Holding

The allegations did not constitute cruelty beyond ordinary wear and tear, and desertion could not be proved as there was no prior cohabitation; therefore the appeals are dismissed.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by Savitri Pandey and her husband P.C. Pandey challenging a High Court order that set aside a Family Court decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. The wife had alleged that her husband had subjected her to cruelty and had deserted her after they lived separately from June 1987, seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court had granted divorce on desertion, but the High Court found no proof of cruelty or desertion and reversed the decree. The Supreme Court held that cruelty must be more than ordinary wear‑and‑tear of family life and that desertion cannot be established without prior cohabitation; since the parties never cohabited after the marriage, desertion was not proved. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the High Court’s decision.

Issues considered

Whether the alleged conduct amounted to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Whether desertion can be established in the absence of prior cohabitation between the spouses.
Whether the appellant’s second marriage during the pendency of appeal affects the right to divorce.

Legislation cited

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 13, s. 13(1)(ia), s. 23(1), s. 27, s. 28(4)

Subjects

divorcecrueltydesertionHindu Marriage Actappeal periodsecond marriagecohabitationfamily law

Judgment

A SAVJTRI PANDEY
• v.
PREM CHANDRA PANDEY

JANUARY 8, 2002

B [R.P. SETHI AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.]

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
....
C S 13-Divorce on the ground ofcruelty and desertion-Desertion means
withdrawing from the matrimonial obligations-Not permitting/facilitating
the cohabitation between-Continuous .course of conduct to be determined,
under the facts and circumstances of each case-One spouse abandoning the
matrimonial home and declining to cohabitate-Amounts to forebearing to
perform matrimonial obligation-There can be no desertion without previous
D co-habitation by the parties except on the ground of mental or physical
incapacity or other peculiar circumstances of the case-Party seeking divorce
has to prove that he/she is not taking advantage of his/her own wrong or
disability.

Cruelty may be mental or physical-Cruelty postulates treatment of
E. one spouse as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his/her mind that it
would be harmful or injurious to live with other spouse-it has to be
distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life-Sensitivity of
the spouse with respect to conduct of other is termed as ordinary wear and
tear of the family life and not cruelty.
F
Right to appeal-Inference of-Right to appeal is a recognised right
under legal jurisprudence-If one spouse solemnise 2nd marriage during
pendency of appeal, he/she would do so at his/her own risk-Not permitted
to flout the course of justice by overt and covert acts.
G
Legislation-Jn the context of filing of appeal under the Act-30 days
period is insufficient and inadequate-Other party may frustrate the appeal
right of other side-Minimum period of 90 days for filing appeal may be
prescribed and to declare marriage void if solemnised during the appeal
period-Suggestion given.
H 50
SAVITRI PANDEYv. P.C. PANDEY 51
Marriage between appellant and respondent was solemnised on 6.5.1987. A
The appellant-wife started living separately with the respondent husband since
Cll '
21st June, 1987 and according to the appellant the marriage was never
consumated; and the respondent and his family members allegedly made
demands of more and more dowry; and that since her parents could not fulfil
such ever increasing demand of dowry, the respondent and his family members
started torturing her on false pretexts; and that the respondent was having B
illicit relations with a lady with whom he was stated to have solemnised the
marriage.
•
'" .
The appellant filed a petition before the Matrimonial Court under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging cruelty and desertion against the C
husband, praying for dissolution of her marriage and to return her ornaments.
J The respondent also filed a petition seeking divorce. However the same was
withdrawn. The Family Judge allowed the petition, dissolved the marriage on
the ground of desertion and also granted other reliefs like alimony, return of
jewels etc. Aggrieved by the order, husband preferred appeal. Not fully satisfied
with the other reliefs, wife preferred an appeal. High Court disposed of both D
the appeals setting aside the order of the Family Judge. Hence this appeal.

It was contended for the appellant as she was proved to have been living
separately, it was to be presumed that the respondent had deserted her; that
after the decree of divorce by the Family Judge the appellant had remarried E
and out of second marriage a child was also stated to have been born and,
therefore, it would be in the interest of justice and the parties that the marriage
} between them was dissolved .

