The article has been written by Kanika Goel. This article is an attempt to dive into the details of the judgement delivered in the matter of Perminder Charan Singh v. Harjit Kaur by the Supreme Court of India in lieu of the appeals preferred by the parties against the judgement of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The article exhaustively deals with the facts of the case, the issues raised in the case, the contention of the parties, the judgement delivered by the bench, and the incidental laws relating to it.

Introduction

Marriage, as a concept, is considered to be the union of two individuals. When it comes to the existence of this concept in Indian society, especially among Hindus, it is not just considered to be a mere performance of certain rituals but a holy sacrament. For this very purpose, marriage is considered to fulfil the major four goals of life: righteousness, wealth, pleasure, and liberation.

With marriage comes the concept of divorce, which is nothing but the ending of a marital relationship, after which the legal obligations and responsibilities of the parties to that marital union get rearranged as per the laws prevailing in a particular nation. Under Hindu personal laws, marriage is considered a holy union and should be devoid of getting dissolved. However, with the advent of time, the concept of divorce got its place under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides the parties involved in a marital union with an exit from their unhappy and disturbing relationship through the decree of divorce. Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides for the grounds for seeking divorce. Cruelty and desertion are also among the grounds for divorce, by virtue of which the parties to a marital union can seek divorce by filing a divorce petition in the appropriate court of law.

The present appeal in the case of Perminder Charan Singh v. Harjit Kaur (2003), preferred in the Supreme Court of India, is one such matter wherein the petitioner sought a remedy of divorce within the purview of Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, relying upon the grounds of desertion and cruelty at the respondent’s end. The article attempts to give a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the legalities dealt with in this present case.

Download Now

Details of the case

Name of the case: Perminder Charan Singh v. Harjit Kaur

Type of case: civil appeal

Name of the court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justices K.G. Balakrishnan and P. Venkatarama Reddi

Author of the judgement: Justice K.G. Balakrishnan

Date of the judgement: 14th April, 2003

Parties to the case: Perminder Charan Singh (Petitioner) and Harjit Kaur (Respondent)

Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 SC 2310; 2003 (4) SCALE 13; 2003 (10) SCC 161.

Important laws and provisions: Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of Perminder Charan Singh vs. Harjit Kaur (2003)

The brief facts of the case are reproduced below:

  • The parties got married as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in a Gurudwara in Delhi on 28th January 1990, and the marriage was registered before the registrar on 30th January 1990.
  • The marriage was consummated in India, and sometime later, in February 1990, the appellant, Perminder Charan Singh, went to Germany and was subsequently joined by the respondent, Harjit Kaur, in March 1990.
  • As per the appellant, his wife (the respondent) returned to India in June 1990 to look after her parents and later again arrived in Germany in September 1990.
  • As stated by the appellant in his petition, his wife had started being rude to him and his mother within certain months of staying in Germany with them, and that her main objective in marrying him was to fetch money from him. These incidents later turned into abusive and physical quarrels.
  • The mother of the respondent also came to Germany in July 1991 to stay with them when a son was born out of their wedlock on 14th July 1991. She went back to India after staying with them for a certain period of time. As per the appellant, the behaviour of the respondent went on to become more violent and unbearable. 
  • The respondent took their son along, left Germany without informing the appellant, and returned to India to stay with her parents in Chandigarh. This had caused grave mental distress for the respondent. The appellant, however, came to India to try to convince his wife to stay with him in a cordial manner, but all his efforts went in vain. 
  • Somewhere in October 1992, the appellant came to know that his wife was not unmarried at the time of their marriage. After due investigations, he came to know that she was earlier married to one Sanjit Singh, who used to reside in Meerut, U.P. The fact that she was earlier married to Sanjit Singh was confirmed by him as well in June 1993. He also told the appellant that the respondent, along with her father, had filed false cases against him and his family and took an amount of Rs 6 lakh to get a divorce from him.
  • As mentioned in the petition, the information about the respondent’s previous marriage was concealed from the appellant as well as his family; if he had known about the same, he would have never agreed to marry her.
  • The appellant informed the German embassy about this fiasco and asked them not to issue any visa in the name of the respondent on the grounds of her concealment of true facts about her previous marriage. Still, she managed to return to Germany sometime in December 1992 and remained adamant about staying with the appellant in their matrimonial home in Germany itself.
  • Hence, relying upon the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the appellant filed for the dissolution of their marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of desertion and cruelty, along with a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in Delhi court on 1st October 1993, where it was pending and was later transferred to the court of the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, in lieu of the orders of the Supreme Court.
  • The Additional District Judge in Chandigarh Court (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) heard and decided the petition on the grounds mentioned in Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The trial court decided the matter by stating that there was infliction of cruelty upon the appellant and, hence, held that the appellant was entitled to get divorced. However, the issue of him being deserted by his wife was decided in favour of the respondent, leading the appellant to file an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
  • Justice R.L. Anand, after hearing the pleas of the parties, also based his ruling upon the findings of the trial court, which stated that the appellant was unable to substantiate his pleadings with evidence of desertion and cruelty; hence, he dismissed the appeal filed before his court, which was further questioned in the appeal preferred before the divisional bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. However, the same was dismissed; hence, the present appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court of India.

