Supreme Court Upholds Divorce Decree on Grounds of Desertion — No Proof of Intent to Desert Established.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a divorce petition filed by the appellant against the respondent under the Bombay Hindu Divorce Act, 1947, citing desertion as the ground. The parties were married in 1942 and had a son. The appellant left for England in 1947, and upon his return, he discovered the respondent's alleged intimacy with another man, Mahendra. Following a confrontation, the respondent left for her father's home on May 24, 1947, ostensibly for a family marriage. The appellant sent a notice to the respondent in July 1947, expressing his desire to end the marriage. The appellant filed for divorce in 1951, claiming desertion for over four years. The respondent contended that she left due to the appellant's treatment and had always been willing to return. The trial court initially granted the divorce, but the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the respondent did not intend to desert and that the appellant had effectively deserted her. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence for desertion and animus deserendi. The court noted that desertion requires both separation and the intention to permanently end cohabitation, which was not established in this case. The appeal was dismissed, and the divorce decree was not granted.

Headnote

A) Family Law - Divorce - Grounds for Divorce - Desertion - Bombay Hindu Divorce Act, 1947, Section 3(1)(d) - The court held that the respondent's departure from the marital home was not motivated by an intention to desert but was due to her sense of guilt, and there was no proof of animus deserendi during the statutory period. The appellant's claim for divorce was therefore dismissed. (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondent had been in desertion entitling the appellant to a decree for divorce.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's decision, dismissing the appellant's appeal for divorce on the grounds of desertion, as the necessary elements of desertion were not established.

Law Points

  • Desertion
  • animus deserendi
  • burden of proof
  • Bombay Hindu Divorce Act
  • 1947
  • statutory period of separation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

Civil Appeal No. 247 of 1953

1956-10-19

Jagannadhadas, Venkatarama Ayyar, B. P. Sinha

M. O. Setalvad, O. K. Daphtary

Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah

Prabhawati

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Divorce proceedings under the Bombay Hindu Divorce Act, 1947.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought a decree for divorce.

Filing Reason

The appellant claimed desertion by the respondent.

Previous Decisions

The trial court initially granted the divorce, which was reversed by the appellate court.

Issues

Whether the respondent was in desertion for the statutory period Whether the appellant proved animus deserendi

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the respondent deserted him without consent. The respondent contended that she left due to the appellant's treatment and was willing to return.

Ratio Decidendi

Desertion requires both the fact of separation and the intention to permanently end cohabitation, which must be proven by the petitioner. The absence of animus deserendi during the statutory period negates the claim for divorce.

Judgment Excerpts

Held that, on the facts, though the initial fault lay with the respondent, her leaving her marital home was not actuated by any animus to desert her husband. Desertion is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a suit for divorce in 1951, which was initially granted by the trial court but reversed by the appellate court in 1952.

Acts & Sections

  • Bombay Hindu Divorce Act, 1947: Section 3(1)(d), Section 2(b)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Regarding Arms License Cancellation — Misuse of License Established. The appellant's frequent transactions and lack of compliance with licensing conditions justified the cancellation of his arms licenses under Section...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Show Cause Notice in Customs Act Case Due to Inordinate and Unexplained Delay of 15 Years. Transfer to Call Book Without Intimation Violates Section 28(9) of Customs Act, 1962.