qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn

mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl
Sanat Kumar Agarwal Vs.
Smt. Nandini Agarwal
zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
Case Analysis
Family Law - I
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasd
fghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyu
iopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe
rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
Internal Assessment - 1

Contents
1.General information
2.Facts of the case
The factual background giving rise to the filing of the
present special leave application
The present scenario

3.Relevant Laws
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)

4.Judgment
5.Analysis
6.Conclusion
7.Bibliography

General information
Court: Supreme Court of India
Application filed on: 06.02.1982
Decided on: 24.01.1990
Appellants: Sanat Kumar Agarwal
Respondents: Smt. Nandini Agarwal
Honble Judges: Justice K.N.Singh and N.M.Kasliwal
Acts/Rules: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)
Cases Referred: Smt. Shakuntala vs. Shivnarain Agarwal, Civil
Appeal No. 835 of 1987
Order: Special Leave Granted

Facts of the case

The factual background giving rise to the
filing of the present special leave application
The case of the petitioner Sanat Kumar with regard to
desertion was that he was married to the respondent
Nandini on 11.6-1978 and on the same day his sister
Shakuntala was married to Shivnarain, brother of Nandini
as per the custom of GURAWAT. Thereafter some
differences had arisen between the parties with the result
that Nandini returned back to her parents house and the
appellant's sister Shakuntala also left her husband's
house. On 28.11.1978 the appellant along with his sister
Shakuntala and his mother came to meet Shivnarain and
then another meeting took place on 1.12.1978 and the
parties came to a settlement. Following the settlement,
the appellant Sanat Kumar took Nandini to his house while
Shivnarain took Shakuntala to his house. It has been
alleged by the appellant that on 8.12.1978 Shakuntala
reached her parents house from her in-laws house and on
9.12.1978 Nandini also went to her parents house after
leaving her matrimonial house. It has been alleged that
both the appellant and the respondent highly educated
and belonged to cultured families and were posted as a
Science Officer in the Nuclear Power Department and
teacher respectively. According to the appellant the
duration of matrimonial relations between the parties
continued only for six months. During this short period
they had to face tremendous ups and downs in their
matrimonial relationships, in which the solemnization of
marriage between the parties according to 'GURAWAT'
system had played an important role. On 9.12.1978
Nandini went to her parents house herself and
since then she has been residing with her parents.

Nandini left the matrimonial house on 9.12.1978 without

any cause or reason and thereafter did not resume her
matrimonial obligations nor returned back to the
matrimonial house and this amounted to desertion. The
present petition for divorce was filed on 6.2.1982.
The petition was filed on the grounds of desertion and
cruelty. It may be mentioned that Shivnarain had filed the
petition for divorce against Shakuntala, sister of the
appellant on 1.1.1982.

The present scenario

The present appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court of
India by the appellant for divorce on the ground of
desertion after the rejection of the application by the High
Court.
Both Shivnarain as well as Sanat Kumar filed petitions of
divorce against their wives on the ground of cruelty and
desertion as contemplated under Section 13(1) (ia) & (ib)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, The petition for divorce
filed by Shivnarain was dismissed by the Trial Court but
was allowed in appeal by the High Court and an appeal
filed against the Judgment of the High Court was
dismissed by this Court on 16.1.1990 in Civil Appeal No.
835 of 1987 Shakuntla v. Shivnarain Agarwal. Petition
for divorce filed by Sanat Kumar against Smt.
Nandini was dismissed by the Trial Court and the
order was affirmed by the High Court. Sanat Kumar
aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court has filed the
present Special Leave petition No. 2187 of 1988.

Relevant Laws
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)

Section 13(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or

after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition
presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved
by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had
voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than
his or her spouse; or
(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated
the petitioner with cruelty; or
(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous
period of not less than two years immediately
preceding the presentation of the petition; or
(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to anther
religion; or
(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been
suffering continuously or intermittently from mental
disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the
petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the
respondent.
(iv) has been suffering from a virulent and incurable form
of leprosy; or
(v) has been suffering from venereal disease in a
communicable form; or
(vi) has renounced the world by entering any religious
order; or
(vii) has not been heard of being alive for a period of
seven years or more by those persons who would
naturally have heard of it, had that party been alive;