• Dismissing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD: 1. Cruelty for the purpose of the Act means where one spouse
has so treated the other and manifested such feelings towards her or him as
to have inflicted bodily injury or to have caused reasonable apprehension of
bodily injury, suffering or to have injured health. Cruelty, however, has to be
distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be G
decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged
on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous
for a spouse to live with the other. In the instant case, the averments made in
the petition and evidence led in supi)ort thereof clearly shows that the
allegation, even if held to have been proved, would only show the sensitivity of
the appellant with respect to the conduct of the respondent which cannot be H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] l S.C.R.

A termed more than ordinary wear and tear of the family life. ...
(55-F-G-H; 56-A-B)
:0
2.1. 'Desertion', for the purpose of seeking divorce under the Act
means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse J.
by the other without that other's consent and without reasonable cause. In
B other words withdrawing from the matrimonial obligations i.e. not permitting
or allowing and facilitating co-habitation between the parties. The proof of
desertion bas to be considered by taking into consideration the concept of
marriage which in law legalises the sexual relationship between man and .•
woman in the society for the perpetuation of race permitting lawful indulgence -~

in passion to prevent licentiousness and procreation of children. Desertion
c is not a single act complete in itself. It is continuous course of conduct to be
determined under the facts and circumstance of the case. [56-D-E-F)

Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati, AIR (1957) SC 176 and
Lachman Utamchand Kirpa/ani v. Meena alias Mota, AIR (1964) SC 40, relied
l
on.
D
2.2. There can be no desertion without previous cohabitation by the "
parties. The basis for this is built upon the recognised position of law in ...
matrimonial matter that no one can desert who does not actively or wilfully
bring to an end the existing stage of cohabitation. However, such a rule is
subject to just exception viz, on the ground of mental or physical incapacity
E or other peculiar circumstances of the case. However, the party seeking divorce
on the ground of desertion is required to show that he/she was not taking the
advantage of his/her own wrong or disability for the purpose of relief under
the Act. In the present case, in the absence of co-habitation and consumption 4
of marriage, the appellant was disentitled to claim divorce on the ground of
F desertion. (59-B-C-E)

3. There is no denial of the fact that right of at least one appeal is a
recognised right under all system of civilised legal jurisprudence. If despite
the pendency of the appeal, the appellant chose to solemnise the second J.
marriage, the adventure is deemed to have been undertaken at her own risk
~
G and the ultimate consequences arising out of the judgment in the pendency of
appeal. No person can be permitted to flout the cause of justice by his/her +-
overt and covert acts. [60-E-F)

Anita Sabharwal v. Anil Sabharwal, [1997) 11 SCC 490; Shashi Garg
(Smt.) v. Arun Garg, (1997) 7 SCC 565; Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri
H (1997) 4 SCC 226 and Madhuri Mehta v. Meet Verma, (1997] 11 SCC 81,
SAVITRI PANDEYv. P.C. PANDEY [SETHI,J.] 53
distinguished. A

Ms. Jorden Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra, AIR (1985) SC 935, referred to.

4. The period of limitation for filing appeal as prescribed under Section
28(4) is apparently inadequate which facilitates the frustration of the marriage B
by the unscrupulous litigant spouses. The powers under the Act are generally
exercisable by the District Court and the first appeal has to be filed in the
High Court. Ker.ping in mind the distance, the geographical condition, the
financial position of the parties and the time required for filing appeal, the
period of 30 days is insufficient and inadequate. In the absence of appeal the
other party can solamnise the second marriage and attempt to frustrate the C
right to appeal of the other side as appears to have been done in the instant
case. Appropriate legislation is required to be made to incorporate a minimum
period of 90 days for filing the appeal and any marriage solemnised during
the aforesaid period deemed to be void. (61-F-G-H; 62-A)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 20-21of1999. D

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.4.98 of the Allahabad High Court
in F.A. Nos. 358 and 337of1996.

Dinesh Kumar Garg for the Appellant. E
Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar for the Respondent.
)

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SETHI, J. Alleging cruelty and desertion against the husband, the F
appellant-wife approached the Matrimonial Court under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") praying for
dissolution of her marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce. She
also prayed for direction to the respondent to return her ornaments given to
him at the time of marriage. The Family Judge allowed the petition and G
dissolved the marriage of the parties on the ground of desertion by the
husband. The appellant was also granted a decree of Rs. 12,000 towards the
price uf the scooter, allegedly given at the time of the marriage and payment
of Rs. 500 per month as permanent alimony. Both the husband and the wife
preferred appeals against the order of the Family Court as the wife was not
satisfied with the part of the order refusing to grant a decree in her favour H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] l S.C.R.

