as to costs.

………………………………J
( V.S. SIRPURKAR )
…………………………………J
( SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR )

NEW DELHI,
FEBRUARY 10, 2010.

The post Manisha Tyagi vs. Capt. Deepak Kumar appeared first on B&B Associates LLP.

Bail Application No. 1627/2008

Judgment delivered on: 04.8.2008
Chander Bhan and Anr. …… Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajesh Khanna Adv.
Versus
State ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma APP

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? yes

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral)

By way of the present petition the petitioners who are parents- in-law of the complainant seek grant of anticipatory bail.
Mr. Sharma counsel for the State submits that allegations are serious in nature against the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners do not deserve grant of anticipatory bail.
Complainant is present in the court. She states that there is no possibility of her going back to the matrimonial home. However, the complainant is not averse to the matter being sent before the mediation cell. Let the matter be sent to the Mediation Cell, Rohini Court, Delhi for exploring the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties.
Let the parties appear before the Mediation Cell, Rohini Court, Delhi on 11.8.2008 at 4.00 P.M.
List the matter before the court on 23.9.2008.
Till then the petitioners shall not be arrested.
Before parting with this case, I deem it expedient and in the larger interest of saving matrimony of the couples and to restore peace between the two hostile families of husband and wife who once must have celebrated the marriage of couple with great zeal, fervor and enthusiasm but when faced with many facets and stark realities of life entangled themselves to fight a long drawn legal battle instead of building confidence, trust, understanding, mutual respect for each other and their respective families.
The offence of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband (Section 498-A) was added in 1986 to curb the vise of subjecting women to coerce them or their relatives to meet unlawful demands for dowry.
Since its enactment, this provision has been subjected to systematic and sustained attack. It has been called unfair and responsible for the victimisation of husbands by their wives and her relatives. No doubt there may be many deserving cases where women are being subjected to mental and physical cruelty at the hands of the avaricious in-laws. But such cases have to be distinguished from other cases where merely due to trivial fights and ego clashes the matrimony is facing disaster.
What is not comprehended by young minds while invoking the provisions of the likes of Section 498-A and 406 of IPC is that these provisions to a large extent have done incalculable harm in breaking matrimony of the couples.
Despite the western culture influencing the young minds of our country, still it has been seen that Indian families value their own age old traditions and culture, where, mutual respect, character and morals are still kept at a very high pedestal.
It has been noticed in diverse cases, where the brides and their family members in litigation find the doors of conciliation shut from the side of groom and his family members only on account of there having suffered the wrath of Police harassment first at the stage when matter is pending before crime against women cell and thereafter at the time of seeking grant of anticipatory or regular bail and then the ordeal of long drawn trial.
Daily, matters come before this court seeking bail and for quashing of FIR?s registered under Sections 498A/406 of the IPC. This court is of the view that it is essential to lay down some broad guidelines and to give directions in such matters in order to salvage and save the institution of marriage and matrimonial homes of the couples.

Guidelines:

1. Social workers/NGO
There is no iota of doubt that most of the complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trifling fights and ego clashes. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in their tussle and ongoing hostility the hapless children are the worst victims. Before a wife moves to file a complaint with the Women Cell, a lot of persuasion and conciliation is required.
(a) The Delhi Legal Service Authority, National Commission for Women, NGO?s and social worker?s working for upliftment of women should set up a desk in crime against women cell to provide them with conciliation services, so that before the State machinery is set in motion, the matter is amicably settled at that very stage. But, if ultimately even after efforts put by the social workers reconciliation seems not possible then the matter should be undertaken by the police officials of Crime against Women cell and there also, serious efforts should be made to settle the matter amicably.

2. Police Authorities:
(a) Pursuant to directions given by the Apex Court, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi vide Standing Order No. 330/2007 had already issued guidelines for arrest in the dowry cases registered under Sections 498-A/406 IPC and the said guidelines should be followed by the Delhi Police strictly and scrupulously.
(i) No case under Section 498-A/406 IPC should be registered without the prior approval of DCP/Addl. DCP.
(ii) Arrest of main accused should be made only after thorough investigation has been conducted and with the prior approval of the ACP/DCP.
(iii) Arrest of the collateral accused such as father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law or sister-in-law etc should only be made after prior approval of DCP on file.
(b) Police should also depute a well trained and a well behaved staff in all the crime against women cells especially the lady officers, all well equipped with the abilities of perseverance, persuasion, patience and forbearance.
(c) FIR in such cases should not be registered in a routine manner.
(d) The endeavor of the Police should be to scrutinize complaints very carefully and then register FIR.
(e) The FIR should be registered only against those persons against whom there are strong allegations of causing any kind of physical or mental cruelty as well as breach of trust.
(f) All possible efforts should be made, before recommending registration of any FIR, for reconciliation and in case it is found that there is no possibility of settlement, then necessary steps in the first instance be taken to ensure return of stridhan and dowry articles etc. by the accused party to the complainant.

3. Lawyers:
Lawyers also have a great responsibility in this regard.
(a) While drafting pleadings/complaints, the lawyers should not unnecessarily suggest incorporation of wild allegations, or in character assassination of any of the parties or their family members whatever the case may be.
(b) Lawyers are also to endeavour to bring about amicable settlement between the parties as they are expected to discharge sacred duty as social engineers in such cases instead of making them target for monetary considerations by multiplying their cases.

4. Courts:
Subordinate courts, be it trying civil or criminal cases concerning bail, maintenance, custody, divorce or other related matters shall in the first instance, in every case where it is possible so to do consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the parties.
a) The first endeavor should be for possible reunion and restitution of the parties and as a last endeavor to bring about peaceful separation.
b) If possible extra time should be devoted to such matters to restore peace in the lives of rival parties be it by re-uniting them or even in case of their parting ways.
c) Conciliatory proceedings by the court should preferably be held in camera to avoid embarrassment.
d) Wherever, the courts are overburdened with the work, necessary assistance of Mediation and Conciliation cells should be sought.
Apart from above directions it would not be out of place to ask parties also to themselves adopt a conciliatory approach without intervention of any outside agency and unless there are very compelling reasons, steps for launching prosecution against any spouse or his/her in-laws be not initiated just in a huff, anger, desperation or frustration.

DASTI.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
August 04, 2008

The post Chander Bhan & Anr. Vs. State of Delhi appeared first on B&B Associates LLP.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11158 OF 2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No. 20184 of 2017)
Amardeep Singh …Appellant
Versus
Harveen Kaur …Respondent
J U D G M E N T

