A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce -- Cruelty -- Cruelty has not been defined in the Act -- Cruelty may be mental or physical or both -- Mental cruelty can cause more serious injury than the physical one -- It is to be determined by taking into consideration the entire facts of the case and the matrimonial relations between the spouses -- To constitute cruelty, there must be such willful treatment of the party which caused suffering of body and mind either as an actual fact or by way of apprehension in such a manner as to render the continued living together of spouses harmful or injurious having regard to the circumstances of the case.

(Para 12)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Divorce -- Cruelty -- Respondent (wife), a doctor by profession, told her husband about his genetic composition in the year 1996 – It cannot constitute a ground for divorce -- On the contrary, the husband is guilty of levelling unfounded allegations of extra marital relation of the respondent -- As the husband has raised false and baseless allegations assassinating his wife's character, he otherwise disentitles him to pray for a decree of divorce, on the basis of an incident which took place way back in the year 1996, by filing a petition in the year 2010.

(Para 17)

C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section13, 23 – Cruelty – Condonation of -- Long cohabitation of the parties as husband and wife for a period of about 12 years since 1996 would suffice to conclude that the appellant has condoned the alleged acts of cruelty purportedly occurred in the year 1989, 1991, 1993 and 1996.

(Para 18)

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 – Mother as Natural guardian – Mother was granted permission by competent court to sell minor’s property – Father did not challenged the validity of wife to act as guardian of minor – Held, the word 'after' need not necessarily means 'after the life time', it means 'in the absence of', the words 'absence' refers to the father's absence from the care of the minor's property or person for any reason whatever -- If the father is wholly indifferent to the matters of the minor even if he is living with the mother or if by virtue of mutual understanding between the father and the mother, the latter is put exclusively in charge of the minor, in such like situation, the father can be considered to be absent and the mother being a recognized natural guardian can act validly on behalf of the minor as the guardian – Mother is competent to sell the land in question. Githa Hariharan’s case 1999(2) RCR (Civil) 59 (SC) relied.

(Para 22, 23)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 -- Restitution of conjugal rights – Decree of – Execution of -- Only a symbolic execution of a decree, is provided for -- There is no provision by which the physical custody of the spouse who has suffered the decree can be made over to the spouse who obtained the decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

(Para 10)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9, 13 – Decree of Restitution of conjugal rights – Divorce -- She did not comply with decree and never cohabited with her husband compelling the respondent to file a petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of the marriage -- Respondent-husband has succeeded in proving desertion on the part of the appellant, who has been unable to prove any reasonable or sufficient cause to withdraw from the company of the appellant – Divorce granted.

(Para 1, 2,10-12)

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 8 -- Hindu minor – Natural guardian – Power of -- Natural guardian has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or his estate -- Civil Court has granted the permission to sell the property of minors on certain terms and conditions that the property will be sold on proper market price and the sale consideration will be kept in fixed deposit in some nationalized bank and the amount will not be withdrawn without prior permission of the Court or unless and until minors-respondents attain age of majority and the guardian/mother of respondents has been granted permission to use the interest part of the fixed deposit for the benefit of the minors -- Notice was duly published in newspaper and names of minors and their mother have been mentioned and defect, if any exists in the publication notice, cannot be a ground to dismiss the case of the minors-respondents.

(Para 9-11)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 58 -- Admission in pleadings – Evidential value -- Admission in the pleadings is conclusive so as to attract the property to be ancestral coparcenary property and such admission cannot be withdrawn -- Property is rightly held to be ancestral property.

(Para 13, 33)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Co-parcener property – Collusive Decree – Value of -- “G” being coparcener acquired right in the property by birth and that right could not have been snatched by way of any collusive decree passed on alleged family settlement in the absence of “G” -- Decrees being collusive in the absence of “G” could not have been treated to be valid and binding on the rights of the heirs of “G”.

(Para 2,13, 34)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 14 Rule 1(3) -- Framing of issue -- Parties knew the case of each other, therefore, framing of issue was not required at all.

(Para 35)

D. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Co-parcener property – Gift of undivided share – Permissibility of -- Gift in respect of undivided share of Hindu coparcenary property could not have been made by the Karta.

(Para 36)

E. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Co-parcener joint property -- Simpliciter Suit for declaration – Maintainability of -- Once the plaintiffs are proved to be co-sharers in joint possession, simpliciter suit for declaration is maintainable as the concept of possession is in-built mechanism in a suit for declaration based on co-sharership -- Each co-sharer would be deemed to be in possession of every inch of land till such land is partitioned by metes and bounds -- Since “G” was one of the coparceners, he was having birth right in the property and after his death his widow and minor daughter have inherited the share of “G” -- Being co-sharers in the property they have every right to seek declaration and they would deemed to be in joint possession of every inch of land.

(Para 38)

A. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18(2)(a)(b) – Maintenance to the wife – Separate residence to wife -- Under sub-section 2 (b), the wife is entitled to live separately without forfeiting her claim to maintenance, if the husband has treated her with cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with her husband -- Under Clause (a), desertion or abandoning the wife is also ground to live separately.