A in respect of properties claimed by her and the husband was aggrieved by
the order of dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce. Both the
appeals were disposed of by the impugned order holding that the appellant-
wife herself was a defaulting party and neither the allegations of cruelty nor
of desertion were proved. The order passed under Section 27 of the Hindu
B Marriage Act and for permanent alimony was also set aside. The grievance
of the appellant-wife is that the High Court was not justified in setting aside
the findings of fact arrived at by the Family Court and that she had proved
the existence of cruelty and desertion against the respondent. It is contended
that as the appellant-wife was proved to have been living separately, it was
to be preSbmed that the respondent had deserted her.
c
The facts of the case giving rise to the filing of the present appeals are
that marriage between the parties was solemnised on 6.5.1987. The appellant-
wife lived with the respondent-husband till 21st June, 1987 and according to
her the marriage between the parties was never consummated. After 21st
D June, 1987 the parties started living separately. The appellant alleged that her
parents spent more than Rs. 80,000 with respect to the ceremonies of the
marriage and also gave several articles in the form of ornaments, valuables,
cash and kind as per demand of the respondent. The respondent and his
family members allegedly made further demands of Colour TV, Refrigerator
and some other ornaments besides hard cash of Rs. 10,000 The father of the
E appellant obliged the respondent by giving him Rs. 10,000 in the first week
of June, 1987 but could not fulfil the other demands of his parents. The
respondent and his family members were alleged to have started torturing the
appellant on false pretexts. Aggrieved by the attitude of the respondent and
his family member~, the appellant states to have filed a petition under Section •
F 13 of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce along
with prayer for the return of the property and grant of permanent alimony. The
respondent also filed a petition seeking divorce and grant of other reliefs.
However, on 14.5.1996 the respondent filed an application for withdrawal of
his matrimonial case which was allowed on 19.5.1996. The appellant had
alleged that the respondent was having illicit relations with a lady residing
G in Gaya at Bihar with whom he was stated to have solemnised the marriage.
The allegations made in the petition were denied by the respondent and it was
stated that in fact the appellant-wife was taking advantage of her own wrongs.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
H framed:
SAVITRI PANDEY v. P.C. PANDEY [SETHI, J.) 55
"1. Whether the defendant has treated the petitioner with cruelty? If A
so, its effect?

2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under Sec. 27 of the
Hindu Marriage Act? If so, its effect?

3. Whether the defendant is entitled to any relief? If so, its effect? B
4. To what relief, parties are entitled?"

It may be noticed that no issue with regard to alleged desertion was
insisted to be framed. With respect to the issue of cruelty, the Family Court
concluded that no evidence had been led to prove the allegations. The Court, C
however, held: "but it is proved that the respondent had deserted the petitioner,
hence the petitioner will get or is entitled to for a decree of divorce". On
appreciation of evidence led in the case, the Division Bench of the High Court
held:

D
.. "We also do not find any evidence that the wife has been treated with
cruelty by the husband. We are also of the view that there is no
evidence that petitioner is deserted."

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
E
Treating the petitioner with cruelty is a ground for divorce under Section
13(1)(ia) of the Act. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act but in relation
)
to matrimonial matters it is contemplated as a conduct of such type which
endangers the living of the petitioner with the respondent. Cruelty consists
of acts which are dangerous to life, limb or health. Cruelty for the purpose
of the Act means where one spouse has so treated the other and manifested F
such feelings towards her or him as to have inflicted bodily injury, or to have
caused reasonable apprehension of bodily injury, suffering or to have injured
health. Cruelty may be physical or mental. Mental cruelty is the conduct of
other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of
the other. "Cruelty", therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with G
such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that
it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other
party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and
tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the
petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct
which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other. H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) I S.C.R.

