Dr. (Mrs.) Malathi Ravi v Dr. B.V.

Ravi
Citation
Civil Appeal No. 5862 of 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 17 of 2010)

Decided On, 30 June 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Name of the parties

Dr. (Mrs.) Malathi Ravi, M.D. ……. Appellant(s)

Versus

Dr. B.V. Ravi, M.D. …….. Respondent(s)

Bench
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya,

Dipak Misra
Abstract: This case is related to the concept of dissolution of marriage under section 9,
section10, section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that deals with the concept of restitution
of conjugal rights, judicial separation and divorce respectively. This analysis discusses various
aspects of the case such as the background of the case, facts, issues raised, and finally the
concept highlighted in this particular case analysis.

Keywords: Restitution of Conjugal Rights, Judicial Separation, Decree for Divorce.

Introduction
According to section 9, when either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse,
withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district
court, for restitution of conjugal rights and court, on satisfied on the truth of the statements made
in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may
decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.

According to section 10,

1. Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this
Act, may present a petition praying for a decree for judicial separation on any of the
grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 13, and in the case of a wife also on any of
the grounds specified in sub-section (2) thereof, as grounds on which a petition for
divorce might have been presented.
2. Where a decree for judicial separation has been passed, it shall no longer be obligatory
for the petitioner to cohabit with the respondent, but the court may, on the application by
petition of either party and on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such
petition, rescind the decree if it considers it just and reasonable to do so.

According to section 13,

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
1. has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any
person other than his or her spouse;
 (ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty;
(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years
immediately preceding the presentation of the petition;
2. has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion;
3. 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.

Background of the case

In this case it was said that marriage is as social institution is an affirmance of civilized social
order where two individuals, capable of entering into wedlock, have pledged themselves to the
institutional norms and values and promised to each other a cemented bond to sustain and
maintain the marital obligations. Despite the pledge and promises, on certain occasions,
individual incompatibilities, attitudinal differences based upon egocentric perception of
situations, maladjustment phenomenon or propensity for non-adjustment or refusal for
adjustment gets eminently projected that compels both the spouses to take intolerable positions
abandoning individual responsibility, proclivity of asserting superiority complex, betrayal of
trust which is the cornerstone of life, and sometimes a pervert sense of revenge, a dreadful diet,
or sheer sense of envy bring the cracks in the relationship when either both the spouses or one of
the spouses crave for dissolution of marriage – freedom from the institutional and individual
bond.

Facts of the case

In this case both the appellant as well as the respondent were highly qualified doctors with the
degree of postgraduate; both are in the government serve. They both socially as well as
financially well placed in society. The petitioner was the only male child of his parents beside
him they had one daughter, and they belong to middle class family. Also, on the other hand
petitioner’s wife also belongs to middle class family and that her parents have only three
daughters and no male child to them.
On 23rd November 1994, Mrs.Malathi (Respondent) got married to Dr. B.V. Ravi (Petitioner) as
per Hindu customs; marriage was solemnized under Hindu Marriage Act 1955. The marriage
was arranged by the elders of families.
After marriage they lived together as husband and wife in petitioner’s house for period of one
and a half year, then differences arose between them. In this wife conceived, as per the custom
she went to her parent’s house for confinement and rest till the delivery of the child. But after
delivery she never stepped back to petitioner’s house.
Later she joined a PG course in medicine at Gulbarga for two and half years. During this
husband wrote letters to her, convince her to return but she chooses to note to reply. One day
husband went to wife’s parent house, but her parents did not allow him in the house and all his
efforts met with miserable failure. According to him there was total marital failure that caused
him mental pressure and therefore he filed a petition initially for judicial separation which was
further amended to decree of divorce. The wife also applied for restitution of conjugal rights
before the court.

Issues Involved

1. Whether petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce or respondent is liable for restitution
of conjugal rights?
2. Whether respondent has been guilty of mental cruelty caused to the petitioner?

Judgment

The learned Family Judge dismissed the application for divorce and allowed the application of
the wife filed under Section 23(a) read with Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights.
Later on, High court dismissed the application under section 23(a) read with section 9 of the Act
for restitution of conjugal rights and passed a decree for dissolution of marriage between the
parties.

The learned Principal Judge of the family court came to the conclusion that there was desertion
yet the same was not for a continuous period of two years immediately preceding the
presentation of the petition; that the husband only wrote letters after 15.9.1999 and nothing had
been brought on record to show what steps he had taken for resumption of marital ties with the
wife if she had deserted him; that the wife was not allowed to come back to the matrimonial
home because of intervention of his sister and brother-in-law;; that as the husband was working
at Ambedkar Medical College in the Department of Biochemistry and wife had joined in the
Department of Pathology which would show that she was willing to join the husband to lead a
normal marital life; and that it was the husband who had withdrawn from the society of the wife
without any reasonable.

The High Court further came to the conclusion that the husband had made efforts to go to
Gulbarga on many an occasion, tried to convince the wife to come back to the matrimonial
home, but all his diligent efforts met with miserable failure. As the impugned judgment would
reflect, the behavior of the wife established that she deliberately stayed away from the marital
home and intentionally caused mental agony by putting the husband and his family to go through
a criminal litigation.

Finally, the apex court granted leave and “Matter is settled before the mediation Centre where in
parties have entered into a memorandum of settlement. Contents of the Memorandum of
Settlement are admitted by the Parties. Court is satisfied that the same is voluntary
Memorandum of settlement shall be a part of the decree.” Also, the element of mental cruelty
was proved.

Concept Highlighted

The decree of dissolution of marriage which is defined as the legal separation of man and wife
effect by the judgment or decree of a court, and either totally dissolving the marriage relation, or
suspending its effect so far as it concerns the cohabitation of the parties. It seems to be on the
increase these days, this is due to the fact that people rushed into ill-advised marriages and they
decided to rush out of these marriages as soon as they discovered that their marriages are not
what they expected. Therefore, no proceedings for dissolution may be instituted within two years
of marriage without leave of court except where divorce proceedings are based on the facts of
willful and persistent refusal.
Conclusion

In case it is concluded that mental cruelty and its effect cannot be stated with arithmetical
exactitude. It varies from individual to individual, from society to society and also depends on
the status of the persons. The agonized feeling or for that matter a sense of disappointment can
take place by certain acts causing a grievous dent at the mental level. The inference has to be
drawn from the attending circumstances. As we have enumerated the incidents, we are disposed
to think that the husband has reasons to feel that he has been humiliated.

References

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/605891/
2. https://www.lawyerservices.in/Dr-Mrs-Malathi-Ravi-MD-Versus-Dr-BV-Ravi-MD-
2014-06-30
3. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/dissolution-of-marriage.html