http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: J. L. NANDA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. VEENA NANDA

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/12/1987

BENCH: OZA, G.L. (J) BENCH: OZA, G.L. (J) MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:  1988 AIR  407            1988 SCR  (2) 348  1988 SCC  Supl.  112     JT 1987 (4)   619  1987 SCALE  (2)1246

ACT:      Plea for  divorce by  husband on grounds of cruelty and desertion by wife.

HEADNOTE: %      The appellant  and the  respondent, husband  and  wife, were married  under the  Hindu Customs  in  February,  1961. Disagreement and  disharmony between the two ensued from the very beginning  after the marriage. The parties by and large lived together  till February,  1971,  and  separately  ever since thereafter  except for  a short  period in  1975.  The respondent-wife, as  alleged by  the appellant, did not like to live  in the  joint family and always created ugly scenes by  quarrels,   etc.  The   appellant  was  forced  to  live separately from  the joint  family, but even then, according to him,  the conduct  of the  wife continued  to be the same bad. The  appellant  alleged  that  he  suffered  a  nervous breakdown  because   of  her   behaviour  and   had  to   be hospitalised. He,  therefore, filed  a petition for a decree of divorce  on the  grounds of  cruelty and  desertion.  The trial  Court   granted  the   divorce.  On   appeal  by  the respondent, the  High Court  reversed the  decision  of  the trial Court  and  dismissed  the  petition  for  divorce.  A Letters Patent  Appeal by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court.  The appellant appealed to this Court for relief by special leave.      Dismissing the appeal, the Court, ^      HELD: It  could not  be held  that the  respondent  was behaving with  the appellant  in a  manner  which  could  be termed as  cruelty, which  entitled the  appellant to  get a decree of divorce. Sometimes, the temperament of the parties may not  be conducive  to each  other,  resulting  in  petty quarrels, but  it could  not be  held on  the basis  of  any material that  the ailment  of the  appellant was the direct result of the respondent’s conduct. The High Court was right in coming  to the  conclusion that  there was no material to prove that  the respondent treated the appellant with such a cruelty as  would entitle  the  appellant  to  a  decree  of divorce.  The   judgment  of   the  High  Court  maintained.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

[350G-H; 351A-B]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3946 of 1987. 349      From the Judgment and Order dated 22.7.1983 of the High Court of Delhi in L.P.A. No. 141 of 1982 (M).      P.N. Misra for the Appellant.      Krishan Kumar and Vimal Dave for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      OZA, J. Leave granted.      This appeal arises out of SLP(Civil) No. 14149/83 filed by the petitioner husband against the judgment of High Court of Delhi  in Letters  Patent Appeal  No. 141/82  decided  on 22.7.83. The  present appellant  husband filed a petition in the trial  court for  decree of  divorce on  the  ground  of cruelty and desertion. The trial court granted the decree of divorce but  on appeal by the respondent wife learned Single Judge of  High Court  of Delhi  reversed  the  decision  and dismissed the petition filed by the appellant husband. It is against this that a Letters Patent Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters  Patent was  filed before the High Court wherein it was  heard by  a Division Bench of the High Court and the appeal filed  by the  appellant was dismissed. It is against this that the present special leave petition was filed.      Considering the  circumstances of  the case and the age of the  parties we  issued  notice  and  also  directed  the parties to  appear before us in chambers and in spite of our best efforts  it is  unfortunate that  no reconciliation was possible.      It is  one of those unfortunate cases where the husband and wife  are of  mature age  not only  that but they have a grown-up son who is maturing into a lawyer as he is studying in law  and unfortunately  even these circumstances were not able to bring about an amicable settlement in the matter.      The parties  to these proceedings were married at Delhi in accordance with the Hindu customs on February 7, 1961. It seems that  there was  disagreement and  disharmony from the very beginning.  A male child, however, was born out of this wedlock on  August 30,  1964. The parties by and large lived together till February 1971. They have lived separately ever since except for a short duration in the middle of 1975 when they were together. The main allegation of the appellant was that from  the very  beginning the  respondent wife  did not like to 350 live in  the joint  family and  she  used  to  behave  in  a peculiar manner  A always  created ugly  scenes, indulged in quarrels and taunting and ultimately forced the appellant to shift to  a government  allotted quarter and live separately away from  other members  of the family but according to him even then  her behaviour continued to be the same and it was also alleged  that because  of her  behaviour ultimately the appellant suffered  a nervous  break  down  and  had  to  be admitted in  the Willingdon  Hospital New Delhi for about 45 days.      The Division  Bench of  the  High  Court  came  to  the conclusion that  from perusal  of all  the facts  alleged it appears that  there may  have been  a few incidents prior to the birth  of the  child on  August 30,  1964 but after that there was  no such  incident pleaded  or  proved  till  1966 except for  the allegation  that the  wife got the pregnancy

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

terminated sometime  in  1966  against  the  wishes  of  the appellant and  on this  basis  the  learned  Judges  of  the Division Bench  came to  the conclusion  that the early part before August 1964 probably was a period of inexperience and lack  of   adjustment  between  the  husband  and  wife  but ultimately after  the birth of the son in 1964 there appears to be  nothing serious  and in  this view  of the matter the learned Judges  came to the conclusion that between 1963 and 1968 there appears to be no incident or problem which really deserves consideration.  A small matter about her describing herself Mrs.  Veena Vohra  instead of  Mrs. Veena  Nanda the learned  Judges   have  considered  and  have  accepted  the explanation of  the wife as plausible. The learned Judges of the Division Bench have considered all the circumstances and have also  referred to  the correspondence  and the  letters wherein regrets  have been  expressed in some matters by the respondent. Considering  all these facts, the Division Bench came to  the conclusion that although it is unfortunate that they have  not been  keeping good relations but it could not be said to be a case of cruelty entitling the appellant to a decree for divorce.      Having heard  learned counsel  for the parties and also having heard  the parties  themselves we  come to  the  same conclusion as  was reached  by the  learned  Judges  of  the Division Bench  of the  High Court  while disposing  of  the appeal filed  by the  appellant against  the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It is no doubt an unfortunate state of affairs but  it could  not be  held that  the respondent was behaving with  the appellant  in a  manner  which  could  be termed as  cruelty which  would entitle  the appellant  to a decree for divorce. Sometimes the temperament of the parties may not be conducive to each other which may result in petty quarrels and  troubles although  it  was  contended  by  the appellant that  he had to suffer various ailments on account of this kind 351 of behaviour  meted out  to him by the wife but it could not be held  on A  the basis of any material that ailment of the appellant  was  the  direct  result  of  her  (respondent’s) conduct. The Division Bench therefore was right in coming to the conclusion  that there  is no  material to  come to  the conclusion that  the respondent  treated the  appellant with such cruelty  as would  entitle him to a decree for divorce. In view  of the  facts  and  circumstances,  therefore,  the appeal is  devoid of  merit. It  is therefore dismissed. The judgment of  the High  Court of  Delhi is maintained. In the circumstances of  the case  respondent shall  be entitled to costs of  this appeal.  The counsel’s  fee is  quantified at Rs.3,000. S.L.                                       Appeal dismissed. 352