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
1. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the minimum period of six months stipulated under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) for a motion for passing a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent is mandatory or can be relaxed in any exceptional situations.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that marriage between the parties took place on 16th January 1994 at Delhi. Two children were born in 1995 and 2003 respectively. Since 2008 the parties are living separately. Disputes between the parties gave rise to civil and criminal proceedings. Finally, on 28th April 2017 a settlement was arrived at to resolve all the disputes and seeks divorce by mutual consent. The respondent-wife is to be given permanent alimony of Rs.2.75 crores. Accordingly, HMA No. 1059 of 2017 was filed before the Family Court (West), Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi and on 8th May 2017 statements of the parties were recorded. The appellant-husband has also handed over two cheques of Rs.50,00,000/-, which have been duly honored, towards part payment of permanent alimony. Custody of the children is to be with the appellant. They have sought a waiver of the period of six months for the second motion on the ground that they have been living separately for the last more than eight years and there is no possibility of their reunion. Any delay will affect the chances of their resettlement. The parties have moved this Court on the ground that only this Court can relax the six months period as per decisions of this Court.
3. Reliance has been placed inter alia on decision of this Court in Nikhil Kumar vs. Rupali Kumar1 wherein the statutory period of six months was waived by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution and the marriage was dissolved.
The text of Section 13B is as follows:
“13-B. Divorce by mutual consent.— (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.
(2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.”
4. There is a conflict of decisions of this Court on the question of whether the exercise of power under Article 142 to waive the statutory period under Section 13B of the Act was appropriate. In Manish Goel versus Rohini Goel2, a Bench of two judges of this Court held that jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 could not be used to waive the statutory period of six months for filing the second motion under Section 13B, as doing so will be passing an order in contravention of a statutory provision. It was observed :
“14. Generally, no court has the competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. (Vide State of Punjab v. Renuka Singla[(1994) 1 SCC 175], State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309], Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. [(1996) 4 SCC 453], University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra [(1997) 10 SCC 264] and Karnataka SRTC v. Ashrafulla Khan [(2002) 2 SC 560]
15. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr.[AIR 1963 SCC 996] held as under: (AIR p. 1002, para 12)
“12. … An order which this Court can make in order to do complete justice between the parties, must not only be consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but it cannot even be inconsistent with the substantive provisions of the relevant statutory laws.”
(emphasis supplied)
The Constitution Benches of this Court in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India [(1998) 4 SCC 409] and E.S.P. Rajaram v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 186] held that under Article 142 of the Constitution, this Court cannot altogether ignore the substantive provisions of a statute and pass orders concerning an issue which can be settled only through a mechanism prescribed in another statute. It is not to be exercised in a case where there is no basis in law which can form an edifice for building up a superstructure.”
5. This Court noted that power under Article 142 had been exercised in cases where the Court found the marriage to be totally unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and broken down irretrievably. This power was also exercised to put quietus to all litigations and to save the parties from further agony3. This view was reiterated in Poonam versus Sumit Tanwar4.
6. In Neeti Malviya versus Rakesh Malviya5, this Court observed that there was conflict of decisions in Manish Goel (supra) and Anjana Kishore versus Puneet Kishore6. The matter was referred to bench of three-Judges. However, since the matter became infructuous on account of grant of divorce in the meanwhile7.
7. Without any reference to the judgment in Manish Goel (supra), power under Article 142 of the Constitution has been exercised by this Court in number of cases8 even after the said judgment.
8. We find that in Anjana Kishore (supra), this Court was dealing with a transfer petition and the parties reached a settlement. This Court waived the six months period under Article 142 in the facts and circumstances of the case. In Anil Kumar Jain versus Maya Jain9 , one of the parties withdrew the consent. This Court held that marriage had irretrievably broken down and though the civil courts and the High Court could not exercise power contrary to the statutory provisions, this Court under Article 142 could exercise such power in the interests of justice. Accordingly the decree for divorce was granted.
9. After considering the above decisions, we are of the view that since Manish Goel (supra) holds the field, in absence of contrary decisions by a larger Bench, power under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be exercised contrary to the statutory provisions, especially when no proceedings are pending before this Court and this Court is approached only for the purpose of waiver of the statute.
10. However, we find that the question whether Section 13B(2) is to be read as mandatory or discretionary needs to be gone into. In Manish Goel (supra), this question was not gone into as it was not raised. This Court observed :
“23. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to advance arguments on the issue as to whether, statutory period prescribed under Section 13-B(1) of the Act is mandatory or directory and if directory, whether could be dispensed with even by the High Court in exercise of its writ/appellate jurisdiction.”
11. Accordingly, vide order dated 18th August, 2017, we passed the following order :
“List the matter on 23rd August, 2017 to consider the question whether provision of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage, Act, 1955 laying down cooling off period of six months is a mandatory requirement or it is open to the Family Court to waive the same having regard to the interest of justice in an individual case.
Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, senior counsel is appointed as Amicus to assist the Court. Registry to furnish copy of necessary papers to learned Amicus”.
12. Accordingly, learned amicus curiae has assisted the Court. We record our gratitude for the valuable assistance rendered by learned amicus who has been ably assisted by S/Shri Abhishek Kaushik, Vrinda Bhandari and Mukunda Rao Angara, Advocates.
13. Learned amicus submitted that waiting period enshrined under Section 13(B)2 of the Act is directory and can be waived by the court where proceedings are pending, in exceptional situations. This view is supported by judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Omprakash vs. K. Nalini10 , Karnataka High Court in Roopa Reddy vs. Prabhakar Reddy11 , Delhi High Court in Dhanjit Vadra vs. Smt. Beena Vadra12 and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dinesh Kumar Shukla vs. Smt. Neeta13 . Contrary view has been taken by Kerala High Court in M. Krishna Preetha vs. Dr. Jayan Moorkkanatt14. It was submitted that Section 13B(1) relates to jurisdiction of the Court and the petition is maintainable only if the parties are living separately for a period of one year or more and if they have not been able to live together and have agreed that the marriage be dissolved. Section 13B(2) is procedural. He submitted that the discretion to waive the period is a guided discretion by consideration of interest of justice where there is no chance of reconciliation and parties were already separated for a longer period or contesting proceedings for a period longer than the period mentioned in Section 13B(2). Thus, the Court should consider the questions:
i) How long parties have been married?
ii) How long litigation is pending?
iii) How long they have been staying apart?
iv) Are there any other proceedings between the parties?
v) Have the parties attended mediation/conciliation?
vi) Have the parties arrived at genuine settlement which takes care of alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties?
14. The Court must be satisfied that the parties were living separately for more than the statutory period and all efforts at mediation and reconciliation have been tried and have failed and there is no chance of reconciliation and further waiting period will only prolong their agony.
15. We have given due consideration to the issue involved. Under the traditional Hindu Law, as it stood prior to the statutory law on the point, marriage is a sacrament and cannot be dissolved by consent. The Act enabled the court to dissolve marriage on statutory grounds. By way of amendment in the year 1976, the concept of divorce by mutual consent was introduced. However, Section 13B(2) contains a bar to divorce being granted before six months of time elapsing after filing of the divorce petition by mutual consent. The said period was laid down to enable the parties to have a rethink so that the court grants divorce by mutual consent only if there is no chance for reconciliation.
16. The object of the provision is to enable the parties to dissolve a marriage by consent if the marriage has irretrievably broken down and to enable them to rehabilitate them as per available options. The amendment was inspired by the thought that forcible perpetuation of status of matrimony between unwilling partners did not serve any purpose. The object of the cooling off the period was to safeguard against a hurried decision if there was otherwise possibility of differences being reconciled. The object was not to perpetuate a purposeless marriage or to prolong the agony of the parties when there was no chance of reconciliation. Though every effort has to be made to save a marriage, if there are no chances of reunion and there are chances of fresh rehabilitation, the Court should not be powerless in enabling the parties to have a better option.
17. In determining the question whether provision is mandatory or directory, language alone is not always decisive. The Court has to have the regard to the context, the subject matter and the object of the provision. This principle, as formulated in Justice G.P. Singh’s “Principles of Statutory Interpretation” (9 th Edn., 2004), has been cited with approval in Kailash versus Nanhku and ors.15as follows:
“The study of numerous cases on this topic does not lead to the formulation of any universal rule except this that language alone most often is not decisive, and regard must be had to the context, subject-matter and object of the statutory provision in question, in determining whether the same is mandatory or directory. In an oft-quoted passage, Lord Campbell said: ‘No universal rule can be laid down as to whether mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only or obligatory with an implied nullification for disobedience. It is the duty of courts of justice to try to get at the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute to be considered.’
“ ‘For ascertaining the real intention of the legislature’, points out Subbarao, J. ‘the court may consider inter alia, the nature and design of the statute, and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other; the impact of other provisions whereby the necessity of complying with the provisions in question is avoided; the circumstances, namely, that the statute provides for a contingency of the non-compliance with the provisions; the fact that the non-compliance with the provisions is or is not visited by some penalty; the serious or the trivial consequences, that flow therefrom; and above all, whether the object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered’. If the object of the enactment will be defeated by holding the same directory, it will be construed as mandatory, whereas if by holding it mandatory serious general inconvenience will be created to innocent persons without very much furthering the object of enactment, the same will be construed as directory.”
18. Applying the above to the present situation, we are of the view that where the Court dealing with a matter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory period under Section 13B(2), it can do so after considering the following :
i) the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself;
ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA Rule 3 CPC/Section 23(2) of the Act/Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts;
iii) the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of a child or any other pending issues between the parties;
iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony.
19. The waiver application can be filed one week after the first motion giving reasons for the prayer for waiver.
20. If the above conditions are satisfied, the waiver of the waiting period for the second motion will be at the discretion of the concerned Court.
21. Since we are of the view that the period mentioned in Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory, it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation.
22. Needless to say that in conducting such proceedings the Court can also use the medium of video conferencing and also permit genuine representation of the parties through close relations such as parents or siblings where the parties are unable to appear in person for any just and valid reason as may satisfy the Court, to advance the interest of justice.
23. The parties are now at liberty to move the concerned court for fresh consideration in the light of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