Issues raised in the appeal preferred before the Supreme Court

The present appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court, challenging the maintainability of the judgement given by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the following grounds:

  • That the appellant was refused the relief of annulment of marriage, which was sought by him under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; and
  • The appellant was denied the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion on the part of the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Arguments of the parties

Petitioner

The petitioner’s husband, Dr. Perminder Charan Singh, while asserting his claims of facing desertion and cruelty on the respondent’s part, made the following arguments before the court:

  • At the time of the marriage, he was unaware of the fact that the respondent (his wife) was previously married to some other person named Sanjit Singh. He also asserted that he came to know about his wife’s first marriage after 3 years of their marriage, somewhere around the month of June 1993.
  • The petitioner contended that his wife intentionally used to pick up frequent abusive quarrels with him just after a few months of their marriage, and the sole objective of his wife marrying him was to extort money from him.
  • The petitioner also contended that there had been concealment, fraud, and misrepresentation on the part of the respondent’s family about her previous marriage, and had he known about the fact of the first marriage of the respondent, he would never have agreed to marry her. 
  • The petitioner argued that the judgements given by the trial court and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana were erroneous and that the Supreme Court must allow his appeals.

Respondent

After the arguments of the petitioner were duly heard, the respondent filed a counter-statement while refuting all the allegations made by the petitioner-husband and made the following contentions in support of her claims:

  • There was an advertisement given by the petitioner in the Hindustan Times in the matrimonial columns, and the respondent’s father, after reading that advertisement, wrote a letter to the petitioner which also included her bio-data, which reflected the details of her previous marriage along with her status of being “legally divorced”.
  • It was also contended by the respondent that the negotiations regarding the marriage kept taking place for several months. During that period, the petitioner himself, along with his family, made due investigations about the respondent’s first marriage to her previous husband. It was also alleged by the respondent that the appellant himself consented and agreed to marry her only after fully satisfying himself about the respondent’s past.
  • The respondent alleged that the fact of the appellant marrying her after making due inquiries about her first marriage shows that there was no fraud or concealment on her part and that the petitioner married her by his own free will.
  • There was a contention on behalf of the respondent’s family that they also gave an advertisement about the status of the respondent being “legally divorced” in the matrimonial column of an esteemed newspaper, but on the contrary, there was no disclosure on the part of the appellant’s family that he was also a divorcee.
  • The respondent also claimed that the suit was barred by time, and hence, the claims of the petitioner-husband should be set aside by the Court.

Relevant laws and provisions

The judgement in the present case of Perminder Charan Singh v. Harjit Kaur, 2003, entirely deals with the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, specifically Sections 12 and 13. A brief analysis of the important provisions as dealt with in the case is mentioned as follows:

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

The Hindu Marriage Act was enacted by Parliament in 1955 to amend and codify the laws relating to the solemnization of marriages amongst Hindus as well as regulate the institution of marriage. The Act also aims to regulate other aspects of personal lives among Hindus and the applicability of such lives in wider Indian society.

Section 12

This Section deals with the concept of voidable marriages and mentions that a marriage, irrespective of the time of its solemnization, may be annulled and declared voidable by a decree of nullity on certain grounds as mentioned under Section 12(1), along with certain conditions for the filing of the petition under Section 12(2). These grounds are as follows:

  1. Impotency: A marriage may be declared voidable if it is observed that the respondent was impotent at the time of the solemnization of marriage and continued to be so till the filing of the petition under this Section, which also means that there has been no consummation of marriage because of the impotency of the respondent. A party is considered impotent if his or her mental or physical conditions make the consummation of marriage a practical impossibility. 

This was also established by the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Yuvraj Digvijay Singh v. Yuvrani Pratap Singh (1969), wherein the Court stressed upon the fact that in order to get a decree of nullity in one’s favour, there must be evidence to show the subsistence of impotency at the time of the marriage, which should continue until the date of the institution of the proceedings.

  1. Insanity: A marriage can also be annulled and declared to be voidable on the ground that, at the time of marriage, the respondent was incapable of giving valid consent owing to his or her unsoundness of mind or suffering from a mental disorder of such a kind as to be unfit for being in a marital union, and the procreation of children has been subject to recurrent attacks of such insanity. 