(Para 5)

B. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18(2)(b) – Cruelty – Voice sample -- Proof of -- So far as production and proving the original audio cassette and transcript thereof required, it can be done only during the evidence of the defendant -- Further the Court is not powerless to summon any witness at the instance of the defendants to prove certain facts -- Defendant is allowed to summon and produce the original audio cassette, file the transcript thereof and then ask the wife to give the voice samples before the Court for the purpose of comparison -- However, it will always be at the option of the wife and the said witnesses whether they are willing to give the sample or not.

(Para 8,9)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14(1)(2) – Absolute right of woman in property -- Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the 1956 Act is to be read as a proviso or an exception to sub-section (1) of Section 14 and it operates only in a case where the right in property is created for the first time and there was no pre-existing right in favour of female Hindu -- Contrarily, if there was a pre-existing right, be it a life estate only, sub-section (1) of Section 14 applies with full force irrespective of the cloak created on such right and the female Hindu acquires absolute right in such property.

(Para 14)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14(1)(2) – Absolute right of woman in property -- Maintenance to wife – Husband died, widow had a right to be maintained out of the properties of her deceased-husband -- That pre-existing right stood crystallized into an absolute right by virtue of Section 14(1) when the 1956 Act came into force -- Revenue authorities rightly recorded widow as one of the owner of suit-property -- Hindu woman has legally enforceable right to seek maintenance and the husband owes a duty to maintain her even if he does not own any property -- Since the husband has got a personal obligation to maintain his wife, his properties can be put under a charge by way of a decree for maintenance though right to maintenance per-se does not create such charge on his properties.

(Para 15)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 (1)(1a) -- Divorce -- Cruelty – Nature of -- To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be 'grave and weighty' so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse -- It must be something more serious than ordinary wear and tear of married life -- Conduct has to be considered in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions etc.

(Para 14)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 (1)(1a) -- Divorce -- Cruelty – Nature of -- Cruelty must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties has deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce.

(Para 14)

C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 (1)(1a) -- Cruelty – Husband alleged that the wife forced him to resign from army service and start a Karyana shop -- No particulars much less the date, time, year and person in whose presence such a demand was raised has been elicited – Wife in the written statement as well as in her statement on oath has emphatically denied if any such demand was ever raised by her – Court refused to accept the plea of cruelty by coaxing the husband to leave the job in army.

(Para 15)

D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 (1)(1a) -- Cruelty – Husband-wife opened a joint account, the wife had an authority to operate the said account and make withdrawal from it – Wife withdrew Rs. 2.5 lacs from joint account -- Husband failed to adduce any tangible evidence that the wife is guilty of mis-utilizing that amount – Conduct of husband in getting an FIR registered against his wife amounts to cruelty on his part.

(Para 16)

E. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 (1)(1a) -- Punjab and Haryana Rules and Orders Volume II, Chapter-I Part-E, Rule 4 – Divorce -- Cruelty – Pleadings -- Husband failed to establish his plea in regard to misbehaviour of the wife with his old aged parents -- No specific date, month and year of any such misconduct on the part of the wife has been incorporated in the petition in compliance with the provisions of Rule 4 of Punjab and Haryana Rules and Orders Volume II, Chapter-I Part-E -- Not only this, the husband has failed to lead evidence to establish his plea in this regard – Divorce declined.

(Para 17-19)

F. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 (1)(1a) -- Divorce -- Cruelty – Wife is residing in a part of the matrimonial house -- Proceedings under Domestic Violence Act 2005 are pending -- Criminal proceedings against the husband and his family members are pending -- Wife is persistent in her demand to stay in the matrimonial home, it is beyond imagination as to how the plea of the appellant can be accepted that the respondent wife is either guilty of desertion or depriving him of conjugal bliss – Husband failed to prove that the wife is a guilty spouse or has subjected the husband to cruelty of 'grave and weighty' nature so as to form the basis of a decree of divorce – Divorce declined.

(Para 18,19)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 23(1)(a) – Divorce – Desertion – Own wrong -- Ex parte decree of restitution of conjugal rights against wife but husband neither filed an application for its execution nor otherwise initiated any steps in this regard -- Said ex parte decree was set aside and wife filed an application u/s 24 of the HMA -- Application for restitution of conjugal rights was later withdrawn -- Claim of the respondent to seek restoration of conjugal rights lacked bonafide -- Husband cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong and seek a decree of divorce by accusing his wife being guilty of desertion or cruelty for depriving him of conjugal rights.

(Para 23)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Divorce – Desertion – Wife was denied maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the premise that she has withdrawn from society of the respondent -- Proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. have not attained finality -- In addition, those proceedings are not exactly civil in nature -- Husband has failed to prove one of the essential ingredients of desertion, he cannot prove the said ground on the basis of findings recorded in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

(Para 24)

C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 23(1)(d) – Divorce – Desertion – Delay in proceedings -- Clause (d) of Section 23(1) of the HMA provides that there should not be any unnecessary or improper delay in instituting the proceedings -- Parties are residing separately since August 1993 -- Husband has admitted during his cross examination that there was no impediment in filing the petition for divorce from 1993 to March 2009 -- No explanation for delay of 16 years in filing the petition for divorce either on the ground of desertion or cruelty -- Ld. trial court has not adverted to the provisions of Section 23(1)(d) of the HMA while holding in favour of the husband – Judgment and decree passed by the Trial court set aside.

