Case: Chandra Mohini Srivastava Vs. Avinash Prasad Srivastava and Anr

party",As we read this provision, it is clear that before a decree for divorce can be granted thereunder, there must first be a decree for judicial separation and thereafter under the amendment a decree for divorce will follow if one of two conditions is satisfied, namely that (i) a period of two years has elapsed or (ii) the case is one of exceptional hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the other party. Sub-clause (b) in our opinion is not independent. That sub-clause only comes into operation after a decree of judicial separation has been passed. We cannot accept the contention that it is open to a Court under the amended provision to grant a decree of divorce on the grounded of exceptional hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the other party, even without a decree of judicial separation having been first made. Sub-clause (b) can only apply after a decree for judicial separation has been passed and it is not open to a Court to apply that clause and give a divorce forthwith as has been done in this case on the assumption that a decree of judicial separation could have been passed on the ground mentioned in S. 10 (1) (f).We are clearly of opinion that the amended clause [namely Cl. (viii) of S. 13 (1) still requires first a decree of judicial separation and thereafter a decree of divorce may follow under Cl. (b) without waiting for two years, which is the necessary period for the application of Cl. (a). The High Court, therefore, was not right in passing the decree of divorce in this case forthwith under sub-cl. (b) of Section 13 (1) (Viii) as amended in U. P.11. It has, however, been urged on behalf of the first respondent that we may now pass a decree of judicial separation instead of a decree of divorce passed by the High Court. We are of opinion that even that cannot be done in the present case. The only ground on which the decree of judicial separation can now be asked for is that mentioned in S. 10 (1) (f), namely that the appellant had sexual intercourse with any person other than her husband after the marriage. The only allegation in that respect was that the appellant had sexual intercourse with Chandra Prakash in 1955, and that is sought to be proved by the two letters to which we have referred already. We have held that those letters do not prove that there was any sexual intercourse between the appellant and Chandra Prakash in 1955. Therefore, there is no ground even for a decree of judicial separation in favour of the first respondent.12. Besides even if we were of opinion there had been sexual intercourse between the appellant and Chandra Prakash in 1955 (which we have no doubt is not true) this would be a case of condonation under S. 23 (1) (b) of the Act. Under that provision a decree of judicial separation cannot be passed under S. 10 (1) (b), if it appears to the Court that the petitioner has in any manner been accessory to or connived at or condoned the act or acts complained of. In his statement under 0. X, R. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the first respondent stated that it was in the month of June or July 1955 or 1956 that illicit relations of the appellant with Chandra Prakash were confirmed to him. According to that statement the first respondent knew even in 1955 or 1956 that there had been adultery between the appellant and Chandra a Prakash. Even so, the first respondent continued to live with the appellant and a son was born to them in 1957. In his evidence the first respondent tried to resile from his statement made under O. X. R. 2 and said that what he meant was that in 1955/1956 he entertained suspicion only. This explanation is of course untrue, for the words used in the statement under O. X, R. 2 were that illicit relations between the appellant and Chandra Prakash were confirmed to him. Even in his evidence the first respondent stated that he was definite in May/June 1958 that there was illicit connection between the appellant and Chandra Prakash. It was admitted by the first respondent that he had sexual relation with the appellant right upto October 1958. It is only in February 1959 when the appellant came finally to live with the first respondent that he said that he had no sexual relations with her during her stay of fifteen days. He also admitted that even after May/June 1958 he was willing to keep the appellant at the instance of his friends.13. Reliance in this connection is placed on Perry v. Perry, ( 1952) 1 All ER 1076. as to the content of condonation, which involves forgiveness confirmed or made effective by reinstatement. That was however, a case of desertion.It is urged that in order that forgiveness may be confirmed or made effective, something more than stray acts of cohabitation between husband and wife have to be proved. But where as in this case, judicial separation is being claimed on the ground of S. 10 (1) (f), the fact that the husband cohabited with the wife even after the knowledge that she had been guilty of cohabiting with another person would in our opinion be sufficient to constitute condonation, particularly, as in this case, the first respondent knew of the alleged adultery in May/June 1958 and still continued to cohabit with the appellant thereafter upto October 1958.Further the statement of the first respondent to the effect that he kept his wife after May/June 1958 at the instance of his friends is a clear indication of condonation even in the sense of forgiveness confirmed or made effective by reinstatement. We are, therefore, of opinion that the first respondent is not even entitled to a decree of judicial separation.