…………………………………..J.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
…………………………………..J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)

NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 11158/2017
AMARDEEP SINGH …Appellant(s)
VERSUS
HARVEEN KAUR …Respondent(s)

Date: 12-09-2017 This appeal was called on for the pronouncement of judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed reportable judgment.
(SWETA DHYANI)
SENIOR PERSONAL

(PARVEEN KUMARI PASRICHA)
ASSISTANT BRANCH OFFICER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

Footnote
1 (2016) 13 SCC 383
2 (2010) 4 SCC 393
3 Para 11 ibid, noting earlier decisions in Romesh Chander v. Savitri (1995)
2 SCC 7; Kanchan Devi v. Promod Kumar Mittal (1996) 8 SCC 90; Anita Sabharwal v. Anil Sabharwal (1997) 11 SCC 490; Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri (1997) 4 SCC 226; Kiran v. Sharad Dutt (2000)10 SCC 243; Swati Verma v. Rajan Verma (2004) 1 SCC 123; Harpit Singh Anand v. State of W.B. (2004) 10 SCC 505; Jimmy Sudarshan Purohit v. Sudarshan Sharad Purohit (2005) 13 SCC 410; Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy (2005) 7 SCC 353; Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558; Sanghamitra Ghosh v. Kajal Kumar Ghosh (2007) 2 SCC 220; Rishikesh Sharma v. Saroj Sharma (2007) 2 SCC 263; Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 and Satish Sitole v. Ganga (2008) 7 SCC 734
4 (2010) 4 SCC 460
5 (2010) 6 SCC 413
6 (2002) 10 SCC 194
7 Order dated 23rd August, 2011 in Transfer Petition (Civil)No. 899 of 2007
8 Priyanka Singh v. Jayant Singh(2010) 15 SCC 390; Sarita Singh v. Rajeshwar Singh (2010) 15 SCC 374; Harpreet Singh Popli v. Manmeet Kaur Pople (2010) 15 SCC 316; Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar (2011) 5 SCC 234; Veena v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) (2011) 14 SCC 614; Priyanka Khanna v. Amit Khanna (2011) 15 SCC 612; Devinder Singh Narula v. Meenakshi Nangia (2012) 8 SCC 580; Vimi Vinod Chopra v. Vinod Gulshan Chpra (2013) 15 SCC 547; Priyanka Chawla v. Amit Chawla (2016) 3 SCC 126; Nikhil Kumar v. Rupali Kumar (2016) 13 SCC 383
9 (2009) 10 SCC 415
10 AIR 1986 AP 167 (DB)
11 AIR 1994 Kar 12 (DB)
12 AIR 1990 Del 146
13 AIR 2005 MP 106 (DB)
14 AIR 2010 Ker 157
15 (2005) 4 SCC 480

The post Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur appeared first on B&B Associates LLP.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 868 of 1986
DANIAL LATIFI & ANR. …PETITIONER
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/09/2001
BENCH: G.B. Pattanaik, S. RAjendra Babu, D.P. Mohapatra, Doraiswamy Raju & Shivaraj V. Patil
[ With WP(C) Nos. 996/86, 1001/86, 1055/86, 1062/86, 1236/86, 1259/86, 1281/86, T.C. (C) 22/ 87, 86/88, 68/88, T.P. (C) No. 276- 77/87, Crl. A. No. 702/90, SLP (Crl.) Nos. 655/88, 596-97/92, WP(C) No. 12273/84, SLP(Crl.) No. 2513/94, Crl. A. Nos. 508/95, 843/95, 102-103/89, 292/90, SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2165/96, 3786/99, 2462/99]

J U D G M E N T

RAJENDRA BABU, J.:
The constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] is in challenge before us in these cases. The facts in Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum & Ors. (1985) 2 SCC 556, are as follows.

The husband appealed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directing him to pay to his divorced wife Rs.179/- per month, enhancing the paltry sum of Rs.25 per month originally granted by the Magistrate. The parties had been married for 43 years before the ill and elderly wife had been thrown out of her husbands residence. For about two years the husband paid maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. When these payments ceased she petitioned under Section 125 CrPC. The husband immediately dissolved the marriage by pronouncing a triple talaq. He paid Rs.3000/- as deferred mahr and a further sum to cover arrears of maintenance and maintenance for the iddat period and he sought thereafter to have the petition dismissed on the ground that she had received the amount due to her on divorce under the Muslim law applicable to the parties. The important feature of the case was that the wife had managed the matrimonial home for more than 40 years and had borne and reared five children and was incapable of taking up any career or independently supporting herself at that late stage of her life – remarriage was an impossibility in that case. The husband, a successful Advocate with an approximate income of Rs.5,000/- per month provided Rs.200/- per month to the divorced wife, who had shared his life for half a century and mothered his five children and was in desperate need of money to survive.

Thus, the principle question for consideration before this Court was the interpretation of Section 127(3)(b) CrPC that where a Muslim woman had been divorced by her husband and paid her mahr, would it indemnify the husband from his obligation under the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. A Five-Judge Bench of this Court reiterated that the Code of Criminal Procedure controls the proceedings in such matters and overrides the personal law of the parties. If there was a conflict between the terms of the Code and the rights and obligations of the individuals, the former would prevail. This Court pointed out that mahr is more closely connected with marriage than with divorce though mahr or a significant portion of it, is usually payable at the time the marriage is dissolved, whether by death or divorce. This fact is relevant in the context of Section 125 CrPC even if it is not relevant in the context of Section 127(3)(b) CrPC. Therefore, this Court held that it is a sum payable on divorce within the meaning of Section 127(3)(b) CrPC and held that mahr is such a sum which cannot ipso facto absolve the husbands liability under the Act.