(Para 25, 27)

D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Irretrievable break down of marriage – Divorce -- Though irretrievable break down of marriage is not a ground for divorce but if marriage is beyond repairs on account of bitterness created by the Acts of the husband or the wife or both, the courts take irretrievable break down of marriage as a weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of marital ties.

(Para 26)

E. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Irretrievable break down of marriage – Divorce -- Mere fact that the parties are staying away from each other for the past more than 20 years alone is not sufficient to conclude that the marriage is beyond repairs -- Two children born out of the wedlock and both of them have received good education up to graduation or post graduation -- Children stayed with the mother and were being maintained by parental family of the wife -- Children of the parties are of marriageable age -- Judgment and decree passed by the trial court is set aside, petition for divorce dismissed.

(Para 26,27)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Schedule 1 -- Punjab Civil Services Rules (Vol.II), Rule 6.16 AA(1)(2), Rule 6.16 B – Death gratuity – Right of widow/mother – Nomination of wife -- In view of the Rule and keeping in view the fact that the widow was the nominee, the entire amount of the death gratuity of deceased be disbursed to the widow of the deceased.

(Para 6, 7)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(1a) – Cruelty as ground of divorce – Acquittal in criminal case – Effect of -- Acquittal in criminal case u/s 353, 332, 186 IPC at the instance of appellant-wife -- Appellant had filed an appeal against the judgment of acquittal which was still pending -- An appeal amounts to continuation of the case and the respondent cannot derive any benefit from the judgment of acquittal -- Otherwise also, the yardstick of proof of charges in a criminal case is much higher than the standard of proof required for proving a factum in a civil matter – Evidence led by appellant undoutedly proved that the respondent-husband was guilty of treating her with utmost cruelty – Divorce granted to appellant-wife.

(Para 20-27)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia) -- Divorce – Mental cruelty -- False criminal complaint -- It is now beyond cavil that if a false criminal complaint is preferred by either spouse it would invariably and indubitably constitute matrimonial cruelty, such as would entitle the other spouse to claim a divorce.

(Para 1)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia) -- Divorce by husband – Mental cruelty -- False criminal complaint by wife -- Wife has admitted in her cross-examination that she did not mention all the incidents on which her Complaint is predicated, in her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C -- It is not her case that she had actually narrated all these facts to the Investigating Officer, but that he had neglected to mention them – This is clearly indicative of the fact that the criminal complaint was a contrived afterthought -- Criminal complaint was “ill advised” -- Adding thereto is the factor that the High Court had been informed of the acquittal of the Husband and members of his family -- In these circumstances, the High Court ought to have concluded that the Wife knowingly and intentionally filed a false complaint, calculated to embarrass and incarcerate the husband and seven members of his family and that such conduct unquestionably constitutes cruelty as postulated in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(Para 5)

C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia) -- Divorce by husband – False criminal complaint by wife lateron – Whether mental cruelty and ground for divorce -- Criminal complaint was filed by the wife after filing of the husband’s divorce petition, and being subsequent events could have been looked into by the Court -- In any event, both the parties were fully aware of this facet of cruelty which was allegedly suffered by the husband -- When evidence was lead, as also when arguments were addressed, objection had not been raised on behalf of the Wife that this aspect of cruelty was beyond the pleadings – Held, wife had filed a false criminal complaint, and even one such complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty – Marriage of parties dissolved.

(Para 6-8)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 5,9,10,11,12,13 -- Bigamous marriage – Void declaration – Maintenance pendentlite – Permanent alimony -- Held, when the legislature has used such wide expression as ‘at the time of passing of any decree,’ it encompasses within the expression all kinds of decrees such as restitution of conjugal rights u/s Section 9, judicial separation u/s 10, declaring marriage as null and void u/s 11, annulment of marriage as voidable u/s 12 and Divorce u/s 13 -- Keeping into consideration the statutory Hindu Law, a bigamous marriage may be declared illegal being in contravention of the provisions of the Act but it cannot be said to be immoral so as to deny even the right of alimony or maintenance to a spouse financially weak and economically dependent.

(Para 13)

Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938), Section 39 – Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959 (46 of 1959), Section 6, 7, 8(2) – Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 370 -- National Saving Certificates – Nominee -- Effect on succession -- Language of Section 39 of the Act is not capable of altering the course of succession under law – It is difficult to treat a nominee as being equivalent to an heir or legatee -- Though language and phraseology of Section 6 of the Act is different than the one used in Section 39 of the Insurance Act, yet, the effect of both the provisions is the same -- Any amount paid to the nominee after valid deductions becomes the estate of the deceased -- Such an estate devolves upon all persons who are entitled to succession under law, custom or testament of the deceased holder -- Nominee becoming entitled to the payment of the amount on account of national savings certificates received by him u/s 6 read with Section 7 of the Act who in turn is liable to return the amount to those, in whose favour law creates beneficial interest, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act, 1959. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 8, 15.

(Para 11, 13)