Judgment

After going through the entire record of the case and also
considering the arguments advanced by learned counsels
for the parties and in view of Justice Kasliwal this appeal
deserves to be allowed. The present petition for divorce

by Sanat Kumar has been brought on grounds of cruelty

and desertion on the part of the respondent Nandini.
Additional District Judge after discussing the evidence
decided both the questions of cruelty as well as desertion
against the petitioner/appellant. The High Court did not
discuss the evidence in detail but affirmed the findings of
the Trial Court. The husband Sanat Kumar has thus
approached this Court by special leave. So far as the point
of cruelty is concerned Supreme Court agreed with the
finding of the Courts below. Now there remains the
question of desertion and in its view the Courts below
committed error in the facts and circumstances of the
present case in holding that no desertion was proved in
the present case.
The judgment of Additional District judge was highly
criticized and was rendered incorrect by Justice Kasliwal.
The judge observed that there was not an iota of
evidence placed on record by neither the respondent nor
any averment to show that any effort was made by her to
go and join the matrimonial home by the appellant. Thus,
the special leave application was granted by the
Supreme Court of India.

Analysis
This case reveals how a pernicious custom known
as 'GURAWAT' (Salta-Palta) resulted in matrimonial
casualty in respect of two families of Agarwal
Community. There is a custom prevailing in Agarwal
Community of Chhattisgarh region in the State of Madhya
Pradesh known as 'GURAWAT'. According to this
custom brothers and sisters of one family are
married to brothers and sisters of another family.

The parties in the present case belonged to educated

families. In this case, one of the main reasons for the
differences that arose between the appellant (Sanat
Kumar) and the respondent (Nandini) were the tension
between the other couple Shakuntala (appellants sister)
and Shivnarain (respondents brother).
There are two important questions that arise out of this
case
Whether the trial court as well as the high court was
unreasonable in rejecting the divorce application in
spite of believing the statement of the appellant to be
true.
Whether in cases where there is an irretrievable break
down of marriage, are the courts justified in making
useless efforts to restore it and thus extending the
litigation.
To answer the first question, in my opinion yes, the trial
court was quite unreasonable in rejecting the divorce
application in spite of believing the statement of the
appellant to be true because then it clearly revealed that
the respondent was adamant not to live with the
appellant. In fact the following observation made by the
learned Additional District Judge was held to be incorrect
by the Supreme court Judge.
Even if, this statement is accepted to be correct, it does
not reveal that the respondent had decided to put an end
to marital relationship and co-habitation and had gone
from the matrimonial house to her parents house. On the
contrary, the respondent has stated that she was always
ready and willing to reside with the petitioner.
On the contrary there are various instances to show that
respondent was not at all interested in returning back to

her matrimonial home. The first one being the one, where
the respondent went to meet the appellant at the railway
station but did not do so and gave some lame excuses for
this conduct of hers. The second is when a letter was sent
by the appellant to the respondent to come to Bhopal
along with her brother and arrive at some settlement, no
efforts were made on her part which clearly shows that
she never wanted to fulfill her marital obligations and
wanted an end of such relations.
It is further important to note that the petition for divorce
was filed on 6.2.1982 i.e. more than three years of leaving
the matrimonial home by the respondent on 9.12.1978.
Coming on to the second issue, there was certainly an
irretrievable break down of this marriage and it as quite
clear and understood that the parties could not have
arrived at a settlement under any circumstances. It was
more than a decade that the parties had been living
separately, both of them had independent source of
income and had adjusted to their new mode of life. So, the
trial courts and the High Court was not justified in making
useless attempts to stop the marriage from coming to an
end and trying to convince them to come to a settlement
and thus extending the litigation.

Conclusion
The case of Sanat Kumar Agarwal vs. Smt. Nandini
Agarwal is a good example of how Section 13(1) (ib) of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 i.e. divorce on the ground of
desertion applies to real life situations and actual cases. It
also shows how the root cause of the dissension between
the matrimonial relations in between the two families was
on account of the certain customs how it can adversely

affect the life of its followers and bring certain relations to

an end whose very base was these customs. As already
mentioned in spite of best efforts made by the courts,
reunion between the parties could not be possible and the
Supreme Court was clearly of the view that the appellant
has proved his case for grant of decree of divorce on
ground of desertion and thus te appeal was allowed.

Bibliography
Websites:
www.manupata.com
www.wikipedia.com
www.legallyindia.com
www.indiankanoon.org
www.scconline.com

 Books:
Hindu Marriage Act,1955 Bare Act
Family law Lectures LexisNexis Student Series by
Professor Kusum
Family Law by Dr. Paras Diwan
Hindu Principles of Family Law by S.A.Desai