Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


(Guest)

SC - Deserting newborn can be ground for divorce

A take from a aam adami: Ld. Advocates advising members that the lap of Mother is the only place where a child should stay, are they still in agreement to the below Judgment (5 weeks old child left behind by mother) ?


Ld. Advocates members - Kindly don't treat / give advise to general public that role of a father in India are only to be that of seed givers.



ITEM NO.104                   COURT NO.10              SECTION IX


              S U P R E M E     C O U R T   O F    I N D I A
                             RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                      CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5078 OF 2005


BHAVNABEN                                              Appellant (s)

                   VERSUS

HARSHAD ZINABHAI DESAI                                 Respondent(s)

(With appln. for permission to file rejoinder affidavit and office
report )

Date: 08/09/2010    This Appeal was called on for hearing today.


CORAM :
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
          HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN


For Appellant(s)      Mr. Nitin K. Gupta, Adv.
                      Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav,Adv.

For Respondent(s)      Mr.   A.V. Savant, Sr.Adv.
                       Mr.   Shishir Deshpande, Adv.
                       Mr.   Amit Yadav, Adv.
                       Ms.   Sujata Kurdukar,Adv.


            UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                                O R D E R

                The appeal is dismissed.    No cost.

 

       [ Usha Bhardwaj ]                       [ Savita Sainani ]
         Court Master                             Court Master

                Signed order is placed on the file.
                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.5078 OF 2005

Bhavnaben                                                       ....Appellant
                                  Versus


Harshad Zinabhai Desai                                          ....Respondent

                                   O R D E R

        Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High
Court   dated     21.11.2003,           granting       decree    for     divorce,
dissolving      the     marriage         of     the     appellant       and     the
respondent, wife has filed the above appeal.


        Both the appellant and respondent got married on
02.04.1989 and a daughter was born on 22.12.1989. It is
the case of the husband that immediately after a month i.e.
on 30.01.1990, the appellant-wife left the matrimonial home
and   the   child  who was about  five weeks at  Dadra and
deserted him.

 

        When there was a series of civil and criminal
proceedings, the husband filed a petition for divorce on
13.02.1992 at District Court, Dadra and Nagar Haveli at
Silvassa.  The appellant-wife filed a written statement on
29.07.1992 disputing the claim of the husband. Before the
District Court, the huaband apart from examining himself as
PW-1 also examined one independent witness by name Mr.
Natwarlal Shah as PW-2. The wife has examined as RW-1. By
order   dated    26.11.1999,  the District Court,  Silvassa,
dismissed husband's petition for divorce.


         Questioning the dismissal of his divorce petition,
the husband filed First Appeal No.635 of 2000 before the
High Court of Bombay.   The High Court, after considering
all the materials including the evidences of PW-1, PW-2 and
RW-1 and after finding that (a) wife has no justifiable
reason   to   stay    away   from    her    husband,   (b) refusing   to
cohabit, (c) leaving one month child uncared for, accepted
the case of the husband and granted decree for divorce by
dissolving their marriage.  Challenging the said order of
the High Court, the wife filed the above appeal by way of
special leave petition.

 

         Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as
for the respondent.


         We perused the relevant materials such as specific
assertions    in     the   form     of    the   petition     and   counter,
evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and RW-1 as well as the orders
passed by the District Court and the High Court. There is
no   reason  to disbelieve  the evidence of  independent
witness, Mr. Natwarlal Shah (PW-2).  From the materials,
the following facts have been found proved by the High
Court:


i)     The wife left the matrimonial home   leaving  the
infant child of five weeks, on 30.01.1990.


ii)    There was no justification for the wife to leave the
matrimonial home on 30.01.1990.


iii)   The  wife unjustifiably  threw  the entire
responsibility of bringing up the child of  five weeks on
the Respondent husband.


iv)    The   appellant-wife   refused   to  cohabit  with
thehusband during several reconciliation  attempts  made
during the pendency of the proceedings.


v)     Obstinate attitude adopted by the appellant-wife in
refusing the husband's bona fide offer of reconciliation.

 

          In addition to the above factual findings, the High
Court    has     also     concluded    that    the       wife   is   guilty     of
desertion for a continuous period of more than two years
without    any      justification     and     on   this     ground    also    the
husband is entitled for a decree of divorce.

 

               It    is    also    pointed     out       that   there    is    an
irretrievable        break    down    of    the    marriage       between     the
spouses who have lived separately for nearly 20 years from
30.01.1990.

 

          Taking note of all these aspects, factual findings
by the High Court based on acceptable evidence, conduct of
the     appellant-wife   in     leaving  the  matrimonial  home
immediately after giving birth to a child and refusal to
join matrimonial home, we feel that the High Court was
fully justified in granting decree for divorce in favour of
the husband.   We do not find any merit in the appeal filed
by the wife, consequently, the same is dismissed.   No
cost.
                                                     ...................J.
                                                     (P. SATHASIVAM)


                                                     ...................J.
New Delhi,                                           (Dr.B.S. CHAUHAN)
September 08, 2010.

 

Link: https://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/ac%20507805p.txt



Learning

 3 Replies

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     11 September 2010

Thanks for the citation of such important issues.

RAKHI BUDHIRAJA ADVOCATE (LAWYER AT BUDHIRAJA & ASSOCIATES SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)     11 September 2010

really gud citiation.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     11 September 2010

many thanks for this citation.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register