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]7. We are of opinion that special leave cannot be revoked on grounds put forward behalf of the first respondent. Section 28 of the Act inter alla provides that all decrees and orders made by the Court in, any proceedings under the Act may be appealed from under any law for the time being in force, as if they were decrees and orders of the Court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. Section 15 provides that" when a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and there is no right of appeal against the decree or, if there is such a right of appeal, the time for appealing has expired without an appeal having been presented, or an appeal has been presented but has been dismissal, it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again." These two sections make it clear that where a marriage has been dissolved, either party to the marriage can lawfully marry only when there is no right of appeal against the decree dissolving the marriage or, if there is such a right of appeal, the time for fling appeal has expired without an appeal having been presented or if an appeal has been presented it has been dismissed. It is true that S. 15 does not in terms apply to a case of an application for special leave to this Court. Even so, we are of opinion that the party who has won in the High Court and got a decree of dissolution of marriage cannot by marrying immediately after the High Courts decree and thus take away from the losing party the chance of presenting an application for special leave. Even though S. 15 may not apply in terms and it may not have been unlawful for the first respondent to have married immediately after the High Courts decree, for no appeal as of right lies from the decree of the High Court to this Court in this matter, we still think that it was for the first respondent to make sure whether an application for special leave had been filed in this Court and he could not by marrying immediately after the High Courts decree deprive the appellant of the chance to present a special leave petition to this Court. If a person does so, he takes a risk and cannot ask this Court to revoke the special leave on this ground. We need not consider the question as to whether the child born to the new wife on May 20, 1965 would be legitimate or not, except to say that in such a situation S. 16 of the Act may come to the aid of the new child. We cannot, therefore, revoke the special leave on the grounds put forward on behalf of the first respondent and hereby dismiss his application for revocation of special leave.8. Turning now to the merits of the appeal, we have already indicated that the High Court as well as the trial Court are agreed that the appellant was not living in adultery at the time when the petition was filed. They are also agreed that there was no such cruelty as would bring the case within the meaning of S.10 (1) (b) of the Act. But the High Court found that there had been adultery between the appellant and Chandra Prakash in 1955 and the evidence for that consisted of two letters said to have been written by Chandra Prakash to the appellant. We cannot agree with this conclusion of the High Court. Chandra Prakash was married to a cousin of the appellant. He was, therefore, not a stranger to the appellant and his writing letters to her would not, therefore, be a matter of any surprise. We cannot also forget that the appellant in her statement has denied on oath that she ever had illicit connection with Chandra Prakash. There is also no doubt that the attempt of the first respondent to prove that there had been illicit intimacy between the appellant and Chandra Prakash in May/June 1958 has failed and both the Courts have disbelieved the evidence in this behalf. It is in this background that we have to examine the two letters on which reliance has been placed by the High Court, that being the only evidence in proof of adultery in 1955.9. It is true that the appellant has denied receiving those letters and has also denied that she ever sent any letter to Chandra Prakash. One can understand this denial in the case of a person like the appellant who was facing a petition for divorce on the ground of adultery. But assuming that those two letters were received by the appellant, that does not in our opinion prove that there was any adultery between the appellant and Chandra Prakash in 1955. We have read those letters and we must say that they are most improper and should not have been written by a person like Chandra Prakash who was married to the cousin of the appellant. But the first thing that strikes us is that the mere fact that some male relation writes such letters to a married woman, does not necessarily prove the there was any