Key Points Raised in the Judgement :
"Fault theory’. -"The
party seeking divorce under the “matrimonial offence theory” / the “fault
theory” must be innocent. A party suffering “guilt” or “fault” disentitles
himself/herself from consideration. Illustratively, desertion for a specified
continuous period, is one of the grounds for annulment of marriage.But the
aforesaid ground for annulment is available only, if the desertion is on
account of the fault of the opposite party, and not fault of the party which
has approached the Court. Therefore, if a husband’s act of cruelty, compels a
wife to leave her matrimonial home, whereupon, she remains away from the husband
for the stipulated duration, it would not be open to a husband to seek
dissolution of marriage, on the ground of desertion. The reason being, that it
is the husband himself who was at fault, and not the wife."
Full Text of Supreme Court of India Judgement :
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL
APPEAL NOS. 6332-6333 OF 2009
Darshan
Gupta
... Appellant
Versus
Radhika
Gupta
... Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.
The marriage between the appellant-husband,
Darshan Gupta and the respondent-wife, Radhika Gupta, was solemnized on
9.5.1997 at the Holiday Inn Hotel in Hyderabad, as per Hindu rights and
customs. This was not the first matrimonial alliance between the two families.
The husband’s elder brother was already married to the wife’s sister. Both
parties admittedly belong to well-to-do families. At the time of marriage
between the parties, Darshan Gupta, the husband was 22 years of age, and
Radhika Gupta was 19. Now the husband is 35, and the wife 32. The marriage
between the parties was duly consummated, and their relationship blossomed into
one full of love and affection.
The cordiality between the parties continued
for a period of two years, till
the wife conceived for the first time in
February 1999. The afore stated conception was aborted when
Radhika Gupta was in the fourth month of her pregnancy, as she had commenced to
suffer from hypertension resulting into fits, extreme morning sickness and
general weakness. The decision to abort the pregnancy in June, 1999, was based
on medical advice. The wife Radhika
Gupta conceived for the second time in February 2000.During the instant pregnancy,
she had similar symptoms, as she had suffered on the earlier occasion. For the
aforesaid reason, and on medical advice, when the pregnancy was in its eighth
month, a caesaran operation was performed in September, 2000. At the time of
birth of the child, the wife, Radhika Gupta, was unconscious. Even after the
child was delivered, she remained unconscious. The child born to Radhika Gupta
survived for only eight days.
Since Radhika Gupta had developed serious
medical complications, she was treated at the best hospitals at Hyderabad, amongst
others at the Apollo Hospital, as an
indoor patient. Doctors from across the country were consulted. They had
attended upon her, at the behest of her husband Darshan Gupta. To ensure that
there was no deficiency in her medical upkeep, she was shifted to the
Leelavathi Hospital at Mumbai. At Mumbai, further tests were conducted and
surgeries were performed. She also sought consultations from the National Institute
of Medical Health and Neuroscience, Bangalore (NIMHANS). During the treatment
of Radhika Gupta, neurologists and gynecologists looking after her believed,
that she had suffered brain damage. On that account, in fields wherein Radhika Gupta needed assistance. He also ensured,
that such treatment was provided to her at premium hospitals. Material on
record demonstrates, that she was admitted at the Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad,
and thereafter, at the Leelavathi Hospital, Mumbai. Her treatment at NIMHANS,
Bangalore, also emerges from the record of the case. There can, therefore, be
no doubt about the initial commitment of Darshan Gupta towards the welfare of
his wife Radhika Gupta.