It was next considered whether the amount of mahr constitutes a reasonable alternative to the maintenance order. If mahr is not such a sum, it cannot absolve the husband from the rigour of Section 127(3)(b) CrPC but even in that case, mahr is part of the resources available to the woman and will be taken into account in considering her eligibility for a maintenance order and the quantum of maintenance. Thus this Court concluded that the divorced women were entitled to apply for maintenance orders against their former husbands under Section 125 CrPC and such applications were not barred under Section 127(3)(b) CrPC. The husband had based his entire case on the claim to be excluded from the operation of Section 125 CrPC on the ground that Muslim law exempted from any responsibility for his divorced wife beyond payment of any mahr due to her and an amount to cover maintenance during the iddat period and Section 127(3)(b) CrPC conferred statutory recognition on this principle. Several Muslim organisations, which intervened in the matter, also addressed arguments. Some of the Muslim social workers who appeared as interveners in the case supported the wife brought in question the issue of mata contending that Muslim law entitled a Muslim divorced woman to claim provision for maintenance from her husband after the iddat period. Thus, the issue before this Court was: the husband was claiming exemption on the basis of Section 127(3)(b) CrPC on the ground that he had given to his wife the whole of the sum which, under the Muslim law applicable to the parties, was payable on such divorce while the woman contended that he had not paid the whole of the sum, he had paid only the mahr and iddat maintenance and had not provided the mata i.e. provision or maintenance referred to in the Holy Quran, Chapter II, Sura 241. This Court, after referring to the various text books on Muslim law, held that the divorced wifes right to maintenance ceased on expiration of iddat period but this Court proceeded to observe that the general propositions reflected in those statements did not deal with the special situation where the divorced wife was unable to maintain herself. In such cases, it was stated that it would be not only incorrect but unjust to extend the scope of the statements referred to in those text books in which a divorced wife is unable to maintain herself and opined that the application of those statements of law must be restricted to that class of cases in which there is no possibility of vagrancy or destitution arising out of the indigence of the divorced wife. This Court concluded that these Aiyats [the Holy Quran, Chapter II, Suras 241-242] leave no doubt that the Holy Quran imposes an obligation on the Muslim husband to make provision for or to provide maintenance to the divorced wife. The contrary argument does less than justice to the teaching of the Holy Quran. On this note, this Court concluded its judgment.

There was a big uproar thereafter and Parliament enacted the Act perhaps, with the intention of making the decision in Shah Banos case ineffective.

The Statement of Objects & Reasons to the bill, which resulted in the Act, reads as follows :

The Supreme Court, in Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum & Ors. [AIR 1985 SC 945), has held that although the Muslim Law limits the husbands liability to provide for maintenance of the divorced wife to the period of iddat, it does not contemplate or countenance the situation envisaged by Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that it would be incorrect and unjust to extend the above principle of Muslim Law to cases in which the divorced wife is unable to maintain herself. The Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that if the divorced wife is able to maintain herself, the husbands liability ceases with the expiration of the period of iddat but if she is unable to maintain herself after the period of iddat, she is entitled to have recourse to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. This decision has led to some controversy as to the obligation of the Muslim husband to pay maintenance to the divorced wife. Opportunity has, therefore, been taken to specify the rights which a Muslim divorced woman is entitled to at the time of divorce and to protect her interests. The Bill accordingly provides for the following among other things, namely:-

(a) a Muslim divorced woman shall be entitled to a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance within the period of iddat by her former husband and in case she maintains the children born to her before or after her divorce, such reasonable provision and maintenance would be extended to a period of two years from the dates of birth of the children. She will also be entitled to mahr or dower and all the properties given to her by her relatives, friends, husband and the husbands relatives. If the above benefits are not given to her at the time of divorce, she is entitled to apply to the Magistrate for an order directing her former husband to provide for such maintenance, the payment of mahr or dower or the deliver of the properties;

(b) where a Muslim divorced woman is unable to maintain herself after the period of iddat, the Magistrate is empowered to make an order for the payment of maintenance by her relatives who would be entitled to inherit her property on her death according to Muslim Law in the proportions in which they would inherit her property. If any one of such relatives is unable to pay his or her share on the ground of his or her not having the means to pay, the Magistrate would direct the other relatives who have sufficient means to pay the shares of these relatives also. But where, a divorced woman has no relatives or such relatives or any one of them has not enough means to pay the maintenance or the other relatives who have been asked to pay the shares of the defaulting relatives also do not have the means to pay the shares of the defaulting relatives the Magistrate would order the State Wakf Board to pay the maintenance ordered by him or the shares of the relatives who are unable to pay.

The object of enacting the Act, as stated in the Statement of Objects & Reasons to the Act, is that this Court, in Shah Banos case held that Muslim Law limits the husbands liability to provide for maintenance of the divorced wife to the period of iddat, but it does not contemplate or countenance the situation envisaged by Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Muslim husband, according to his personal law, is not under an obligation to provide maintenance beyond the period of iddat to his divorced wife, who is unable to maintain herself.

As held in Shah Banos case, the true position is that if the divorced wife is able to maintain herself, the husbands liability to provide maintenance for her ceases with the expiration of the period of iddat but if she is unable to maintain herself after the period of iddat, she is entitled to have recourse to Section 125 CrPC. Thus it was held that there is no conflict between the provisions of Section 125 CrPC and those of the Muslim Personal Law on the question of the Muslim husbands obligation to provide maintenance to his divorced wife, who is unable to maintain herself. This view is a reiteration of what is stated in two other decisions earlier rendered by this Court in Bai Tahira vs. Ali Hussain Fidaalli Chothia, (1979) 2 SCC 316, and Fuzlunbi vs. K.Khader Vali & Anr., (1980) 4 SCC 125.

Smt. Kapila Hingorani and Smt. Indira Jaisingh raised the following contentions in support of the petitioners and they are summarised as follows :

1. Muslim marriage is a contract and an element of consideration is necessary by way of mahr or dower and absence of consideration will discharge the marriage. On the other hand, Section 125 CrPC has been enacted as a matter of public policy.

2. To enable a divorced wife, who is unable to maintain herself, to seek from her husband, who is having sufficient means and neglects or refuses to maintain her, payment of maintenance at a monthly rate not exceeding Rs.500/-. The expression wife includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. The religion professed by a spouse or the spouses has no relevance in the scheme of these provisions whether they are Hindus, Muslims, Christians or the Parsis, pagans or heathens. It is submitted that Section 125 CrPC is part of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not a civil law, which defines and governs rights and obligations of the parties belonging to a particular religion like the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the Shariat, or the Parsi Matrimonial Act. Section 125 CrPC, it is submitted, was enacted in order to provide a quick and summary remedy. The basis there being, neglect by a person of sufficient means to maintain these and the inability of these persons to maintain themselves, these provisions have been made and the moral edict of the law and morality cannot be clubbed with religion.

3. The argument is that the rationale of Section 125 CrPC is to offset or to meet a situation where a divorced wife is likely to be led into destitution or vagrancy. Section 125 CrPC is enacted to prevent the same in furtherance of the concept of social justice embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution.

4. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court will have to examine the questions raised before us not on the basis of Personal Law but on the basis that Section 125 CrPC is a provision made in respect of women belonging to all religions and exclusion of Muslim women from the same results in discrimination between women and women. Apart from the gender injustice caused in the country, this discrimination further leads to a monstrous proposition of nullifying a law declared by this Court in Shah Banos case. Thus there is a violation of not only equality before law but also equal protection of laws and inherent infringement of Article 21 as well as basic human values. If theobject of Section 125 CrPC is to avoid vagrancy, the remedy thereunder cannot be denied to Muslim women.

5. The Act is an un-islamic, unconstitutional and it has the potential of suffocating the muslim women and it undermines the secular character, which is the basic feature of the Constitution; that there is no rhyme or reason to deprive the muslim women from the applicability of the provisions of Section 125 CrPC and consequently, the present Act must be held to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; that excluding the application of Section 125 CrPC is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution; that the conferment of power on the Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Act is different from the right of a muslim woman like any other woman in the country to avail of the remedies under Section 125 CrPC and such deprivement would make the Act unconstitutional, as there is no nexus to deprive a muslim woman from availing of the remedies available under Section 125 CrPC, notwithstanding the fact that the conditions precedent for availing of the said remedies are satisfied.

