T Srinivasan vs. T Varalakshmi Case Summary 1991

T Srinivasan vs. T Varalakshmi Case Summary 1991

T Srinivasan vs. T Varalakshmi Case explained the meaning of the word ‘wrong’ given in Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act along with interpreting the Restitution of Conjugal Rights. Srinivasan v. Varalaxmi case held that in order to be a ‘wrong’ within the meaning of Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the conduct alleged has to be something more than a mere disinclination to agree to an offer of reunion, it must be misconduct serious enough to justify denial of the relief to which the husband or the wife is otherwise entitled.

CITATION: I (1991) DMC 20

COURT: MADRAS HIGH COURT

BENCH: J. K.M.NATARAJAN

BRIEF FACTS OF SRINIVASAN vs. VARALAKSHMI CASE:

  • The appellant-husband and the Respondent-wife were married on 31st Jan 1975 and lived together in the respondent’s house for 2 or 3 days.
  • Soon after their wedlock, the appellant-husband started teasing the respondent-wife alleging insufficiency of gifts by her parents, and also the presence of a small congenital lump on the respondent’s shoulder was criticized, which was already made known to him even before marriage.
  • Because of the non-fulfillment of the appellant’s demand to bring larger presents and jewels, the respondent-wife was sent back to her parent’s house on 13th Feb 1975.
  • To a notice issued by the appellant on 28th July 1975, the respondent immediately sent a suitable reply denying the allegations made against her that she has withdrawn from the society of her husband without probable cause.
  • Countering to the petition for restitution of conjugal rights being filed by the appellant-husband, the respondent-wife submitted she was willing and eager to live with him and never thought of living alone, and was ready to join him by narrating the circumstances under which she has been deserted by her husband.
  • Thereupon, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was granted by the court on 21st Feb 1977.
  • On 08th March 1977, the respondent-wife sent a notice through her counsel to the appellant that she was willing, to join with the appellant and lead a conjugal life with the appellant and requested him to send some relation to take her back to his house, to which the appellant did not send any reply.
  • Seeing all her attempts being made nullified, the respondent-wife filed a complaint at the Police Station and sued for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
  • The suit was resisted by the appellant and in the written statement he admitted the marriage and submitted that the respondent and her parents played a deception on him by not disclosing a large lump on the back of the respondent which was discovered by him only on the nuptial night.
  • The appellant denied the allegations made against him by the respondent regarding the inadequacy of gifts.
  • Hence, a petition for divorce was being filed by the appellant-husband under section 13(1A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that though he got a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the parties have not lived together and no restitution has taken place between them for over one year after the decree.
  • Further, the respondent-wife resisted the above-said application by stating that it is only the appellant who deserted her without reasonable or probable cause, and all attempts made by her to live with him after the decree for restitution have become futile and he is not entitled to a decree for divorce.

LEGAL ISSUES:

  1. Whether the principle laid down in section 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 successfully applied by the concerned Court?
  2. Whether a decree for divorce should automatically follow on the expiry of the period of one year from the date of decree for restitution of conjugal rights?
  3. Whether the Court below justified in refusing a decree for divorce for the appellant based on Section 23(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
  4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance even after a right to seek divorce under Hindu Marriage Act has accrued to the appellant?
  5. Whether the respondent entitled to separate maintenance?

RATIO:

  • The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is controlled by Section23(1)(a), mere refusal by the appellant to take back the respondent will not amount to ‘wrong’ so as to dis-entitle him to get a decree for dissolution of marriage.
  • Thus, the concerned court did not accept the contention that the mere refusal of the appellant to join the respondent cannot be the ground for refusing to grant a decree of divorce since one year has elapsed from the date of the decree and such refusal would not amount to wrong as contemplated in section 23(1)(a). [Case Reference: Dharmendra Kumar v. Usha Kumar; Bimla Devi v. Sing Raj]
  • “In order to be a ‘wrong’ within the meaning of Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the conduct alleged has to be something more than a mere disinclination to agree to an offer of reunion, it must be misconduct serious enough to justify denial of the relief to which the husband or the wife is otherwise entitled”.
  • It was also worthwhile to note that the petition for dissolution of marriage under section 13(1)(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed, during the pendency of the maintenance proceedings instituted by the respondent-wife and also long after the institution of the said proceedings, wherein it was alleged that the appellant willfully neglected to maintain her and consequently deserted her without probable and reasonable cause and in spite of repeated requests and notices.
  • The above conduct of the appellant is also relevant in determining the question of “wrong” as contemplated under section 23(1)(a) of the Act. Thereupon, it is not mere non-compliance of decree but an act of positive wrong by the appellant, and in view of section 23(1)(a), he is not entitled to the relief provided under section 13(1-A).

JUDGMENT:

In view of the concurrent findings of both the courts, it was evident that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was being filed by the appellant just to obtain a further decree of divorce and not to act as per the decree, and the appellant deserted the respondent with no reasonable or probable cause. Hence, the respondent-wife was entitled to claim maintenance.

As a result, both the appeals failed and were dismissed by the appellant against his wife.

Found T Srinivasan vs. T Varalakshmi Case summary useful? We have a bunch of useful topics from family law that will help you in your preparation here >>> FAMILY LAW

Check out our YouTube Channel for free legal videos >>> LAW PLANET YT

Share on print
Print PDF
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on twitter
Twitter
See Legal News, Judgements, Jobs Monthwise

Recent Posts

About Us

Law Planet is specially created for law enthusiasts. We provide courses for various law exams. We also write about law to increase legal awareness amongst common citizens.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG!