CASE Dharmendra Kumar v. Usha Kumar

Core idea: The Supreme Court said that simple non-compliance with a decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights (RCR) is not an “own wrong” under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Therefore, when there is no reunion after an RCR decree, divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) can be granted if no serious misconduct is proved against the petitioner.

• Does non-compliance with an RCR decree amount to “taking advantage of one’s own wrong” under Section 23(1)(a)?

1. Section 9, HMA: Restitution of Conjugal Rights (civil decree to resume cohabitation).
2. Section 13(1A)(ii), HMA: Divorce if there is no restitution for the statutory period after an RCR decree.
3. Section 23(1)(a), HMA: Court shall not grant relief if the petitioner is taking advantage of their own wrong.
4. Interpretation (this case): ‘Wrong’ must be more than refusal or silence; it must be serious misconduct that justifies denying relief.

Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Mere non-compliance with an RCR decree is not a “wrong” under Section 23(1)(a). Even if the wife did not respond to letters, that by itself is not serious misconduct to deny divorce.

The decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner (wife) was confirmed. (No order as to costs.)

• ‘Own wrong’ under Section 23(1)(a) requires more than disinclination or silence; it needs grave misconduct.
• Therefore, after an RCR decree, Section 13(1A)(ii) divorce is available if no restitution occurs and no serious fault is proved against the petitioner.

This case sets a clear threshold for “own wrong.” It protects genuine petitioners who seek divorce after an RCR decree when reunion never happens, unless serious blameworthy conduct is shown.

• Non-compliance with RCR ≠ automatic “own wrong”.
• Need serious misconduct to block relief under Section 23(1)(a).
• Divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) can follow if restitution does not happen.

Mnemonic: “RCR ≠ WRONG”

1. RCR decree: Non-reunion happens sometimes.
2. Own wrong: Needs grave misconduct, not silence.
3. Outcome: Section 13(1A)(ii) divorce allowed if no serious fault.

Issue

Does non-compliance with an RCR decree amount to “own wrong” under Section 23(1)(a) HMA?

Rule

Sections 9, 13(1A)(ii), 23(1)(a) HMA; ‘wrong’ must be serious misconduct.

Application

No restitution occurred. The wife’s alleged refusal to respond to letters is not grave misconduct. Hence, Section 23(1)(a) does not bar relief.

Conclusion

Appeal dismissed. Divorce decree sustained; mere non-compliance is insufficient to deny relief.

RCR (Section 9)

Order to resume cohabitation between spouses.

Own Wrong (Sec. 23(1)(a))

Serious misconduct by the petitioner that blocks relief.

Section 13(1A)(ii)

Divorce ground: no restitution for the required period after RCR.