CASE COMMENT

MANISHA TYAGI VS. CAPT DEEPAK KUMAR

(AIR 2010 SC 1042 - CIVIL APPEAL NO.5387 OF 2007)
VASANTH S
BC0190050

INTRODUCTION
Manisha Tyagi VS. Capt Deepak Kumar is a civil case which held in the District Court of Gurgaon.
This case talks about the issue of cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a base for
divorce and with respect to the 1976 amendment of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). Adding to that,
the following analysis done also highlights the unstable dilemma situations undergone by the Courts
while bringing the case upon. In this civil case, the wife has taken a challenge on the judgment of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana in LPA No.1625/01 on 25.08.2006 where actually the High Court
itself set aside the judgment of the Trial Court that is the District Court in Gurgaon, and the
judgement of Ld. Single judge and granted a decree of divorce to the husband. Let us discuss more in
depth on the facts of the case or the case background that follows.

BACKGROUND
In this case, an army officer, and an advocate, got married according to Hindu rites on 17.11.1991 at
New Delhi. After getting married, they lived in Meerut for a short period of time where the husband
was posted as a captain in the Indian Army. However, they soon fell apart, and started living
separately from 31.12.1992 also not to forget the fact that they have a daughter who was born on
2.6.1993. The husband filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty, before the District Court
of Gurgaon under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 24.11.1993, also amending it as the Court
ordered a transfer petition on 28.11.1995. The husband mentioned that the wife was rude, ill-
mannered, quarrelsome, and that she had made his life a miserable one. He alleged that she shouted
and humiliated him in front of his officers and, made allegations of sodomy against him, and
allegations against his father of molesting her. Besides, the husband also alleged that the wife filed
number of criminal cases against him, but to no avail as they were all false ones. Further, that she had
also abused him and his family members, compared him to a barking dog, and so on. According to
him, she has been blackmailing 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
complained that the wife had been making unwanted complaints to his higher authorities, which has
affected his career progression in the Army. The husband filed a claim for cruelty against his wife.
The wife likewise made similarly awful claims of dowry request, sodomy, and mental and physical
torment in different manners. In aggregate, there were endless objections and claims made against one
another. Courts pursued for compromise just to understand that it was not working out. The Court
discovered both the gatherings to blame upon, and didn't allow the decree of divorce as the husband
couldn't prove the wrong deeds of wife which entitles him the decree of divorce. On claim against this
by the husband, the single judge saw that the wife had surpassed all constraints of fairness and crossed
the 'Lakshman Rekha' when she went to lodging a false FIR, and when she attempted to embarrass
him before his superiors. The Court found out that both are at fault, and did a fair play by allowing a
decree of judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hoping that the parties
might re-unite atleast for the welfare of their girl child.
The husband accepted the order of the single judge, but the wife went in appeal before the Division
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Court held that cruelty as alleged by the husband
stood proved, and consequently, the single judge order was set aside and a decree of divorce granted
to the husband. The wife again went in claim against the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Division
Bench request, and preceded the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, then in its judgment held that
the Division Bench of the High Court had committed an error in granting the decree of divorce, and
thus, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s order by restoring the single judge order of
granting judicial separation.

ANALYSIS
The concept of cruelty has not been defined, and is not permanent, it changes every day. This can be
observed from the case Ravi Kumar V. Julmi Devi as the SC said cruelty has no definite definition
and it is also not possible to have one. Moreover the case of Naveen Kohli V. Neelu Kohli also tells
us that cruelty can be of different varieties as it is a subjective one. Therefore, today, it is not
necessary for a party claiming divorce to prove that the cruel treatment is of such a nature as to cause
a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him or her to live with the other
party. Now, it is 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.
Thus, in the case of Manisha Tyagi v. Capt Deepak Kumar, both the trial Court and the appellate
Court (single judge) had upon after carefully examining the case and considering the conduct of the
parties over a period of time, found that the husband could not prove cruelty on part of the wife. The
trial Court explained that to say that a person started to bark like a dog, and a person is a dog are two
different things. The Court also said that the allegations of the wife against the husband of unnatural
sex cannot be equated with sodomy. Thus, the fact that the wife had been treating her husband with
cruelty could not be established. Both the Courts had agreed that the marriage had broken down, and
was irretrievable, but, since that was not a valid ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act,
divorce could not be granted and hence decree of judicial separation was withheld and restored.
As it is proved by the facts, the Trial Court was more inclined to believe the wife, whereas the Single
Judge of the High Court found both the parties to be at fault. Thus, the middle path of judicial
separation had been accepted. There was no need for the Division Bench to grant the decree of
divorce as this was not a case where there was a need for the Court to correct any glaring and serious
errors committed by the Courts below which had resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The trial Court
and the appellate Court had both concluded that the husband could not prove cruelty by the wife.
Thus, the Apex Court very aptly stated that, “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”.

CONCLUSION
Manisha Tyagi v. Capt Deepak Kumar is a civil matrimonial case with a history which indicates
judicial approach in the same set of circumstances. Firstly, the trial and appellate Courts found that
the husband failed to prove that his wife had treated him with cruelty, and hence divorce could not be
granted. The safe path of judicial separation was taken in hands. However, the Division Bench of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court concluded that the acts of the wife lead to cruelty, ignoring the
findings of the two previous Courts. The Court granted divorce to the husband, and by doing so, in a
way responded as if the husband had appealed against judicial separation.
Thus, the Supreme Court aptly reversed the order of the Division Bench, and upheld the granting of
judicial separation by the single judge of the High Court, as the Division Bench had no need to justify
their reversal of judicial separation, and grant divorce.