GALGOTIAS UNIVERSITY

INTERNAL ASSESSMENT 2
CASE ANALYSIS
ON
SUMAN SINGH VS SUNJAY SINGH,8TH MARCH 2017

SUBMITTED TO
ABHILASHA SISODIA MAM (FAMILY LAW TUTOR)

AND
SUBMITTED BY
EMMANUEL AMARFIO MENSAH
(19GSOL1030099)
(19041030091)
BBA+LLB(HONS) SEMESTER 3-B
FACTS OF THE CASE
The marriage between the appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) was solemnized
on 26.02.1999 as per the Hindu rites. The respondent-husband was working under the
government of NCT of Delhi and the appellant was a housewife. They had two daughters on
15.06.2002 and 10.02.2006 accordingly.
On 11.07.2010, the husband filed a petition for dissolution for their marriage under section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’) on the ground of
‘cruelty’ in the Family Courts, Rohini, Delhi. The respondent (husband), in his petition,
pleaded 9 instances which, according to him, constituted ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of
Section 13(1)(i-a)(i) of the Act entitling him to claim dissolution of marriage against the
appellant. Those instances comprised of- the wife not paying respect to the husband’s
elders and relatives, inappropriate behaviour of the appellant-wife and her family towards
the respondent, uninterested in doing household activities, and other allegations relating to
wife’s behaviour with the respondent and his family members.
The appellant filed her written statement and denied these allegations. The appellant also
applied for restitution of conjugal rights (section 9(ii) of the Act) against the respondent in
the same proceedings claiming that it was the husband who left the matrimonial bond
without any reasonable cause. On date 14.12.2012, it was held by the Family Court that the
grounds alleged by the respondent amounted to mental cruelty within the meaning of
Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. Hence, dissolution of the marriage was approved and
subsequently, the appeal of the wife was dismissed. The appellant then filed first appeals
before the High Court. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeals and
affirmed the decree of the Trial Court.
The appellant-wife hence filed the appeals by special leave against the judgment of the High
Court in the Supreme Court of India.
STATUTES INVOVLED
The Hindu Marriage Act,1955. (Section 13)
(i) Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and
unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or
mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of
mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular
society, to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they
live. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the spouse it is established or an
inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes
apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this
conduct amounts to cruelty.
(ii) When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from
the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for
restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements
made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be
granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly. Where a question arises
whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of
proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

Whether a case of cruelty under section 13 of the Act was set up in the instant case?
Whether the appellant was entitled to the restitution of conjugal rights as prayed?

\ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
From the Appellant side:
The Appellant denied the allegations placed by the respondent against her. The appellant
had also contended that she was entitled to the restitution of conjugal rights (section 9 of
the Act). She justified that the husband withdrew from their matrimonial bond without any
reasonable cause.
From the Respondent side:
The respondent submitted that all the instances that had happened so far were enough to
constitute cruelty. He also contended that the appellant had made allegation against him of
his having an extra-matrimonial relation and it constituted as a ground of cruelty. Since both
the spouses were living in separate homes for quite a long time, the respondent submitted
that he was entitled to a divorce.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

Issue No.1
The court referred Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh case(iii) where mental cruelty was intensely
examined. In the same case, the Supreme Court enumerated 16 category of cases which are
considered relevant while examining the question as to whether the facts alleged and
proved constitute mental cruelty. The facts of the instant case, according to the then
present bench, did not satisfy the test laid down in the aforesaid case.
The court contended that most of the allegations made by the husband were stale and
isolated. The instances collectively or individually were not able to form cruelty. It was
noticed that the allegations pleaded were with no details such as when such incident
occurred (year, month, date etc.), what was its background, who witnessed, what the
appellant actually said etc. Some isolated incidents alleged to have occurred 8-10 years prior
to filing of the date of petition could not furnish a subsisting cause of action to seek divorce
after 10 years or so of occurrence of such incidents. Thus, no ground for divorce was proved
or granted.
Issue No.2
The court held that the appellant was entitled for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights
against the respondent. After the Court held clear that the respondent failed to make out
any case of cruelty against the appellant, it was clear that it was the respondent who
withdrew from the company of the appellant without reasonable cause and not the vice
versa. Thus, the appeal made by the wife was granted.
RATIO DECINDENDI:
The appeals succeed and were allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court was set
aside. As a result, the petition filed by the respondent (husband) under Section 13(1) of the
Act seeking dissolution of marriage was dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the marriage
between the parties was held to exist whereas the petition filed by the appellant against the
respondent under Section 9 of the Act seeking restitution of conjugal right is allowed. A
decree for restitution of conjugal right is, accordingly, passed against the respondent.
The court also took a moment to share its views that, “The incidents alleged (for setting the
ground of cruelty) should be of recurring nature or continuing one and they should be in
near proximity with the filing of the petition.”
CONCLUSION
That a petition seeking divorce on some isolated incidents alleged to have occurred 8 to 10
years prior to filing of the date of petition cannot furnish a subsisting cause of action to seek
divorce after 10 years or so of occurrence of such incidents.