The learned Solicitor General, who appeared for the Union of India, submitted that when a question of maintenance arises which forms part of the personal law of a community, what is fair and reasonable is a question of fact in that context. Under Section 3 of the Act, it is provided that a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid by her former husband within the iddat period would make it clear that it cannot be for life but would only be for a period of iddat and when that fact has clearly been stated in the provision, the question of interpretation as to whether it is for life or for the period of iddat would not arise. Challenge raised in this petition is dehors the personal law. Personal law is a legitimate basis for discrimination, if at all, and, therefore, does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution. If the legislature, as a matter of policy, wants to apply Section 125 CrPC to Muslims, it could also be stated that the same legislature can, by implication, withdraw such application and make some other provision in that regard. Parliament can amend Section 125 CrPC so as to exclude them and apply personal law and the policy of Section 125 CrPC is not to create a right of maintenance dehors the personal law. He further submitted that in Shah Banos case, it has been held that a divorced woman is entitled to maintenance even after the iddat period from the husband and that is how Parliament also understood the ratio of that decision. To overcome the ratio of the said decision, the present Act has been enacted and Section 3(1)(a) is not in discord with the personal law.

Shri Y.H.Muchhala, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, submitted that the main object of the Act is to undo the Shah Banos case. He submitted that this Court has harzarded interpretation of an unfamiliar language in relation to religious tenets and such a course is not safe as has been made clear by Aga Mahomed Jaffer Bindaneem vs. Koolsom Bee Bee & Ors., 24 IA 196, particularly in relation to Suras 241 and 242 Chapter II, the Holy Quran.. He submitted that in interpreting Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, the expressions provision and maintenance are clearly the same and not different as has been held by some of the High Courts. He contended that the aim of the Act is not to penalise the husband but to avoid vagrancy and in this context Section 4 of the Act is good enough to take care of such a situation and he, after making reference to several works on interpretation and religious thoughts as applicable to Muslims, submitted that social ethos of Muslim society spreads a wider net to take care of a Muslim divorced wife and not at all dependent on the husband. He adverted to the works of religious thoughts by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and Bashir Ahmad, published from Lahore in 1957 at p. 735. He also referred to the English translation of the Holy Quran to explain the meaning of gift in Sura 241. In conclusion, he submitted that the interpretation to be placed on the enactment should be in consonance with the Muslim personal law and also meet a situation of vagrancy of a Muslim divorced wife even when there is a denial of the remedy provided under Section 125 CrPC and such a course would not lead to vagrancy since provisions have been made in the Act. This Court will have to bear in mind the social ethos of Muslims, which are different and the enactment is consistent with law and justice.

It was further contended on behalf of the respondents that the Parliament enacted the impugned Act, respecting the personal law of muslims and that itself is a legitimate basis for making a differentiation; that a separate law for a community on the basis of personal law applicable to such community, cannot be held to be discriminatory; that the personal law is now being continued by a legislative enactment and the entire policy behind the Act is not to confer a right of maintenance, unrelated to the personal law; that the object of the Act itself was to preserve the personal law and prevent inroad into the same; that the Act aims to prevent the vagaries and not to make a muslim woman, destitute and at the same time, not to penalise the husband; that the impugned Act resolves all issues, bearing in mind the personal law of muslim community and the fact that the benefits of Section 125 CrPC have not been extended to muslim women, would not necessarily lead to a conclusion that there is no provision to protect the muslim women from vagaries and from being a destitute; that therefore, the Act is not invalid or unconstitutional.

On behalf of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, certain other contentions have also been advanced identical to those advanced by the other authorities and their submission is that the interpretation placed on the Arabic word mata by this Court in Shah Banos case is incorrect and submitted that the maintenance which includes the provision for residence during the iddat period is the obligation of the husband but such provision should be construed synonymously with the religious tenets and, so construed, the expression would only include the right of residence of a Muslim divorced wife during iddat period and also during the extended period under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act and thus reiterated various other contentions advanced on behalf of others and they have also referred to several opinions expressed in various text books, such as, –

1. The Turjuman al-Quran by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, translated into English by Dr. Syed Abdul Latif;
2. Persian Translation of the Quran by Shah Waliullah Dahlavi
3. Al-Manar Commentary on the Quran (Arabic);
4. Al-Isaba by Ibne Hajar Asqualani [Part-2]; Siyar Alam-in-Nubla by Shamsuddin Mohd. Bin Ahmed BinUsman Az-Zahbi;
5. Al-Maratu Bayn Al-Fiqha Wa Al Qanun by Dr. Mustafa AsSabai;
6. Al-Jamil ahkam-il Al-Quran by Abu Abdullah Mohammad Bin Ahmed Al Ansari Al-Qurtubi;
7. Commentary on the Quran by Baidavi (Arabic);
8. Rooh-ul-Bayan (Arabic) by Ismail Haqqi Affendi;
9. Al Muhalla by Ibne Hazm (Arabic);
10. Al-Ahwalus Shakhsiah (the Personal Law) by Mohammad abu Zuhra Darul Fikrul Arabi.

On the basis of the aforementioned text books, it is contended that the view taken in Shah Banos case on the expression mata is not correct and the whole object of the enactment has been to nullify the effect of the Shah Banos case so as to exclude the application of the provision of Section 125 CrPC, however, giving recognition to thepersonal law as stated in Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. As stated earlier, the interpretation of the provisions will have to be made bearing in mind the social ethos of the Muslim and there should not be erosion of the personal law.

On behalf of the Islamic Shariat Board, it is submitted that except for Mr. M. Asad and Dr. Mustafa-as-Sabayi no author subscribed to the view that the Verse 241 of Chapter II of the Holy Quran casts an obligation on a former husband to pay maintenance to the Muslim divorced wife beyond the iddat period. It is submitted that Mr. M. Asads translation and commentary has been held to be unauthentic and unreliable and has been subscribed by the Islamic World League only. It is submitted that Dr. Mustafa-as-Sabayi is a well-known author in Arabic but his field was history and literature and not the Muslim law. It was submitted that neither are they the theologists nor jurists in terms of Muslim law. It is contended that this Court wrongly relied upon Verse 241 of Chapter II of the Holy Quran and the decree in this regard is to be referred to Verse 236 of Chapter II which makes paying mata as obligatory for such divorcees who were not touched before divorce and whose Mahr was not stipulated. It is submitted that such divorcees do not have to observe iddat period and hence not entitled to any maintenance. Thus the obligation for mata has been imposed which is a one time transaction related to the capacity of the former husband. The impugned Act has no application to this type of case. On the basis of certain texts, it is contended that the expression mata which according to different schools of Muslim law, is obligatory only in typical case of a divorce before consummation to the woman whose mahr was not stipulated and deals with obligatory rights of maintenance for observing iddat period or for breast-feeding the child. Thereafter, various other contentions were raised on behalf of the Islamic Shariat Board as to why the views expressed by different authors should not be accepted.

Dr. A.M.Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate who appeared for the National Commission for Women, submitted that the interpretation placed by the decisions of the Gujarat, Bombay, Kerala and the minority view of the Andhra Pradesh High Courts should be accepted by us. As regards the constitutional validity of the Act, he submitted that if the interpretation of Section 3 of the Act as stated later in the course of this judgment is not acceptable then the consequence would be that a Muslim divorced wife is permanently rendered without remedy insofar as her former husband is concerned for the purpose of her survival after the iddat period. Such relief is neither available under Section 125 CrPC nor is it properly compensated by the provision made in Section 4 of the Act. He contended that the remedy provided under Section 4 of the Act is illusory inasmuch as firstly, she cannot get sustenance from the parties who were not only strangers to the marital relationship which led to divorce; secondly, wakf boards would usually not have the means to support such destitute women since they are themselves perennially starved of funds and thirdly, the potential legatees of a destitute woman would either be too young or too old so as to be able to extend requisite support. Therefore, realistic appreciation of the matter will have to be taken and this provision will have to be decided on the touch stone of Articles 14, 15 and also Article 21 of the Constitution and thus the denial of right to life and liberty is exasperated by the fact that it operates oppressively, unequally and unreasonably only against one class of women. While Section 5 of the Act makes the availability and applicability of the remedy as provided by Section 125 CrPC dependent upon the whim, caprice, choice and option of the husband of the Muslim divorcee who in the first place is sought to be excluded from the ambit of Section 3 of the post-iddat period and, therefore, submitted that this provision will have to be held unconstitutional.