It, however, seems, that the
appellant-husband was skeptical about the outcome of her recovery. His
assessment of her medical condition, in the background of the inputs from the
doctors attending on her, probably created the impression, that she would
henceforth be a liability on him. Dr. M. Veera Raghava Reddy-PW4 may have been
responsible for the said impression. Even during the course of his testimony
before the Family Court, Dr. M. Veera Raghava Reddy-PW4 had opined, that from
his experience he could state, that even if the respondent Radhika Gupta was
treated by psychiatrists or clinical physiologists, her improvement would be
limited to 4-5%. Keeping in mind the hopeless condition of Radhika Gupta, the
appellant-husband could not have expected any kind of positive relationship
with Radhika Gupta. It was natural for him to infer, that his wife would
henceforth be a useless burden. It is not reasonable to blame him for his
impressions. In 2000, when the unfortunate
incident occurred, he was merely 25 years
old. One would expect, that all his dreams of a happy married life, came to be
shattered after seeing the medical condition of his wife,
specially in the background of the assessment made by the experts being
consulted. The aforesaid impression in his mind, clearly demonstrates the
reason of his responses towards Radhika Gupta, in the aftermath of her medical
tragedy. He was absolutely sure, that she would never be able to lead a normal
life, and that, there was no question of her being able to perform her
matrimonial obligations. It is in the aforesaid background, that it is
easier to understand why he had refrained
from extending emotional or moral support to Radhika Gupta. But the inescapable
truth is, that factually Darshan Gupta did not extend emotional or moral
support to his wife, after her medical episode. The distress of Darshan Gupta,
and the distance that he started to keep from his wife, emerge from the
statement of Dr. C.R. Mukundan-RW1. Dr.C.R. Mukundan-RW1 placed on the record
of the Family Court three documents (Exhibits R1 to R3). The aforesaid
documents pertain to the treatment of Radhia Gupta during 2002. In our view,
those are the safest documents to be relied upon, for truly assessing the
medical conditions of Radhika Gupta. These reports cannot be said to have been
created, at the asking of one or the other.
They were honest impressions expressed about
the state of mental health of Radhika Gupta. The attending doctor of Radhika
Gupta considered it appropriate to expressly record in one of these reports,
that during her treatment, he had requested Radhika Gupta to bring her husband
along with her. He also noted, that the husband had never accompanied her, despite
his aforesaid indication to Radhika Gupta. The consequence of non-participation
of Darshan Gupta in the course of treatment of Radhika Gupta, is
also recorded in the report.
The report notices, that her improvement
would have been a lot more significant and faster, if her husband had been with
her and had cared for her in her journey to recovery. The reasons which may
have weighed in the young husband’s mind may be any, but the harsh reality is,
that Darshan Gupta did not extend due care and support to his wife, nor did he
participate in her journey to recovery. Shorn of the participation and support
of Darshan Gupta to his wife Radhika Gupta, it is still material to determine
the extent of her recovery. An assessment of the mental condition of Radhika
Gupta, would render it possible for us to determine whether or not in terms of
Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, her mental disorder is of
such a kind, and to such an extent,that Darshan Gupta cannot reasonably be
expected to live with her. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is
concerned, it would be just and appropriate to refer to and rely upon, the three
reports prepared at the relevant time. The aforesaid reports were placed on the
record of the Family Court by Dr. C.R.Mukundan-RW1. The said reports were
prepared in June, July and October2002. The reports reveal, that Radhika Gupta
had undergone intensive cognitive re-training using brain function therapy, and
she was provided with graded re-training in alphabet and number recognition and
delayed recall, recognition and recall
of words and figures, different levels of working memory, etc. In the
firstneuro-psychological assessment of Radhika Gupta at NIMHANS in June,
2002,as also, in the second assessment made in July, 2002, considerableimprovement was found in the medical condition of Radhika Gupta.
She was found to have shown significant progress in all cognitive areas, and
that, her word finding difficulty was reduced by 60-70%. Even though the report
records, that she could not spontaneously name household articles and food
materials, or recall the names of persons and objects seen in movies or read in
books, yet was noticed, that she could do so with some effort. The report also
records, that her working memory had improved to an extent, that the same could
be described as “near normal”. In her aforesaid assessment, she was found to be
able to execute and complete, working memory tasks. Radhika Gupta was subjected
to a third neuro-psychological assessment in October, 2002. Again marked
improvement was found in her conceptual organization of numbers and ability for
arithmetic operations. The instant third assessment expressly records, that
Radhika Gupta was capable of all normal emotional experiences and expressions.
Her eager and earnest desire about her future reunion with her husband, is also
indicated in the report. She has been assessed as fully capable of shouldering
the responsibilities of a happy marital life. Dr. C.R. Mukundan- RW1
categorically testified, that Radhika Gupta was not a case of mental disorder.