A In the instant case both the trial court as well as the High Court have found
on facts that the wife had failed to prove the allegations of cruelty attributed
to the respondent. Concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts cannot l>
be disturbed by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. Otherwise also the avennents made in the petition and
the evidence led in support thereof clearly shows that the allegations, even
B if held to have been proved, would only show the sensitivity of the appellant
with respect to the conduct of the respondent which cannot be termed more
than ordinary wear and tear of the family life.

No decree of divorce could be granted on the ground of desertion in
C the absence of pleading and proof. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that even in the absence of specific issue, the parties had led evidence and
there was sufficient material for the Family Court to return a verdict of
desertion having been proved. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel, we have opted to examine this aspect of the matter despite
the fact that there was no specific issue framed or insisted to be framed.
D
"Desertion", for the purpose of seeking divorce under the Act, means
,.
the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the
other without that other's consent and without reasonable cause. In other
words, it is a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage. Desertion is not
E the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things. Desertion, therefore,
means withdrawing from the matrimonial obligations, i.e., not permitting or
allowing and facilitating the cohabitation between the parties. The proof of
desertion has to be considered by taking into consideration the concept of
marriage which in law legalises the sexual relationship between man and
woman in the society for the perpetuation of race, permitting lawful indulgence
F in passion to prevent licentiousness and for procreation of children. Desertion
is not a single act complete in itself, it is a continuous course of conduct to
be determined under the facts and circumstances of each case. After referring
to host of authorities and the views of various authors, this Court in
Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati, AIR [ 1957) SC 176 held that
G if a spouse abandons the other in a state of temporary passions, for example,
anger or disgust without intending pennanently to cease cohabitation, it will
not amount to desertion. It further held:

"For the offence of desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is
concerned, two essential conditions must be there, namely (I) the
H factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation
SAVITRI PANDEY v. P.C. PANDEY [SETHI, J.] 57
permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly two elements are A
essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned: (I) the absence
of consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the
spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention
aforesaid. The petitioner for divorce bears the burden of proving
those elements in the two spouses respectively. Here a difference, B
between the English law and the law as enacted by the Bombay
Legislature may be pointed out. Whereas under the English law those
essential conditions must continue throughout the course of the three
years immediately preceding the institution of the suit for divorce,
under the Bombay Act, the period is four years without specifying
that it should immediately precede the commencement of proceedings C
for divorce. Whether the omission of the last clause has any practical
result need not detain us, as it does not call for decision in the present
case. Desertion is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and
circumstances of each case. The inference may b.e drawn from certain
facts which may not in another case be capable of leading to the same
inference; that is to say, the facts have to be viewed as to the purpose D
which is revealed by those acts or by conduct and expression of
intention, both anterior and subsequent to the actual acts of separation.
If, in fact, there has been a separation, the essential question always
is whether that act could be attributable to an animus deserendi. The
offence of desertion commences when the fact of separation and the E
animus deserendi co-exist. But it is not q.ecessary that they should
commence at the same time. The de facto separation may have
commenced without the necessary animus or it may be that the
separation and the animus deserendi coincide in point of time; for
example, when the separating spouse abandons the marital home with
the intention, express or implied, of bringing cohabitation permanently F
to a close. The law in England has prescribed a three years period and
the Bombay Act prescribed a period of four years as a continuous
period during which the two elements must subsist. Hence, if a
deserting spouse takes advantage of the locus poenitentiae thus
provided by law and decide to come back to the desei:ted spouse by G
a bona fide offer of resuming the matrimonial home with all the
implications of marital life, before the statutory period is out or even
after the lapse of that period, unless proceedings. for divorce have
been commenced, desertion comes to an end and if the deserted
spouse unreasonably refuses to offer, the latter may be in desertion
and not the former. Hence it is necessary that during all the period H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] I S.C.R.

A that there has been a desertion, the deserted spouse must affinn the
marriage and be ready and willing to resume married life on such
conditions as may be reasonable. It is also well settled that in
proceedings for divorce the plaintiff must prove the offence of
desertion, like and other matrimonial offence, beyond all reasonable
doubt. Hence, though corroboration is not required as an absolute
B rule of law the courts insist upon corroborative evidence, unless its
absence is accounted for to the satisfaction of the court."