illicit relationship between the writer of the letters and the married woman who received them. The matter may have been different if any letters of the appellant written to Chandra Prakash had been proved. Further there is intrinsic evidence in the letters themselves which shows that whatever might have been the feelings of Chanda Prakash towards the appellant, they were not necessarily reciprocated by the appellant. In Ex. 2, Chandra Prakash wrote to the appellant, "You love me as you love others and this is why my share is very small. You write me letters to satisfy your anger". I his seems to suggest as if Chandra Prakash getting no response from the appellant .Again in Ex. 3, Chandra Prakash wrote, "I know that you would be angry with me, but what can I do". This again suggests that Chandra Prakash was gelling no response from the appellant. Further in both these letters Chandra Prakash conveyed his respects to the appellants husband, and on the whole we are not satisfied that these letters indicate that there must have been sexual intercourse between the appellant and Chandra Prakash in 1955, which was the time when these let tens were written. When we have the clear denial of the appellant to the effect that she never had any sexual intercourse with Chandra Prakash, we have no hesitation in accepting that denial, for there is nothing in these letters which would even suggest that the denial was false. Nor does the evidence of the first respondent, once the incident of May/June 1958 has been disbelieved, show anything from which it can be inferred that there was any illicit relation between the appellant and Chandra Prakash in 1955 or at any other time. We are, therefore, in agreement with the trial Court that these letters do not show that there was any illicit relationship between the appellant and Chandra Prakash in 1955.10. We are further of opinion that even assuming that these letters indicate that there was some illicit intimacy between the appellant and Chandra Prakash, the High Court was still in error in granting divorce under S. 13 (1) (viii) as amended by the U. P.we read this provision, it is clear that before a decree for divorce can be granted thereunder, there must first be a decree for judicial separation and thereafter under the amendment a decree for divorce will follow if one of two conditions is satisfied, namely that (i) a period of two years has elapsed or (ii) the case is one of exceptional hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the other party. Sub-clause (b) in our opinion is not independent. That sub-clause only comes into operation after a decree of judicial separation has been passed. We cannot accept the contention that it is open to a Court under the amended provision to grant a decree of divorce on the grounded of exceptional hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the other party, even without a decree of judicial separation having been first made. Sub-clause (b) can only apply after a decree for judicial separation has been passed and it is not open to a Court to apply that clause and give a divorce forthwith as has been done in this case on the assumption that a decree of judicial separation could have been passed on the ground mentioned in S. 10 (1) (f).We are clearly of opinion that the amended clause [namely Cl. (viii) of S. 13 (1) still requires first a decree of judicial separation and thereafter a decree of divorce may follow under Cl. (b) without waiting for two years, which is the necessary period for the application of Cl. (a). The High Court, therefore, was not right in passing the decree of divorce in this case forthwith under sub-cl. (b) of Section 13 (1) (Viii) as amended in U.are of opinion that even that cannot be done in the present case. The only ground on which the decree of judicial separation can now be asked for is that mentioned in S. 10 (1) (f), namely that the appellant had sexual intercourse with any person other than her husband after the marriage. The only allegation in that respect was that the appellant had sexual intercourse with Chandra Prakash in 1955, and that is sought to be proved by the two letters to which we have referred already. We have held that those letters do not prove that there was any sexual intercourse between the appellant and Chandra Prakash in 1955. Therefore, there is no ground even for a decree of judicial separation in favour of the firstwhere as in this case, judicial separation is being claimed on the ground of S. 10 (1) (f), the fact that the husband cohabited with the wife even after the knowledge that she had been guilty of cohabiting with another person would in our opinion be sufficient to constitute condonation, particularly, as in this case, the first respondent knew of the alleged adultery in May/June 1958 and still continued to cohabit with the appellant thereafter upto October 1958.Further the statement of the first respondent to the effect that he kept his wife after May/June 1958 at the instance of his friends is a clear indication of condonation even in the sense of forgiveness confirmed or made effective by reinstatement. We are, therefore, of opinion that the first respondent is not even entitled to a decree of judicial separation.