He clarified, that her case was of cognitive deficiency, on account of brain
damage. According to RW1, Radhika Gupta had recovered her working memory by
more than 80%. He also explained, that cognitive deficiency is recoverable, but
the recovery is dependent on the degree of damage to the brain, as also, the
emotional support the patient gets from the family members, at the relevant
time. It would be pertinent to mention, that this is the testimony of the same
doctor, who had been requiring Radhika Gupta to bring Darshan Gupta along with
her, during the course of her consultations. During the course of his
cross-examination, Dr. C.R. Mukunan-RW1 denied the suggestion, that Radhika Gupta
was not in a position to discharge her normal day to day functions of
life.Besides the testimony of Dr. C.R. Mukundan-RW1, it would be relevant to
mention, that the Family Court had directed Radhika Gupta to appear before a
medical board. It would be appropriate to refer to the findings and conclusions
recorded in the report submitted by the said
medical board, which comprised of eminent specialists in psychiatry and
clinical psychology. In the aforesaid report (Exhibit C1) submitted to the
Family Court, conclusions were recorded on the basis of the medical history of
Radhika Gupta, as also, the observations and examinations of the
respondent-wife. The medical board expressed the opinion, that Radhika Gupta
was suffering from cognitive deficiencies in the form of difficulty in
comprehension, attention, concentration, orientation, perceptual ability,
memory retrieval, word finding difficulty and organization ability. The said effects,
according to the Board, could influence her day to day functioning. It was
however concluded, that Radhika Gupta did not manifest any signs of major
mental disorder, and that, she exhibited normal adequate emotional responses.
It was also opined, that she would further benefit from neuro-psychological rehabilitation
measures, which are available at NIMHANS. Dr. Bhaskar Naidu, one of the members
of the medical board, was also examined by the Family Court, as
a court witness. During the course of his deposition, Dr. Bhaskara Naidu-CW2,
expressed the opinion that Radhika Gupta could be described as a person of moderate
intelligence. He also expressed, that by undergoing therapy training, there was
a further likelihood of improving her cognitive deficiencies. He also
clarified, that the deficiencies suffered by Radhika Gupta, would not come in
her way to discharge her matrimonial obligations. The aforesaid material, in
our considered view, would be sufficient in recording our conclusions, in
respect of the mental health of Radhika Gupta.Based on the evidence discussed
hereinabove, it is not possible for us to record,that Radhika Gupta suffers
from any incurable unsoundness of mind. It is also not possible for us to hold,
that she suffers from such mental disorder, that it cannot be reasonably
expected of her husband to live with her. The evidence produced before the Family
Court leaves no room for us but to conclude, that Radhika Gupta merely suffers
from mild to moderate cognitive deficiencies. She is categorized by medical
experts as an individual of moderate intelligence.Material on the record of the
case reveals, that she would further benefit from neuro-psychological
rehabilitation measures, which are available at NIMHANS.
Even though the said deficiencies could
influence her day to day functioning, but expert opinion is unanimous that the
same would not come in her way to discharge her matrimonial obligations. It
cannot also be overlooked, that experts have clearly expressed that Radhika
Gupta exhibits normal and adequate emotional responses. She has right from the
beginning, fervently expressed the desire to restore her relationship with her
husband, and to live a normal life, in a matrimonial relationship with him. In
the aforesaid view of the matter, it is not possible for us to conclude, that
the mental condition of Radhika Gupta is such as would persuade us to accept
the appeal preferred by Darshan Gupta under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.It would also be relevant for us to refer to the alleged
erratic behaviour of Radhika Gupta. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to
mention, that it was pointedly asserted at the behest of the appellant-husband,
that Radhika Gupta would wake up in the middle of the night, and thereafter,
would not allow him to sleep. It was also contended, that Radhika Gupta would
shout and scream without any provocation or cause, at any time of the day (or
night). Other similar allegations were also levelled by Darshan Gupta against
his wife. The Family Court, while dealing with the said allegations, had
rejected the same on the ground, that there was no evidence before the Court,
except the deposition of interested witnesses, namely, the appellant-husband
himself, his maternal aunt Nirmala Devi and his elder twin brother Drapan
Gupta. Since the husband did not produce independent witnesses available to him
before the Family Court, itwas concluded that the husband had failed to
establish, that Radhika Gupta’sbehaviour was aggressive, erratic or abnormal;
or that he was subject to crueltyon account of such behaviour. We are of the
considered view, that the FamilyCourt, as also, the High Court were fully
justified in drawing their conclusions,insofar as the alleged abnormal, erratic
and aggressive behaviour of Radhika Gupta is concerned. The courts below were
fully justified in recording, that the said behaviour of Radhika Gupta could
have easily been established through the testimony of the attendants who looked
after Radhika Gupta, as also, the other staff, yet the said witnesses were not
produced by the appellant, despite their availability. Interestingly, however,
the appellant-husband himself had produced Dr. M. Veera Raghava Reddy-PW4, to
support his cause. Dr. M. Veera Raghava Reddy-PW4 appearing for the
appellant-husband, during his deposition asserted that he did not observe any
signs of aggressiveness in the respondent-wife.