Following the decision in Bipinchandra' s case (supra) this Court again
reiterated the legal position in Lachman Utamchand Kirpa/ani v. Meena alias
•
C Mota, AIR (1964) SC 40 by holding that in its essence desertion means the
intentional pennanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other
without that other's consent, and without reasonable cause. For the offence
of desertion so far as deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions
must be there (!) the factum of separation and (2) the intention to bring
cohabitation pennanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly two elements
D are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned: (I) the absence of
consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse
,
leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid. For
holding desertion proved the inference may be drawn from certain facts which
may not in another case .be capable of leading to the same inference; that is
E to say the facts have to be viewed as to the purpose which is revealed by
those acts or by conduct B1d expression of intention, both anterior and
subsequent to the actual acts of separation.

To prove desertion in matrimonial matter it is not always necessary that ~
one of the spouse should have left the company of the other as desertion
F could be proved while living under the same roof. Desertion cannot be
equated with separate living by the parties to the marriage. Desertion may
also be constructive which can be inferred from the attending circumstances.
It has always to be kept in mind that the question of desertion is a matter
of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case.

G
There is another aspect of the matter which disentitles the appellant
from seeking the reHef of divorce on the ground of desertion in this case. As
desertion in matrimonial cases means the withdrawal of one party from a state
of things, i.e., a marital status of the party, no party to the marriage can be
pennitted to allege desertion unless he or she admits that after the fonnal
H ceremonies of the marriage, the parties had recognised and discharged the
SAVITRI PANDEY v. P.C. PANDEY [SETHI, J.] 59
common obligation of the married life which essentially requires the cohabitation A
between the parties for the purpose of consummating the marriage.
Cohabitation by the parties is an essential of a valid marriage as the object
of the marriage is to further the perpetuation of the race by permitting lawful
indulgence in passions for procreation of children. In other words, there can
be no desertion without previous cohabitation by the parties. The basis for B
this theory is built upon the recognised position of law in matrimonial matters
that no-one can desert who does not actively or wilfully bring to an end the
existing state of cohabitation. However, such a rule is subject to just exceptions
which may be found in a case on the ground of mental or physical incapacity
or other peculiar circumstances of the case. However, the party seeking
divorce on the ground of desertion is required to show that he or she was C
not taking the advantage of his or her own wrong.

In the instant case the appellant herself pleaded that there had not been
cohabitation between the parties after the marriage. She neither assigned any
reason nor attributed the non-resumption of cohabitation to the respondent.
From the pleadings and evidence led in the case, it is apparent that the D
appellant did not permit the respondent to have cohabitation for consummating
the marriage. In the absence of cohabitation between the parties, a particular
state of matrimonial position was never permitted by the appellant to come
into existence. In the present case, in the absence of cohabitation and
consummation of marriage, the appellant was disentitled to claim divorce on E
the ground of desertion.

No ~vidence was led by the appellant to show that she was forced to
---' leave the company of the respondent or that she was thrown away from the
matrimonial home or that she was forced to live separately and that the
respondent had intended animus deserendi. There is nothing on record to F
hold that the respondent had ever declared to bring the marriage to an end
or refuses to have cohabitation with the appellant. As a matter of fact the
appellant is proved to have abandoned the matrimonial home and declined to
cohabit with the re5pondent thus forbearing to perform the matrimonial
obligation.
G
In any proceedings under the Act whether defended or not the court
would decline to grant relief to the petitioner if it is found that the petitioner
was taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purposes
of the reliefs contemplated under Section 23(1) of the Act. No party can be
permitted to carve out the ground for destroying the family which is the basic
unit of the society. The foundation of the family rests on the institution of H
t
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 1 S.C.R

A a legal and valid marriage. Approach of the court should be to preserve the
matrimonial home and be reluctant to dissolve the marriage on the asking of
one of the parties. K

B
For upholding the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Shri Dinesh
Kumar Garg, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
as after the decree of divorce the appellant had remarried with one Sudhakar
Pandey and out of the second marriage a child is also stated to have been
c
born, it would be in the interest of justice and the parties that the marriage
between them is dissolved by a decree of divorce. In support of his contention \...
he has relied upon judgments of this Court in Anita Sabharwal v. Anil

c Sabharwal, [1997] J l SCC 490, Shashi Garg (Smt.) v. Arun Garg, [1997] 7 ' •
SCC 565, Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri, [1997] 4 SCC 226 and Madhuri
Mehta v. Meet Verma, [1997] IJ SCC 81.

