Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar v. Sunanda (2001)

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court refused the husband’s plea for divorce under Section 13(1-A)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act. He had ignored a court order to pay maintenance to his wife and daughter and continued living in adultery. Under Section 23(1)(a), a party cannot take advantage of his own wrong. Because his conduct was a continuing matrimonial wrong, the Court denied relief.

• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Year: 2001
• Citation: AIR 2001 SC 1285

Issues

1. Can a husband get divorce under Section 13(1-A)(i) HMA when he has disobeyed a maintenance order?
2. Does Section 23(1)(a) bar relief if the husband keeps living in adultery and makes no effort to resume cohabitation?

Rules

• Section 10 HMA (Judicial Separation) read with Section 23(1)(a): the petitioner must not take advantage of his own wrong.
• Section 13(1-A)(i) HMA: divorce may be sought if there is no resumption of cohabitation for one year after judicial separation.

Arguments

Judgment (Held)

The Supreme Court dismissed the husband’s appeal. It held that he was not entitled to divorce. Non-payment of maintenance was a continuing matrimonial wrong. He also kept living in adultery even after judicial separation. Under Section 23(1)(a), a court must refuse relief if the petitioner is relying on his own misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi

• Section 13(1-A) does not create an automatic right to divorce; Section 23(1)(a) filters out claims based on the petitioner’s wrongs.
• Deliberate breach of a maintenance order is a serious matrimonial wrong.
• Continuing adultery and no effort to reconcile show lack of bona fides; relief must be denied.

Why It Matters

The case clarifies the “clean hands” principle in matrimonial law. A spouse cannot ignore maintenance orders, continue adultery, and then use judicial separation as a shortcut to divorce. Courts will check conduct under Section 23 before granting relief.

Key Takeaways

• No automatic divorce: Section 13(1-A) is subject to Section 23.
• Maintenance matters: Disobedience of orders defeats the claim.
• Conduct counts: Continued adultery is a bar to relief.
• Good faith required: The petitioner must attempt reunion or at least obey court directions.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: CLEAN HANDS — Compliance with orders; no Adultery; seek Reunion. Without these, relief is blocked.

1. Check conduct: maintenance paid? any adultery?
2. Link to Section 23: no advantage of own wrong.
3. Apply Section 13(1-A): deny divorce if wrong persists.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Whether a husband who ignored maintenance and continued adultery can obtain divorce under Section 13(1-A)(i).

Rule

Sections 10, 13(1-A)(i) and 23(1)(a) HMA—divorce after judicial separation is not automatic; petitioner must not be at fault.

Application

The husband failed to pay maintenance since 1981 and kept living with another woman, showing continuing wrong and no bona fides.

Conclusion

Divorce refused; petitioner was taking advantage of his own wrong.

Glossary

Judicial Separation

Court-ordered separation without ending the marriage.

Section 13(1-A)

Allows divorce if no cohabitation for one year after separation decree.

Section 23(1)(a)

Bars relief if the petitioner relies on his own wrong.

Maintenance

Financial support ordered by the court for spouse/child.

Matrimonial Wrong

Conduct that breaches marital duties (e.g., adultery, disobedience of orders).

FAQs

Related Cases