This Court in Shah Banos case held that although Muslim personal law limits the husbands liability to provide maintenance for his divorced wife to the period of iddat, it does not contemplate a situation envisaged by Section 125 CrPC of 1973. The Court held that it would not be incorrect or unjustified to extend the above principle of Muslim Law to cases in which a divorced wife is unable to maintain herself and, therefore, the Court came to the conclusion that if the divorced wife is able to maintain herself the husbands liability ceases with the expiration of the period of iddat, but if she is unable to maintain herself after the period of iddat, she is entitled to recourse to Section 125 CrPC. This decision having imposed obligations as to the liability of Muslim husband to pay maintenance to his divorced wife, Parliament endorsed by the Act the right of a Muslim woman to be paid maintenance at the time of divorce and to protect her rights. The learned counsel have also raised certain incidental questions arising in these matters to the following effect :

1) Whether the husband who had not complied with the orders passed prior to the enactments and were in arrears of payments could escape from their obligation on the basis of the Act, or in other words, whether the Act is retrospective in effect?
2) Whether Family Courts have jurisdiction to decide the issues under the Act?
3) What is the extent to which the Wakf Board is liable under the Act?

The learned counsel for the parties have elaborately argued on a very wide canvass. Since we are only concerned in this Bench with the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act, we will consider only such questions as are germane to this aspect. We will decide only the question of constitutional validity of the Act and relegate the matters when other issues arise to be dealt with by respective Benches of this Court either in appeal or special leave petitions or writ petitions.

In interpreting the provisions where matrimonial relationship is involved, we have to consider the social conditions prevalent in our society. In our society, whether they belong to the majority or the minority group, what is apparent is that there exists a great disparity in the matter of economic resourcefulness between a man and a woman. Our society is male dominated both economically and socially and women are assigned, invariably, a dependant role, irrespective of the class of society to which she belongs. A woman on her marriage very often, though highly educated, gives up her all other avocations and entirely devotes herself to the welfare of the family, in particular she shares with her husband, her emotions, sentiments, mind and body, and her investment in the marriage is her entire life a sacramental sacrifice of her individual self and is far too enormous to be measured in terms of money. When a relationship of this nature breaks up, in what manner we could compensate her so far as emotional fracture or loss of investment is concerned, there can be no answer. It is a small solace to say that such a woman should be compensated in terms of money towards her livelihood and such a relief which partakes basic human rights to secure gender and social justice is universally recognised by persons belonging to all religions and it is difficult to perceive that Muslim law intends to provide a different kind of responsibility by passing on the same to those unconnected with the matrimonial life such as the heirs who were likely to inherit the property from her or the wakf boards. Such an approach appears to us to be a kind of distortion of the social facts. Solutions to such societal problems of universal magnitude pertaining to horizons of basic human rights, culture, dignity and decency of life and dictates of necessity in the pursuit of social justice should be invariably left to be decided on considerations other than religion or religious faith or beliefs or national, sectarian, racial or communal constraints. Bearing this aspect in mind, we have to interpret the provisions of the Act in question.

Now it is necessary to analyse the provisions of the Act to understand the scope of the same. The Preamble to the Act sets out that it is an Act to protect the rights of Muslim women who have been divorced by, or have obtained divorce from, their husbands and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. A divorced woman is defined under Section 2(a) of the Act to mean a divorced woman who was married according to Muslim Law, and has been divorced by, or has obtained divorce from her husband in accordance with Muslim Law; iddat period is defined under Section 2(b) of the Act to mean, in the case of a divorced woman,-

(i) three menstrual courses after the date of divorce, if she is subject to menstruation;
(ii) three lunar months after her divorce, if she is not subject to menstruation; and
(iii) if she is enceinte at the time of her divorce, the period between the divorce and the delivery of her child or the termination of her pregnancy whichever is earlier. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act are the principal sections, which are under attack before us. Section 3 opens up with a non-obstante clause overriding all other laws and provides that a divorced woman shall be entitled to –

(a) a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the period of iddat by her former husband;

(b) where she maintains the children born to her before or after her divorce, a reasonable provision and maintenance to be made and paid by her former husband for a period of two years from the respective dates of birth of such children;

(c) an amount equal to the sum of mahr or dower agreed to be paid to her at the time of her marriage or at any time thereafter according to Muslim Law; and

(d) all the properties given to her by her before or at the time of marriage or after the marriage by her relatives, friends, husband and any relatives of the husband or his friends.

Where such reasonable and fair provision and maintenance or the amount of mahr or dower due has not been made and paid or the properties referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (1) have not been delivered to a divorced woman on her divorce, she or any one duly authorised by her may, on her behalf, make an application to a Magistrate for an order for payment of such provision and maintenance, mahr or dower or the delivery of properties, as the case may be. Rest of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act may not be of much relevance, which are procedural in nature.

Section 4 of the Act provides that, with an overriding clause as to what is stated earlier in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force, where the Magistrate is satisfied that a divorced woman has not re-married and is not able to maintain herself after the iddat period, he may make an order directing such of her relatives as would be entitled to inherit her property on her death according to Muslim Law to pay such reasonable and fair maintenance to her as he may determine fit and proper, having regard to the needs of the divorced woman, the standard of life enjoyed by her during her marriage and the means of such relatives and such maintenance shall be payable by such relatives in the proportions in which they would inherit her property and at such periods as he may specify in his order. If any of the relatives do not have the necessary means to pay the same, the Magistrate may order that the share of such relatives in the maintenance ordered by him be paid by such of the other relatives as may appear to the Magistrate to have the means of paying the same in such proportions as the Magistrate may think fit to order. Where a divorced woman is unable to maintain herself and she has no relatives as mentioned in sub-section (1) or such relatives or any one of them has not enough means to pay the maintenance ordered by the Magistrate or the other relatives have not the means to pay the shares of those relatives whose shares have been ordered by the Magistrate to be paid by such other relatives under the second proviso to sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, by order direct the State Wakf Board, functioning in the area in which the divorced woman resides, to pay such maintenance as determined by him as the case may be. It is, however, significant to note that Section 4 of the Act refers only to payment of maintenance and does not touch upon the provision to be made by the husband referred to in Section 3(1)(a) of the Act.

Section 5 of the Act provides for option to be governed by the provisions of Sections 125 to 128 CrPC. It lays down that if, on the date of the first hearing of the application under Section 3(2), a divorced woman and her former husband declare, by affidavit or any other declaration in writing in such form as may be prescribed, either jointly or separately, that they would prefer to be governed by the provisions of Sections 125 to 128 CrPC, and file such affidavit or declaration in the court hearing the application, the Magistrate shall dispose of such application accordingly.

A reading of the Act will indicate that it codifies and regulates the obligations due to a Muslim woman divorcee by putting them outside the scope of Section 125 CrPC as the divorced woman has been defined as Muslim woman who was married according to Muslim law and has been divorced by or has obtained divorce from her husband in accordance with the Muslim law. But the Act does not apply to a Muslim woman whose marriage is solemnized either under the Indian Special Marriage Act, 1954 or a Muslim woman whose marriage was dissolved either under Indian Divorce Act, 1969 or the Indian Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Act does not apply to the deserted and separated Muslim wives. The maintenance under the Act is to be paid by the husband for the duration of the iddat period and this obligation does not extend beyond the period of iddat. Once the relationship with the husband has come to an end with the expiry of the iddat period, the responsibility devolves upon the relatives of the divorcee. The Act follows Muslim personal law in determining which relatives are responsible under which circumstances. If there are no relatives, or no relatives are able to support the divorcee, then the Court can order the State Wakf Boards to pay the maintenance.