As held by the Delhi High Court in Mamta Rani v. Sudhir Sharma (2014), if the respondent, the family, or the guardian conceals the condition of the respondent’s insanity, it becomes a valid ground for obtaining a decree of nullity under Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

  1. Consent by force or by fraud: A marriage can be declared voidable on the ground that the consent of the petitioner or the guardian has been obtained by force or by fraud. However, no such petition for annulling the marriage on this ground shall be entertained if the petition is presented more than a year after the force has ceased to operate or the fraud has been discovered, or when the parties continue to live together even after the force has ceased to operate or the fraud has been discovered.
  2. Prior Pregnancy: A marriage can also be declared voidable on the ground that the respondent was pregnant by a person other than the petitioner at the time of the marriage, but in the case of such a petition, the court is to be satisfied that the petitioner was ignorant of the fact of the respondent’s prior pregnancy at the time of the marriage. Also, the petition for annulment of marriage on this ground has to be filed within one year from the date of the marriage.

Annulment of marriage under Section 12 is necessary because a marriage shall be deemed to be valid unless it is annulled by a decree of nullity. 

Section 13

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act lays down the grounds for the dissolution of a marriage or divorce. The clause-wise analysis of the provision is as follows:

  • Section 13(1) specifies that there can be a dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce for which the petition may be filed by either of the parties (husband or wife) on the following grounds:
  1. Voluntary sexual intercourse by another party with any person other than the spouse after marriage (also referred to as adultery).
  2. The other party has treated the petitioner with cruelty after marriage.
  3. Another party has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than 2 years at the time of filing the petition. Here, desertion means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party without any reasonable or rational excuse and also includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage;
  4. The other party has ceased to be a Hindu by converting himself or herself to another religion;
  5. The other party is incurable of unsoundness of mind or suffers from a mental disorder because of which the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with it;
  6. The other party suffers from communicable venereal disease;
  7. There has been a renunciation of the world on the part of the other party by entering into any religious order; or
  8. If there has been no news of the other party being alive by those people who might have heard of him for a continuous period of 7 years or more.
  • Section 13(1A) mentions the grounds of divorce that are also available to both husband and wife:
  1. That there has been no resumption of cohabitation between the parties for one year or more after the passing of the decree of judicial separation, or
  2. That there has been no restitution of conjugal rights for a period of one year or more since the passing of the decree of the restitution of conjugal rights.
  • Section 13(2) mentions the grounds of divorce that are solely available to the wife:
  1. Bigamy committed by the husband;
  2. The husband has been held guilty of rape, sodomy, or bestiality;
  3. At the option of puberty; or
  4. If the decree of maintenance against the husband has already been passed and there has been no cohabitation for over a year.

Dastane v. Dastane (1975) is considered a landmark judgement on cruelty being a ground for the dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wherein the Supreme Court stated that “if the probabilities are so nicely balanced that a reasonable, not a vacillating mind cannot find where the preponderance lies, a doubt arises regarding the existence of the facts to be proved, and the benefit of such reasonable doubt goes to the accused.”

In another case, Bipin Chandra Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati (1957), the Supreme Court held that desertion is a statutory ground for obtaining a decree of divorce. However, the fact of the desertion must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt in matrimonial proceedings.

Judgement in Perminder Charan Singh vs. Harjit Kaur (2003)

The judgement in the present case goes through a series of decisions; initially, the judgement was delivered by the court of the Additional District Judge in Chandigarh in favour of the respondent. Hence, the appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which is produced below:

Judgement given by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, after hearing the arguments of both parties, gave its decision by stating that there was no active concealment on the part of the respondent about her being unmarried and that the fact of concealment of any substantial information or fraud must be seen at the time of the marriage and not afterwards. Hence, the Court refused to pass the decree of annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

With respect to the issue of cruelty, as contended by the petitioner, the High Court also decided this issue in favour of the respondent.

Dissatisfied by the decision of the High Court, the petitioner-appellant preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.  

Issue-wise judgement in the present appeal before the Supreme Court

With respect to the appeal preferred before the Supreme Court, the bench decided the matter by dealing with the maintainability of the judgement given by the High Court.

Issue regarding the annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as filed by the petitioner in his appeal.

The Supreme Court, while deciding this issue, threw light upon the facts of the case, which are also mentioned above in this article in detail. The bench, while negating the issue, stated that the fact of the advertisement of the respondent being “legally divorced” in an esteemed newspaper was itself a sufficient indication to show that the respondent’s parents did not have any mala fide intention to conceal the fact of her previous marriage to some other person. Also, the presence of a few documents that supported the respondent’s contentions that the appellant knew about her previous marriage at the time of their marriage is sufficient to infer that there was no active concealment on the part of the respondent’s family. 

