qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui Sanat Kumar Agarwal Vs. opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa Smt.

Nandini Agarwal sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf Case Analysis Family Law - I ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklz xcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv Submitted by: bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn Name: Arushi Gupta Class: BBA LLB (2 year) mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq Division: A Roll no.: 052 wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe PRN: 11010124052 Contact no.: 09921071157 rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
Internal Assessment - 1
st

Contents
1. General information 2. Facts of the case The factual background giving rise to the filing of the present special
leave application

The present scenario 3. Relevant Laws

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)

4. Judgment 5. Analysis 6. Conclusion 7. Bibliography

General information
Court: Supreme Court of India Application filed on: 06.02.1982 Decided on: 24.01.1990 Appellants: Sanat Kumar Agarwal Respondents: Smt. Nandini Agarwal Honble Judges: Justice K.N.Singh and N.M.Kasliwal Acts/Rules: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1) Cases Referred: Smt. Shakuntala vs. Shivnarain Agarwal, Civil Appeal No. 835 of 1987 Order: Special Leave Granted

Facts of the case

The factual background giving rise to the filing of the present special leave application
The case of the petitioner Sanat Kumar with regard to desertion was that he was married to the respondent Nandini on 11.6-1978 and on the same day his sister Shakuntala was married to Shivnarain, brother of Nandini as per the custom of GURAWAT. Thereafter some differences had arisen between the parties with the result that Nandini returned back to her parents house and the appellant's sister Shakuntala also left her husband's house. On 28.11.1978 the appellant along with his sister Shakuntala and his mother came to meet Shivnarain and then another meeting took place on 1.12.1978 and the parties came to a settlement. Following the settlement, the appellant Sanat Kumar took Nandini to his house while Shivnarain took Shakuntala to his house. It has been alleged by the appellant that on 8.12.1978 Shakuntala reached her parents house from her in-laws house and on 9.12.1978 Nandini also went to her parents house after leaving her matrimonial house. It has been alleged that both the appellant and the respondent highly educated and belonged to cultured families and were posted as a Science Officer in the Nuclear Power Department and teacher respectively. According to the appellant the duration of matrimonial relations between the parties continued only for six months. During this short period they had to face tremendous ups and downs in their matrimonial relationships, in which the solemnization of marriage between the parties according to 'GURAWAT' system had played an important role. On 9.12.1978 Nandini went to her parents house herself and since then she has been residing with her parents. Nandini left the matrimonial house on 9.12.1978 without any cause or reason and thereafter did not resume her matrimonial obligations nor returned back to the matrimonial house and this amounted to desertion. The present petition for divorce was filed on 6.2.1982. The petition was filed on the grounds of desertion and

cruelty. It may be mentioned that Shivnarain had filed the petition for divorce against Shakuntala, sister of the appellant on 1.1.1982.

The present scenario

The present appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court of India by the appellant for divorce on the ground of desertion after the rejection of the application by the High Court. Both Shivnarain as well as Sanat Kumar filed petitions of divorce against their wives on the ground of cruelty and desertion as contemplated under Section 13(1) (ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, The petition for divorce filed by Shivnarain was dismissed by the Trial Court but was allowed in appeal by the High Court and an appeal filed against the Judgment of the High Court was dismissed by this Court on 16.1.1990 in Civil Appeal No. 835 of 1987 Shakuntla v. Shivnarain Agarwal. Petition for divorce filed by Sanat Kumar against Smt. Nandini was dismissed by the Trial Court and the order was affirmed by the High Court. Sanat Kumar aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court has filed the present Special Leave petition No. 2187 of 1988.

Relevant Laws
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)
Section 13(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or (ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or

(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or (ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to anther religion; or (iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. (iv) has been suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy; or (v) has been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form; or (vi) has renounced the world by entering any religious order; or (vii) has not been heard of being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of it, had that party been alive;

Judgment
After going through the entire record of the case and also considering the arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties and in view of Justice Kasliwal this appeal deserves to be allowed. The present petition for divorce by Sanat Kumar has been brought on grounds of cruelty and desertion on the part of the respondent Nandini. Additional District Judge after discussing the evidence decided both the questions of cruelty as well as desertion against the petitioner/appellant. The High Court did not discuss the evidence in detail but affirmed the findings of the Trial Court. The husband Sanat Kumar has thus approached this Court by special leave. So far as the point of cruelty is concerned Supreme Court agreed with the finding of the Courts below. Now there remains the question of desertion and in its view the Courts below committed error in the facts and circumstances of the present case in holding that no desertion was proved in the present case.