Since Radhika Gupta was under the care and
treatment of Dr. M. Veera Raghava Reddy-PW4, he would have obviously known of
her erratic behaviour, if the allegations of the husband were correct. The
respondent-wife had alsoproduced Dr. C.R. Mukundan-RW1 on her behalf. He too
would have been aware of such behaviour. The appellant Darshan Gupta, however,
chose not toexamine Dr. C.R. Mukundan-RW1, on the said subject. In fact, there
is materialon the record of the case to draw a finding, converse to the submissionadvanced.
In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention, that in the order of the
Family Court it is duly noted, that when Dr. M. Veera Raghawa
Reddy-PW4,appeared to depose in the matter, Radhika Gupta was sitting in the
court-hallobserving court proceedings. During his interaction with Radhika
Gupta, PW4had enquired about her welfare, and she had responded by stating “I
am fine sir,thank you”. The very court which Radhika Gupta had repeatedly
visited,recorded the above instance to demonstrate that her behavior was far
from rerratic, as suggested by the husband. The position, in our
view, would be no different, even if we consider these facts in onjunction with
her medical condition. We are, therefore, satisfied in accepting the conclusion
drawn concurrently by the courts below, that there was no material on the
record of the case, to substantiate the alleged aggressive, erratic or abnormal
behaviour of Radhika Gupta. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is not
possible to accept the appeal preferred by the appellant even under Section
13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Despite our aforesaid conclusions, it is
necessary to examine the instant controversy from another point of view. As
noticed hereinabove, it was the vehement contention of the learned counsel for
the respondent-wife, based on the pleadings filed by Radhika Gupta, as also,
the evidence produced by her,that it was the husband Darshan Gupta alone, who
was blameworthy of the medical condition of the respondent. It was submitted,
that Darshan Gupta desires to encash on his own fault, by seeking dissolution
of marriage, for a consequence, of which he himself was blameworthy. The
instant submission, though not canvassed in that manner, can be based on a
legal premise. A perusal of the grounds on which divorce can be sought under
Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, would reveal, that the same are
grounds based on the ‘fault’ of the party against whom dissolution of marriage
is sought. In matrimonial jurisprudence, such provisions are founded on the
‘matrimonial offence theory’ or the ‘fault theory’. Under this jurisprudential
principle, it is only on the ground of an opponent’s fault, that
a party may approach a Court for seeking annulment of his/her matrimonial
alliance. In other words, if either of the parties is guilty of committing a
matrimonial offence, the aggrieved party alone is entitled to divorce. The
party seeking divorce under the “matrimonial offence theory” / the “fault
theory” must be innocent. A party suffering “guilt” or “fault” disentitles
himself/herself from consideration. Illustratively, desertion for a specified
continuous period, is one of the grounds for annulment of marriage.But the
aforesaid ground for annulment is available only, if the desertion is on
account of the fault of the opposite party, and not fault of the party which
has approached the Court. Therefore, if a husband’s act of cruelty, compels a
wife to leave her matrimonial home, whereupon, she remains away from the husband
for the stipulated duration, it would not be open to a husband to seek
dissolution of marriage, on the ground of desertion. The reason being, that it
is the husband himself who was at fault, and not the wife. This is exactly what
the respondent has contended. Her claim is, that in actuality the appellant is
making out a claim for a decree of divorce, on the basis of allegations for
which he himself is singularly responsible. On the said allegations, it is
Darshan Gupta, who deserves to be castigated. Therefore, he cannot be allowed
to raise an accusing finger at the respondent on the basis of the said
allegations, or to seek dissolution of marriage, thereon. There is no dispute
between the rival parties, that after Radhika Gupta’s first conception was
aborted in June, 1999, the attending gynecologist at Apollo Hospital,
had cautioned the couple against any further conception for at least two years.
The couple had been advised, that pregnancy of Radhika Gupta during this period
could lead to serious medical complications. Radhika Gupta alleges,that her
husband had proceeded with unsafe cohabitation, leading to her second
pregnancy, within a short period of eight months (after the abortion in June,
1999), i.e. well within the risk period. Clearly contrary to the medical
advisory. The truth of the second conception, cannot be disputed, in view of
the overwhelming supporting evidence on the record of the case. The conception
could have only occurred because of,
unprotected sexual indulgence by Darshan Gupta. The medical condition of Radhika
Gupta, was for one and only one reason, namely, the second conception of
Radhika Gupta, during the unsafe period. Clearly, the blame thereof, rests
squarely on the shoulders of Darshan Gupta.