To appreciate such a submission some facts have to be noticed and the
interests of public and society to be borne in mind. It appears that the
marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce vide the
D
judgment and decree of the Family Court dated 8.7.1996. The respondent-
husband filed appeal against the judgment and decree on 19 .1.1997. As no
stay was granted, the appellant solemnised the second marriage on 29.5.J 997, ...
admittedly, during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. There
is no denial of the fact that right of at least one appeal is a recognised right
E under all systems of civilised legal jurisprudence. If despite the pendency
of the appeal, the appellant chose to solemnise the second marriage, the
adventure is deemed to have been undertaken at her own risk and the
ultimate consequences arising of the judgment in the appeal pending in the
High Court. No person can be permitted to flout the course of justice by his
or her overt and covert acts. The facts of the cases relied upon by the learned
F counsel for the appellant are distinct having no proximity with the facts of
the present case. In all the cases relied upon by the appellant and referred
to herein above, the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree
of divorce by mutual consent in terms of application under Section l 3B of the
Act. This Court while allowing the applications filed under Section 13B took
G into consideration the circumstances of each case and granted the relief on
the basis of compromise. Almost in all cases the other side was duly
•
compensated by the grant of lumpsum amount and permanent provision
regarding maintenance.

This Court in Ms. Jorden Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra, AIR (1985) SC 935
[
H suggested for a complete reform of law of marriage and to make a uniform law
SAVITRI PANDEY v. P.C. PANDEY [SETHI, J.] 61
applicable to all people irrespective of religion or caste. The Court observed: A
,.
"It appears to be necessary to introduce irretrievable breakdown of
'->
marriage and mutual consent as grounds of divorce in all cases.....
There is no point or purpose to be served by the continuance of a
J marriage which has so completely and signally broken down. We
suggest that the time has come for the intervention of legislature in B
these matters to provide for a uniform code of marriage and divorce
and to provide by law for a way out of the unhappy situation in
which couples like the present have found themselves .
....
Marriage between the parties cannot be dissolved only on the averments
~
made by one of the parties that as the marriage between them has broken c
down, no useful purpose would be served to keep it alive. The legislature,
in its wisdom, despite observation of this Court has not thought it proper to
provide for dissolution of the marriage on such averments. There may be
cases where, on facts, it is found that as the marriage has become dead on
account of contributory acts of commission and omission of the parties, no D
useful purpose would be served by keeping such marriage alive. The sanctity
"' of marriage cannot be left at the whims of one of the annoying spouses. This
Court in V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat, AIR (1994) SC 710 held that irretrievable
breakdown of the marriage is not a ground by itself to dissolve it.

As already held, the appellant herself is trying to take advantage of her E
own wrong and in the circumstances of the case, the marriage between the
parties cannot be held to have become dead for invoking the jurisdiction of
J
this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution for dissolving the marriage.

At this stage we would like to observe that the period of limitation
prescribed for filing the appeal under Section 28(4) is apparently inadequate F
which facilitates the frustration of the marriages by the unscrupulous litigant
spouses. In a vast country like ours, the powers under the Act are generally
exercisable by the District Court and the first appeal has to be filed in the
High Court. The distance, the geographical conditions, the financial position
of the parties and the time required for filing a regular appeal, if kept in
mind, would certainly show that the period of 30 days prescribed for filing
G
.6 the appeal is insufficient and inadequate. In the absence of appeal, the other
party can solemnise the marriage and attempt to frustrate the appeal right
of the other side as appears to have been done in the instant case. We are
of the opinion that a minimum period of 90 days may be prescribed for filing
the appeal against any judgment and decree under the Act and any marriage H
t
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 1 S.C.R

A solemnised during the aforesaid period be deemed to be void. Appropriate
legislation is required to be made in this regard. We direct the Registry that
the copy of this judgment may be forwarded to the Ministry of Law & Justice
for such action as it may deem fit to take in this behalf.
-
There is no merit in these appeals which are dismissed with costs
B throughout.
S.K.S. Appeals dismissed.