T. Srinivasan v. T. Varalakshmi

Case Title: T. Srinivasan v. T. Varalakshmi — 1 (1991) DMC 20 (Mad.) 142

The husband sought divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, saying there was no cohabitation for one year after an RCR decree. The record shows the wife tried many times to return, but the husband blocked her. Because he tried to take advantage of his own wrong, Section 23(1) barred the relief. Divorce was refused; maintenance for the wife was upheld.

1. Is the husband entitled to divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) when one year passed after an RCR decree?
2. Does Section 23(1) stop the relief because the husband committed a positive wrong and blocked cohabitation?

Section 13(1A)(ii) HMA: Either spouse may seek divorce if there has been no restitution of conjugal rights for one year or more after an RCR decree.

Section 23(1) HMA: The court must deny relief if the petitioner is taking advantage of their own wrong or has misconducted themselves.

• The court held the husband’s conduct was not mere non-compliance but a positive wrong within Section 23(1).
• The RCR decree was used as a step to secure divorce, while practically blocking the wife’s return.
• Relief under Section 13(1A)(ii) cannot be granted when the petitioner takes advantage of his own wrong.
• The wife is entitled to maintenance; the husband had deserted her without reasonable cause.

Section 23(1) is a gatekeeper. Even when the one-year period after RCR is complete, divorce will be refused if the petitioner created or maintained the non-cohabitation by misconduct. Courts do not reward a spouse who engineers the ground and then claims the benefit.

• Clarifies the interaction between Section 13(1A)(ii) and Section 23(1).
• Protects spouses from being blamed for non-cohabitation they did not cause.
• Useful for exam answers on RCR, desertion, and taking advantage of one’s own wrong.

1. Time after RCR is necessary but not sufficient.
2. Section 23(1) blocks relief if the petitioner committed a positive wrong.
3. Repeated, genuine offers by the other spouse defeat the “no cohabitation” claim.
4. Deserted spouse can claim maintenance.

Mnemonic: S-R-I-N-I — Section 23 gate, RCR used, Intent to block, No cohabitation engineered, Ineligible for divorce.

3-Step Hook:

1. Check RCR: Was there a genuine chance to resume?
2. Check Conduct: Did the petitioner block return?
3. Apply 23(1): If yes, deny divorce.

RCR (Restitution of Conjugal Rights)

A decree asking a spouse to resume cohabitation and marital duties.

Positive Wrong

Active misconduct by the petitioner that blocks compliance and bars relief.

Desertion

Unjustified separation by one spouse without reasonable cause and with intention to end cohabitation.

• Cases applying Section 23(1) to deny divorce despite lapse of time
• Judgments on misuse of RCR and engineered non-cohabitation