The judgment of Additional District judge was highly criticized and was rendered incorrect by Justice Kasliwal. The judge observed that there was not an iota of evidence placed on record by neither the respondent nor any averment to show that any effort was made by her to go and join the matrimonial home by the appellant. Thus, the special leave application was granted by the Supreme Court of India.

Analysis
This case reveals how a pernicious custom known as 'GURAWAT' (Salta-Palta) resulted in matrimonial casualty in respect of two families of Agarwal Community. There is a custom prevailing in Agarwal Community of Chhattisgarh region in the State of Madhya Pradesh known as 'GURAWAT'. According to this custom brothers and sisters of one family are married to brothers and sisters of another family. The parties in the present case belonged to educated families. In this case, one of the main reasons for the differences that arose between the appellant (Sanat Kumar) and the respondent (Nandini) were the tension between the other couple Shakuntala (appellants sister) and Shivnarain (respondents brother). There are two important questions that arise out of this case Whether the trial court as well as the high court was unreasonable in rejecting the divorce application in spite of believing the statement of the appellant to be true. Whether in cases where there is an irretrievable break down of marriage, are the courts justified in making useless efforts to restore it and thus extending the litigation. To answer the first question, in my opinion yes, the trial court was quite unreasonable in rejecting the divorce application in spite of believing the statement of the appellant to be true because then it clearly

revealed that the respondent was adamant not to live with the appellant. In fact the following observation made by the learned Additional District Judge was held to be incorrect by the Supreme court Judge. Even if, this statement is accepted to be correct, it does not reveal that the respondent had decided to put an end to marital relationship and co-habitation and had gone from the matrimonial house to her parents house. On the contrary, the respondent has stated that she was always ready and willing to reside with the petitioner. On the contrary there are various instances to show that respondent was not at all interested in returning back to her matrimonial home. The first one being the one, where the respondent went to meet the appellant at the railway station but did not do so and gave some lame excuses for this conduct of hers. The second is when a letter was sent by the appellant to the respondent to come to Bhopal along with her brother and arrive at some settlement, no efforts were made on her part which clearly shows that she never wanted to fulfill her marital obligations and wanted an end of such relations. It is further important to note that the petition for divorce was filed on 6.2.1982 i.e. more than three years of leaving the matrimonial home by the respondent on 9.12.1978. Coming on to the second issue, there was certainly an irretrievable break down of this marriage and it as quite clear and understood that the parties could not have arrived at a settlement under any circumstances. It was more than a decade that the parties had been living separately, both of them had independent source of income and had adjusted to their new mode of life. So, the trial courts and the High Court was not justified in making useless attempts to stop the marriage from coming to an end and trying to convince them to come to a settlement and thus extending the litigation.

Conclusion
The case of Sanat Kumar Agarwal vs. Smt. Nandini Agarwal is a good example of how Section 13(1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 i.e. divorce on the ground of desertion applies to real life situations and actual cases. It also shows how the root cause of the dissension between the matrimonial relations in between the two families was on account of the certain customs how it can adversely affect the life of its followers and bring certain relations to an end whose very base was these customs. As already mentioned in spite of best efforts made by the courts, reunion between the parties could not be possible and the Supreme Court was clearly of the view that the appellant has proved his case for grant of decree of divorce on ground of desertion and thus te appeal was allowed.

Bibliography
Websites: www.manupata.com www.wikipedia.com www.legallyindia.com www.indiankanoon.org www.scconline.com Books: Hindu Marriage Act,1955 Bare Act Family law Lectures LexisNexis Student Series by Professor Kusum Family Law by Dr. Paras Diwan Hindu Principles of Family Law by S.A.Desai