Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002)

Quick Summary

CASE_TITLE: Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (AIR 2002 SC 591)

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act, cruelty, desertion, animus deserendi

SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: wear and tear, Article 142, appeal limitation 90 days, family law

PUBLISH_DATE: October 31, 2025   |   AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi   |   LOCATION: India

The Supreme Court explained what amounts to cruelty and desertion under Section 13 HMA. Simple quarrels do not equal cruelty. Desertion needs both separation and the intention to end cohabitation. On facts, desertion was not proved; the Court also refused to dissolve the marriage using Article 142. It extended the limitation for HMA appeals to 90 days.

Issues

• Has the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty? What is its effect?
• Do cruelty and desertion constitute valid grounds for divorce?
• Is the respondent entitled to any relief? If yes, what is the effect?

Rules

• Cruelty (Sec. 13 HMA): Conduct dangerous to life, limb, or health; or creating a reasonable fear of such harm. It may be physical or mental. Routine wear and tear is not cruelty.
• Desertion: Requires (1) factual separation and (2) animus deserendi—an intention to end cohabitation permanently or for a long time, without reasonable cause and without the other’s consent.

Optional timeline image:

Arguments

• Cruelty: A valid ground under Sec. 13(1) HMA. It must be serious; everyday quarrels are not cruelty.
• Desertion: Must show separation and intention to end cohabitation. Mere separate living is not enough.
• No desertion proved: On pleadings, cohabitation had not taken place, but legal desertion was not made out.
• Article 142: Court declined to dissolve marriage; appellant could not take advantage of her own wrong.
• Procedure: Appeal limitation under Sec. 28(4) HMA increased from 30 to 90 days.

Ratio Decidendi

Cruelty must be grave or give a reasonable fear of harm. Desertion demands both factual separation and animus deserendi. Without proof of intention to permanently end cohabitation, divorce on desertion cannot be granted.

Why It Matters

• Clarity on desertion: Separating is not enough; courts seek intent to abandon marriage.
• Limits of Article 142: Equity powers are not used to bypass party misconduct.
• Student tip: Remember the two-limb test for desertion in exam answers.

Key Takeaways

1. Cruelty: Serious conduct; not routine friction.
2. Desertion: Separation + intention to end cohabitation.
3. No desertion on facts: Intent was not proved.
4. Procedure update: HMA appeal time is 90 days.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “C R U E L — I N T E N T”

• CRUEL: Cruelty must be real harm or reasonable fear.
• INTENT: Desertion needs intention to end cohabitation.

3-Step Hook: Serious Harm → Separation + Intent → No 142 Shortcut.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Whether cruelty and desertion are made out for divorce; and whether any relief lies to the respondent.

Rule

Cruelty = serious harm or fear of harm. Desertion = separation + animus deserendi without consent or cause.

Application

Separate living alone is insufficient; intent to abandon must be proved. Allegations were not proved to the legal standard.

Conclusion

Desertion not proved; no dissolution via Article 142. Appeal limitation extended to 90 days.

Glossary

• Animus Deserendi: Intention to end cohabitation permanently.
• Wear and Tear: Normal disagreements that happen in married life; not cruelty.
• Article 142: Supreme Court’s power to do complete justice—used sparingly.

Student FAQs

Related Cases