Hence, keeping view of all the facts, the bench rejected the appellant’s plea for the annulment of their marriage on the grounds of concealment by fraud under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Issue regarding the plea for the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as filed by the petitioner in his appeal.

The respondent, while quoting the judgement given by the Trial Court, which decided this issue in favour of the respondent, stating that there was cruelty on the part of the wife (respondent), also tried to persuade the Supreme Court by supporting his claim with certain facts of the case and kept on emphasising that the respondent used to behave cruelly with him.

The Supreme Court, while deciding this issue, concurred with the HC’s decision, stating that there was no sufficient evidence to show cruelty on the part of the respondent. Most of the incidents that were mentioned by the appellant in his plea occurred in Germany and were not substantially supported by direct evidence. Neither was there any substantial proof to support the claim of the appellant that his wife deserted him. Hence, the bench also decided this issue in the respondent’s favour and dismissed all the appeals without levying any costs upon the appellant.

Rationale behind the judgement

The reasoning behind the verdict given in the present case has been clearly set out by the bench while dismissing the appeals of the petitioner. The Apex Court, while relying upon the essence of the provisions of voidable marriage under Section 12 and divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, made it clear about the need for substantial and direct evidence in order to support one’s claim on the grounds of divorce or for the annulment of marriage.

The fact that the Court stated that the appellant knew about the respondent’s previous marriage shows that there was no active concealment on the respondent’s part. Hence, there was no underlying reason to grant the decree for annulment of marriage as per the provision of Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Also, the Apex Court stated that the appellant’s claims that his wife used to berate him, insult him in front of his friends, and indulge in verbally abusive quarrels with him were not sufficiently supported by any direct evidence. The appellant’s contentions that the respondent-wife had shown cruelty towards him and had deserted him lacked substantial proof in order to support his claims. Thus leading to the dismissal of the plea for the dissolution of their marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion as per Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Analysis of Perminder Charan Singh vs. Harjit Kaur (2003)

The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeals of the appellant-husband, clearly laid down the essence of relying upon substantial evidence in order to support one’s claims. There has to be the presence of supporting documents or direct evidence in order to support one’s claims. The lack of supporting evidence on the part of the appellant pushed the court to decide the matter in the respondent’s favour. In order to ascertain the fact that there was an incident of cruelty on the part of the respondent, it was the appellant’s prime duty to support his claims with sufficient proof. The Apex Court, however, by doing away with all the doubts, outrightly rejected the appellant’s plea and laid down the essence of Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in a very intrinsic manner.

Conclusion

The present case of Perminder Charan Singh v. Harjit Kaur (2003) is a significant example of how Indian courts deal with the grounds of divorce while deciding a petition for the dissolution of a marriage. A mere statement that a spouse has deserted his or her partner would not be sufficient to prove the fact of desertion. There is a significant need for supporting documents and evidence to prove the claims. Also, the concept of cruelty as a ground of divorce is not to be used without having any direct evidence to support the respective claim, as there must be recurrent incidents of cruelty in order to attract the provision of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Apex Court, in this case, indirectly opined that a decree of annulment of marriage or dissolution of marriage could not be passed on the basis of verbal accusations in the absence of the relevant supportive documents or any substantial evidence. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the difference between a void and a voidable marriage as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

The concept of void marriage is stated under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, whereas voidable marriage is mentioned under Section 12. As per Section 12, there is a need for a decree of annulment of marriage, which, however, is not the case in void marriages as the parties do not possess the status of being husband and wife. Hence, no decree of nullity is required to be passed as per Section 11. The major difference that lies between both concepts is that, under Section 12, a marriage remains valid unless declared void by a competent court through a decree. However, a void marriage is a non-existing marriage in the eyes of the law.

Are all the grounds for divorce that are mentioned under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, available to both parties?

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, deals with the grounds of divorce. However, there is a bifurcation of the grounds under its sub-sections. The grounds mentioned in Section 13(1) and Section 13(1A) are available to both husband and wife. However, the grounds for divorce mentioned under Section 13(2) are only available to the wife.

How far do the Indian courts consider “cruelty” as one of the grounds for divorce?

The Supreme Court, in the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006), clearly laid down that cruelty as a ground of divorce not only means physical abuse or verbal abuse but also includes mental harassment. Levying false allegations against the spouse for his or her adultery, impotence, or mental illness constitutes the essence of cruelty. There is no need to prove that the cruelty being physical only will lead to life in danger.

What is the limitation period for filing the petition for the dissolution of marriage as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

As per Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a marital couple can seek the dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent, but only after the completion of at least one year of their marriage.

References 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here