Case – Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar v. Sunanda, 2001
Fact – The wife had obtained judicial separation on the ground of the husband’s adultery. The court also ordered the husband to pay maintenance to her and to the minor daughters. The husband did not comply with this order, and also continued to live in adultery.
Issue – Whether the husband who has filed a petition seeking dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1-A)(i), can be declined relief on the ground that he has failed to pay maintenance to his wife and daughter despite an order of the court?
Contentions and Judgement :
- The Supreme Court held that non-payment of maintenance by the husband despite the court order and his continuing to live in adultery even after a decree of judicial separation obtained by the wife on the ground of husband’s adultery, amounted to wrongs on the part of the husband so as to disentitle him to the relief under section 13(1A).
- According to the court, even after a decree of judicial separation, it is the duty of the parties to do their part for cohabitation. The husband was expected to act as a dutiful husband towards the wife and the wife was expected to act as a devoted wife towards the husband.
- “The husband’s continuing to live in adultery after the wife obtained a separation decree on this ground only”, was held to be a wrong disentitling the husband to obtain relief.
- His petition for divorce under section 13(1A) on ground of non-cohabitation, after the decree of judicial separation, was rejected on the ground that he could not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong.
- When, after the passing of a decree of judicial separation on the ground of adultery, there is still further persistence with the adulterous liaison, despite the decree, it cannot be said that the offence of adultery is obliterated with the passing of such a decree. The decree of judicial separation in no way puts to an end the matrimonial relationship, it only results in suspension of the marital ties.
- While not laying down a straight jacket formula or a general principle of universal application, the Supreme Court on the facts of the case, held that such refusal of maintenance to the wife and biding time for the expiry of one year after the decree of judicial separation was a matrimonial “wrong” which would disentitle the husband to a divorce.