The instant conclusion is difficult to
assimilate. Yet, there can be no doubt about the truthfulness thereof. It is in
this view of the matter, that the submissions advanced at the hands of the
learned counsel for Darshan Gupta, have been vehemently opposed. The
unambiguous contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is, that the
grounds/facts on which divorce is sought by the appellant, are not at all
available to him under the “fault theory” on which Section 13(1) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, is founded. We are persuaded to accept the submission noticed
in the foregoing paragraph. There can be no doubt, that all the grounds/facts
on which divorce has been sought, emerge from the medical condition of Radhika
Gupta, after her cesarean operation in September, 2000. The
symptoms during her first pregnancy were such, that the couple was advised not
to conceive for a period of two years. The husband did not heed to the advice
tendered by the attending gynecologist. We are, therefore, inclined to fully
endorse the view expressed by the Family Court, that the appellant-husband
Darshan Gupta himself, was responsible for the state of affairs of his
wife-Radhika Gupta, inasmuch as he didnot heed the advice of gynecologist after
the abortion of her first pregnancy in June 1999. There is no serious dispute,
that to satisfy his desires, he impregnated his wife within a period of eight
months, i.e., well within the riskperiod. Therefore, she suffered the predicted
consequences. The medicalcondition of Radhika Gupta, on which the appellant
basis his claim for divorce, isof his own doing. Even though at that juncture,
Darshan Gupta was merely 25 years of age, and it may well be difficult to blame
him, yet there is no escape from the fact, that the fault rests on his
shoulders. In the above view of the matter, it is not possible for us to
conclude, that Darshan Gupta did not suffer from any “guilt” or “fault” in the
matter. It is, accordingly, not ossible for us to accept, that he can be
permitted to use his own fault to his advantage. His prayer for divorce on the
facts alleged, is just not acceptable. The party seeking divorce has to be
innocent of blame. We are satisfied, that the grounds/facts on which a claim
for divorce can be maintained under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, are clearly not available to the appellant Darshan Gupta in
the facts and circumstances of this case. For the instant reason also, the
prayers made by the appellant must fail. Towards the same end, learned counsel
for the appellant advanced yet another submission. Learned counsel representing
the appellant, sought dissolution of marriage on the ground, that the
matrimonial ties between the parties had irretrievably broken down. It was,
therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that this
Court would be justified in annulling the marriage between the parties,
specially when the parties have lived apart for more than 12 years. Inviting
this Court’s attention to the intervention at the instance of this Court, in
compliance whereof the parties had made a last ditch effort to live together,
and had actually taken up residence in an independent flat in Hyderabad on
29.9.2011, it was pointed out, that they could not persuade themselves into a
relationship of cordiality. It was, therefore, sought to be suggested, that there
was no likelihood of the parties ever living together as husband and wife. It
was accordingly submitted, that this Court should consider the annulment of the
matrimonial ties between the parties, on the ground of irretrievable breakdown
of marriage.
At the present juncture, it is questionable
as to whether the relief sought by the learned counsel for the appellant, on
the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is available to him. The
reason for us to say so, is based on a judgment rendered by this
Court in Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs. Manju Sharma,(2009) 6 SCC 379, wherein this
Court has held as under:-
On a bare reading of Section 13 of the Act,
reproduced above, it is crystal clear that no such ground of irretrievable
breakdown of the marriage is provided by the legislature for granting a decree
of divorce. This Court cannot add such a ground to Section 13 of the Act as
that would be amending the Act, which is a function of the legislature.Learned
Counsel for the appellant has stated that this Court in some cases has
dissolved a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. In our opinion,
those cases have not taken into consideration the legal position which we have
mentioned above,and hence they are not precedents. A mere direction of the Court
without considering the legal position is not a precedent. If we grant divorce on the ground of
irretrievable breakdown, then we shall by judicial verdict be adding a clause
to Section 13 of the Act to the effect that irretrievable breakdown of the marriage
is also a ground for divorce. In our opinion, this can only be done by the
legislature and not by the Court. It is for the Parliament to enact or amend
the law and not for the Courts. Hence, we do not find force in the submission
of the learned Counsel for the appellant.Had both parties been willing we
could, of course, have granted a divorce by mutual consent as contemplated by
Section 13-B of the Act, but in this case the respondent is not willing to
agree to a divorce.” In this behalf, it would also be relevant to refer to
another judgment rendered by this Court in Gurbax Singh vs. Harminder Kaur,
(2010) 14 SCC 301. Paragraph 20 of the cited judgment is relevant to the issue,
and is accordingly being extracted hereunder:-
“
Finally, a feeble argument was made that both
the appellant and respondent were living separately from 2002
and it would be impossible for their reunion, hence this Court exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, their marriage may be
dissolved in the interest of bothparties. Though, on a rare occasion, this
Court has granted the extraordinary relief dehors to the grounds
mentioned in Section 13in view of the fact that the issue has been referred to
a larger Bench about permissibility of such course at present, we are not
inclined to accede tothe request of the appellant. If there is any change of
law or additional ground included in Section 13by the act of
Parliament, the appellant isfree to avail the same at the appropriate time.”