Section 3(1) of the Act provides that a divorced woman shall be entitled to have from her husband, a reasonable and fair maintenance which is to be made and paid to her within the iddat period. Under Section 3(2) the Muslim divorcee can file an application before a Magistrate if the former husband has not paid to her a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance or mahr due to her or has not delivered the properties given to her before or at the time of marriage by her relatives, or friends, or the husband or any of his relatives or friends. Section 3(3) provides for procedure wherein the Magistrate can pass an order directing the former husband to pay such reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to the divorced woman as he may think fit and proper having regard to the needs of the divorced woman, standard of life enjoyed by her during her marriage and means of her former husband. The judicial enforceability of the Muslim divorced womans right to provision and maintenance under Section (3)(1)(a) of the Act has been subjected to the condition of husband having sufficient means which, strictly speaking, is contrary to the principles of Muslim law as the liability to pay maintenance during the iddat period is unconditional and cannot be circumscribed by the financial means of the husband. The purpose of the Act appears to be to allow the Muslim husband to retain his freedom of avoiding payment of maintenance to his erstwhile wife after divorce and the period of iddat.

A careful reading of the provisions of the Act would indicate that a divorced woman is entitled to a reasonable and fair provision for maintenance. It was stated that Parliament seems to intend that the divorced woman gets sufficient means of livelihood, after the divorce and, therefore, the word provision indicates that something is provided in advance for meeting some needs. In other words, at the time of divorce the Muslim husband is required to contemplate the future needs and make preparatory arrangements in advance for meeting those needs. Reasonable and fair provision may include provision for her residence, her food, her cloths, and other articles. The expression within should be read as during or for and this cannot be done because words cannot be construed contrary to their meaning as the word within would mean on or before, not beyond and, therefore, it was held that the Act would mean that on or before the expiration of the iddat period, the husband is bound to make and pay a maintenance to the wife and if he fails to do so then the wife is entitled to recover it by filing an application before the Magistrate as provided in Section 3(3) but no where the Parliament has provided that reasonable and fair provision and maintenance is limited only for the iddat period and not beyond it. It would extend to the whole life of the divorced wife unless she gets married for a second time.

The important section in the Act is Section 3 which provides that divorced woman is entitled to obtain from her former husband maintenance, provision and mahr, and to recover from his possession her wedding presents and dowry and authorizes the magistrate to order payment or restoration of these sums or properties. The crux of the matter is that the divorced woman shall be entitled to a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband. The wordings of Section 3 of the Act appear to indicate that the husband has two separate and distinct obligations : (1) to make a reasonable and fair provision for his divorced wife; and (2) to provide maintenance for her. The emphasis of this section is not on the nature or duration of any such provision or maintenance, but on the time by which an arrangement for payment of provision and maintenance should be concluded, namely, within the iddat period. If the provisions are so read, the Act would exclude from liability for post-iddat period maintenance to a man who has already discharged his obligations of both reasonable and fair provision and maintenance by paying these amounts in a lump sum to his wife, in addition to having paid his wifes mahr and restored her dowry as per Section 3(1)(c) and 3(1)(d) of the Act. Precisely, the point that arose for consideration in Shah Banos case was that the husband has not made a reasonable and fair provision for his divorced wife even if he had paid the amount agreed as mahr half a century earlier and provided iddat maintenance and he was, therefore, ordered to pay a specified sum monthly to her under Section 125 CrPC. This position was available to Parliament on the date it enacted the law but even so, the provisions enacted under the Act are a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid as provided under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act and these expressions cover different things, firstly, by the use of two different verbs to be made and paid to her within the iddat period, it is clear that a fair and reasonable provision is to be made while maintenance is to be paid; secondly, Section 4 of the Act, which empowers the magistrate to issue an order for payment of maintenance to the divorced woman against various of her relatives, contains no reference to provision. Obviously, the right to have a fair and reasonable provision in her favour is a right enforceable only against the womans former husband, and in addition to what he is obliged to pay as maintenance; thirdly, the words of the Holy Quran, as translated by Yusuf Ali of mata as maintenance though may be incorrect and that other translations employed the word provision, this Court in Shah Banos case dismissed this aspect by holding that it is a distinction without a difference. Indeed, whether mata was rendered maintenance or provision, there could be no pretence that the husband in Shah Banos case had provided anything at all by way of mata to his divorced wife. The contention put forth on behalf of the other side is that a divorced Muslim woman who is entitled to mata is only a single or one time transaction which does not mean payment of maintenance continuously at all. This contention, apart from supporting the view that the word provision in Section 3(1)(a) of the Act incorporates mata as a right of the divorced Muslim woman distinct from and in addition to mahr and maintenance for the iddat period, also enables a reasonable and fair provision and a reasonable and fair provision as provided under Section 3(3) of the Act would be with reference to the needs of the divorced woman, the means of the husband, and the standard of life the woman enjoyed during the marriage and there is no reason why such provision could not take the form of the regular payment of alimony to the divorced woman, though it may look ironical that the enactment intended to reverse the decision in Shah Banos case, actually codifies the very rationale contained therein.

A comparison of these provisions with Section 125 CrPC will make it clear that requirements provided in Section 125 and the purpose, object and scope thereof being to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can do so to support those who are unable to support themselves and who have a normal and legitimate claim to support is satisfied. If that is so, the argument of the petitioners that a different scheme being provided under the Act which is equally or more beneficial on the interpretation placed by us from the one provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure deprive them of their right loses its significance. The object and scope of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who are under an obligation to support those who are unable to support themselves and that object being fulfilled, we find it difficult to accept the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners.

Even under the Act, the parties agreed that the provisions of Section 125 CrPC would still be attracted and even otherwise, the Magistrate has been conferred with the power to make appropriate provision for maintenance and, therefore, what could be earlier granted by a Magistrate under Section 125 CrPC would now be granted under the very Act itself. This being the position, the Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional.

As on the date the Act came into force the law applicable to Muslim divorced women is as declared by this Court in Shah Banos case. In this case to find out the personal law of Muslims with regard to divorced womens rights, the starting point should be Shah Banos case and not the original texts or any other material all the more so when varying versions as to the authenticity of the source are shown to exist. Hence, we have refrained from referring to them in detail. That declaration was made after considering the Holy Quran, and other commentaries or other texts. When a Constitution Bench of this Court analysed Suras 241-242 of Chapter II of the Holy Quran and other relevant textual material, we do not think, it is open for us to re-examine that position and delve into a research to reach another conclusion. We respectfully abide by what has been stated therein. All that needs to be considered is whether in the Act specific deviation has been made from the personal laws as declared by this Court in Shah Banos case without mutilating its underlying ratio. We have carefully analysed the same and come to the conclusion that the Act actually and in reality codifies what was stated in Shah Banos case. The learned Solicitor General contended that what has been stated in the Objects and Reasons in Bill leading to the Act is a fact and that we should presume to be correct. We have analysed the facts and the law in Shah Banos case and proceeded to find out the impact of the same on the Act. If the language of the Act is as we have stated, the mere fact that the Legislature took note of certain facts in enacting the law will not be of much materiality.

