Holding

The Supreme Court held that the court must first attempt reconciliation in matrimonial disputes and therefore directed the parties to live together under judicial monitoring, refusing to grant a divorce under Section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Summary

In V.K. Gupta v. Nirmala Gupta, the husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Delhi High Court, both the single judge and the division bench, refused to dissolve the marriage. On appeal, the Supreme Court emphasized that the court's primary role in matrimonial disputes is to seek reconciliation, especially when a minor child is involved. The Court, after hearing counsel, directed the parties to resume cohabitation and placed the matter under a three‑month judicial monitoring period to assess the restoration of the conjugal home. No decree of divorce was granted, and the special leave petition was adjourned for further reporting.

Issues considered

Whether a decree of divorce can be granted under Section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act in the present circumstances
Whether the court should order reconciliation and judicial monitoring instead of granting divorce

Legislation cited

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 13(1)(b)

Subjects

divorcereconciliationHindu Marriage Actspecial leave petitionjudicial monitoringchild welfaremarital dispute

Judgment

506

A V.K.GUPTA
v.
NIRMALA GUPTA
September 4, 1979
B [V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND P. N. SHJNGHAL, JJ.]

Hindu Marriage Act 1958-S. 13 (1) (b )-Dissolution of 1narriage--Re-
conciliation of a ruptured marriage-Judge aided by counsel to strain to the
unnost-Judicial monitoring a salutary prophylactic.

C The husband (petitioner) sought a decree for divorce of his wife (ree-
pondent) under Sec. 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.. The single Judge
and the Division Bench of the High Court did not grant dissolution of the
marriaJ;?e.

In the Special Leave Petition to this Court,

D HELD : 1. The benign perspective which the Court must bring to bear
upon a matrimonial cause is the resolution of the conflict between the parties
and eventual restoration of the conjugal home. The first essay of the judge
aided by counsel is that of reconciliation of the ruptured marriage. [S07C]

2. The sanctity of marriage is the foundation of civilisation and therefore
Court and counsel owe a duty to society to strain to the utmost to repair
E the snapped relations between the parties. The task becomes more insistent
when an innocent off-spring. struggles in between the disputed parents. Judicial
monitoring is a salutary prophylactic. [507D, 508D]

In the instant case the minor frictions which got distorted into disruption
being really the wear and tear of wedded fabric and there being a child
whose future is to be largely moulded by the sweetness and survival of the
F wedlock, the Court impressed upon counsel and the parties for resolution
of the conflict and restoration of the conjugal home. They responded, put
in their statements and the Court directed the husband and wife (petitioner
and respondent) to live together in terms of their statements and hopefully,
never to separate until death do them part. The Court further granted three
months time to know whether the marriage is back on its wheels to run
smoothly. [507G-508q
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 3661 /78.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9-5-1978 of the Delhi High
Court in L.P.A. No. 41/78.
H A. K. Gupta for the Petitioner.
N. D. Garg and T. L. Garg for the Respondent.
v. K. GUPTA v. NIRMALA GUPTA (Krishna Iyer, !.) 507

The Order of the Court was delivered by A

KRISHNA IYER, J. Upon hearing counscl, the Court passed the
following order :
This matrimonial litigation, where a husband (the petitioner)
unsuccessfully tried to get a decree for divorce of his wife (the
respondent) under Section 13(1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, has B
landed in this Court as a petition for special leave to appeal. Custo-
mary ac~usations on both sides were made in the pleadings and
evidence, but the High Court (both the single judge and the
division bench) did not grant dissolution of marriage. When we beard
counsel on both sides on a preliminary basis we impressed upon them
the benign perspective which the Court must bring to bear upon a
c
matrimonial cause. It is fundamental that reconciliation of a ruptured
marriage is the first essay of the judge, aided by counsel in this noble
adventure. The sanctity of marriage is, in essence, the foundation of
civilisation and, therefore, Court and counsel owe a duty to society to
strain to the utmost to repair the snapped relations between the parties. D
This task becomes morn insistent when an innocent off-spring of the
wedding struggles in between the disputed parents. In the present case,
there is a child, quite young, the marriage itself being young.
We have had the advantage of responsive counsel on both sides
who shared the spirit .of our suggestion, worked on the minds of their
I clients and healed a wounded situation into a healthy rapproachment. E
What is equally noteworthy is the circumstance that the parties them-
•dves reacted sensitively and constructively. Naturally, there was
initial resistance, mistrust, apprehension and, therefore, a string of
conditions in arriving at a consensus between the parties. At the end
of this conciliatory journey, it was possible to reach a happy desti-
F
nation resulting in the resolution of the conflict between the parties and
eventual restoration of the conjugal home.
Today, counsel on both sides put in statements which we are
recording in the proceedings. In substance, both husband and wife are
basically agreed upon living together with the ardour and lover of
partners in life. The minor frictions which got distorted into disrup- G
• tion was really the wear and tear of wedded fabric. We are able to
discern in the two statements a sincere wish to come together and
enjoy •he conjugal bliss which is their right. We further notice a
concern on both sides for the little, lovely child whose future is
largely moulded by the sweetness and survival of the wedlock.
H
At the end of brief submissions on both sides, the respondent
(wife) agreed to go to her matrimonial home and live with her
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980} 1 S.C.R.

A husband (the petitioner) right away. On our gentle persuasion, they
moved from the Court to live together in the husband's home--the
husband assuring the Court that he will live with and love his wife and
the wife, in turn, agreeing to live in the family of the husband as a
good daughter-in-law would do in a Hindu family. We are glad lhat
the story has ended happily.
B
We direct the husband and wife (petitioner and respondent) to
live together in terms of their statements and, hopefully, never to
separate until death do them part. As a preliminary experiment we
have directed that the Court will wait for three months to know
whether the marriage is back on its wheels to run smoothly, We have
c impressed on the spouses that an ideal marriage is one where--
"each sucked into each,
on the new stream rolls,
whatever rocks obstruct''.
The special leave petition will stand adjourned to 25th January
D 1980 and counsel on both sides will report on Republic Day eve about
the fortunes of the wedlock which by joint endeavour is apparently
restored. Judicial monitoring is a salutary prophylactic.

N.V.K.