Even otherwise, in the facts and
circumstances of this case (which are beinghighlighted while dealing with the
appellant’s next contention), we cannot persuade ourselves to grant a decree of
divorce, on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, for the simple
reason that the breakdown is only from theside of the husband. The wife -
Radhika Gupta has consistently maintained, thatshe was intensely concerned with
her future relationship with her husband, andthat, her greatest and paramount
desire was to rejoin her husband, and to livewith him normally in a matrimonial
relationship, once again. Since in the presentcase, the respondent does not
consent to the severance of matrimonial ties, itmay not be possible for us to
accede to the instant prayer, made at the hands of the learned counsel for the
appellant.
Since we were not agreeable with the
contention advanced by the learnedcounsel for the appellant, on the plea of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage,learned counsel sought the same relief, for
the same reasons, by imploring us toinvoke our jurisdiction under Article 142
of the Constitution of India, and to annul the marriage between the parties, as
a matter of doing complete justice betweenthe parties. Doing justice between
the parties is clearly a constitutional obligation. This Court has been
bestowed with the discretion “... to make such order as is
necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before
it...”. The concept of justice, however, varies depending on the interest of
the party. On most occasions, it is advisable to adjudicate matters in
consonance with law. Whenever it is possible to do so, on the touchstone of the
courts conscience, the determination rendered would simultaneously result in
doing justice between the parties. All the same, since we have been called upon
to annul the marriage between Darshan Gupta and his wife Radhika Gupta in order
to do complete justice to the parties, we have ventured to thoughtfully examine
the matter from instant perspective as well.
In the context of doing justice it was
suggested, that the appellant would be ready and willing to pay the respondent,
whatever was considered appropriate by this Court. We are informed, that the
appellant is financially well-to-do. We shall, therefore, keep in our mind the
appellant’s offer while examining the instant issue. We would, in our endeavour
to determine the issue in hand, examine the matter, by reversing the roles of
the parties. We will examine the matter as if, the wife had approached husband had suffered brain damage leading to
cognitive deficiencies. Yet, despite the said deficiencies, his working memory
had returned to “near normal” after treatment. And his mental condition was
such, that it would not have any effect on his matrimonial obligations. And the
wife’s family is agreeable to pay an amount to be determined by this Court
(just as the husband-Darshan Gupta, has offered), so as to enable their
daughter to break away, and find a more suitable match. Should
she have been granted freedom from her matrimonial ties, in the given facts, in
order to do complete justice to the parties? We would ask ourselves, whether
the husband would have accepted such a plea, in the facts denoted above? In
such situation, if this Court had, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India, granted compensation to the husband, and had dissolved his marriage on
the pretext of doing complete justice between the parties, would the same be
acceptable to the husband? We have no doubt in our mind, that on a reversal of
roles, the husband, without any fault of his own, would have never accepted as
just, the dissolution of his matrimonialties, even if the couple had been
separated for a duration, as is the case in hand.Specially, if the husband had,
right from the beginning, fervently expressed the desire to restore his
matrimonial relationship with his wife, and to live a normal life with her.
We are of the view, that the issue in hand
should be adjudged by the above standards, when the same prayer is made by the
husband. To constitute justice, the picture should appear to be the same,
irrespective of the angle from which it is viewed. If the same sequence of
facts cannot be viewed as doing justice to the husband, they have to be
likewise viewed for the wife as well. It is, therefore, not possible for us to
accept even the last plea advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the
appellant.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find
no merit in these appeals, and the same are accordingly dismissed.
J.(P. Sathasivam)
J.(Jagdish Singh Khehar)
New Delhi;
July 1, 2013.