In Shah Banos case this Court has clearly explained as to the rationale behind Section 125 CrPC to make provision for maintenance to be paid to a divorced Muslim wife and this is clearly to avoid vagrancy or destitution on the part of a Muslim woman. The contention put forth on behalf of the Muslims organisations who are interveners before us is that under the Act vagrancy or destitution is sought to be avoided but not by punishing the erring husband, if at all, but by providing for maintenance through others. If for any reason the interpretation placed by us on the language of Sections 3(1)(a) and 4 of the Act is not acceptable, we will have to examine the effect of the provisions as they stand, that is, a Muslim woman will not be entitled to maintenance from her husband after the period of iddat once the Talaq is pronounced and, if at all, thereafter maintenance could only be recovered from the various persons mentioned in Section 4 or from the Wakf Board. This Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985(3) SCC 545, and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248, held that the concept of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution would include the right to live with dignity. Before the Act, a Muslim woman who was divorced by her husband was granted a right to maintenance from her husband under the provisions of Section 125 CrPC until she may re-marry and such a right, if deprived, would not be reasonable, just and fair. Thus the provisions of the Act depriving the divoced Muslim women of such a right to maintenance from her husband and providing for her maintenance to be paid by the former husband only for the period of iddat and thereafter to make her run from pillar to post in search of her relatives one after the other and ultimately to knock at the doors of the Wakf Board does not appear to be reasonable and fair substitute of the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. Such deprivation of the divorced Muslim women of their right to maintenance from their former husbands under the beneficial provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure which are otherwise available to all other women in India cannot be stated to have been effected by a reasonable, right, just and fair law and, if these provisions are less beneficial than the provisions of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a divorced Muslim woman has obviously been unreasonably discriminated and got out of the protection of the provisions of the general law as indicated under the Code which are available to Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian women or women belonging to any other community. The provisions prima facie, therefore, appear to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution mandating equality and equal protection of law to all persons otherwise similarly circumstanced and also violative of Article 15 of the Constitution which prohibits any discrimination on the ground of religion as the Act would obviously apply to Muslim divorced women only and solely on the ground of their belonging to the Muslim religion. It is well settled that on a rule of construction a given statute will become ultra vires or unconstitutional and, therefore, void, whereas another construction which is permissible, the statute remains effective and operative the court will prefer the latter on the ground that Legislature does not intend to enact unconstitutional laws. We think, the latter interpretation should be accepted and, therefore, the interpretation placed by us results in upholding the validity of the Act. It is well settled that when by appropriate reading of an enactment the validity of the Act can be upheld, such interpretation is accepted by courts and not the other way.

The learned counsel appearing for the Muslim organisations contended after referring to various passages from the text books to which we have adverted to earlier to state that the law is very clear that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance only upto the stage of iddat and not thereafter. What is to be provided by way of Mata is only a benevolent provision to be made in case of divorced Muslim woman who is unable to maintain herself and that too by way of charity or kindness on the part of her former husband and not as a result of her right flowing to the divorced wife. The effect of various interpretations placed on Suras 241 and 242 of Chapter 2 of Holy Quran has been referred to in Shah Banos case. Shah Banos case clearly enunciated what the present law would be. It made a distinction between the provisions to be made and the maintenance to be paid. It was noticed that the maintenance is payable only upto the stage of iddat and this provision is applicable in case of a normal circumstances, while in case of a divorced Muslim woman who is unable to maintain herself, she is entitled to get Mata. That is the basis on which the Bench of Five Judges of this Court interpreted the various texts and held so. If that is the legal position, we do not think, we can state that any other position is possible nor are we to start on a clean slate after having forgotten the historical background of the enactment. The enactment though purports to overcome the view expressed in Shah Banos case in relation to a divorced Muslim woman getting something by way of maintenance in the nature of Mata is indeed the statutorily recognised by making provision under the Act for the purpose of the maintenance but also for provision. When these two expressions have been used by the enactment, which obviously means that the Legislature did not intend to obliterate the meaning attributed to these two expressions by this Court in Shah Banos case. Therefore, we are of the view that the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties to the contrary cannot be sustained.

In Arab Ahemadhia Abdulla and etc vs. Arab Bail Mohmuna Saiyadbhai & Ors. etc., AIR 1988 (Guj.) 141; Ali vs. Sufaira, (1988) 3 Crimes 147; K. Kunhashed Hazi v. Amena, 1995 Crl.L.J. 3371; K. Zunaideen v. Ameena Begum, (1998] II DMC 468; Karim Abdul Shaik v. Shenaz Karim Shaik, 2000 Cr.L.J. 3560 and Jaitunbi Mubarak Shaikh v. Mubarak Fakruddin Shaikh & Anr., 1999 (3) Mh.L.J. 694, while interpreting the provision of Sections 3(1)(a) and 4 of the Act, it is held that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to a fair and reasonable provision for her future being made by her former husband which must include maintenance for future extending beyond the iddat period. It was held that the liability of the former husband to make a reasonable and fair provision under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act is not restricted only for the period of iddat but that divorced Muslim woman is entitled to a reasonable and fair provision for her future being made by her former husband and also to maintenance being paid to her for the iddat period. A lot of emphasis was laid on the words made and paid and were construed to mean not only to make provision for the iddat period but also to make a reasonable and fair provision for her future. A Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kaka v. Hassan Bano & Anr., II (1998) DMC 85 (FB), has taken the view that under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act a divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance which is not restricted to iddat period. To the contrary it has been held that it is not open to the wife to claim fair and reasonable provision for the future in addition to what she had already received at the time of her divorce; that the liability of the husband is limited for the period of iddat and thereafter if she is unable to maintain herself, she has to approach her relative or Wakf Board, by majority decision in Umar Khan Bahamami v. Fathimnurisa, 1990 Cr.L.J. 1364; Abdul Rashid v. Sultana Begum, 1992 Cr.L.J. 76; Abdul Haq v. Yasima Talat; 1998 Cr.L.J. 3433; Md. Marahim v. Raiza Begum, 1993 (1) DMC 60. Thus preponderance of judicial opinion is in favour of what we have concluded in the interpretation of Section 3 of the Act. The decisions of the High Courts referred to herein that are contrary to our decision stand overruled.

While upholding the validity of the Act, we may sum up our conclusions:

1) a Muslim husband is liable to make reasonable and fair provision for the future of the divorced wife which obviously includes her maintenance as well. Such a reasonable and fair provision extending beyond the iddat period must be made by the husband within the iddat period in terms of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act.
2) Liability of Muslim husband to his divorced wife arising under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act to pay maintenance is not confined to iddat period.
3) A divorced Muslim woman who has not remarried and who is not able to maintain herself after iddat period can proceed as provided under Section 4 of the Act against her relatives who are liable to maintain her in proportion to the properties which they inherit on her death according to Muslim law from such divorced woman including her children and parents. If any of the relatives being unable to pay maintenance, the Magistrate may direct the State Wakf Board established under the Act to pay such maintenance.
4) The provisions of the Act do not offend Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

In the result, the writ petition Nos. 868/86, 996/86, 1001/86, 1055/86, 1062/86, 1236/86, 1259/86 and 1281/86 challenging the validity of the provisions of the Act are dismissed.

All other matters where there are other questions raised, the same shall stand relegated for consideration by appropriate Benches of this Court.

The post Danial Latifi & Anr vs Union Of India appeared first on B&B Associates LLP.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.163 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP ( C) No. 15810 of 2015)

TEJALBEN …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MIHIRBHAI BHARATBHAI KOTHARI …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN,J.:

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Miscellaneous Civil Application (For Transfer) No.2596 of 2014 whereby the High Court dismissed the transfer application.

3. It is seen that suit for divorce is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajkot. The appellant had moved before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad for transfer of proceedings pending at Rajkot to Jamnagar.

4. It is seen that further proceedings between the parties are pending at Jamnagar. Therefore, we find no reason why the divorce case be not transferred to Jamnagar.

5. The order dated 10.12.2014 is hence, set aside and the transfer of proceedings from Rajkot to Jamnagar, is allowed.

6. The appeal stands disposed of. No costs.

………………..J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]

…………………..J.
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]

NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 11, 2016.

The post Tejalben Vs. Mihirbhai Bharatbhai Kothari appeared first on B&B Associates LLP.