{"id":58860,"date":"1982-07-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-07-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982"},"modified":"2016-03-09T03:50:22","modified_gmt":"2016-03-08T22:20:22","slug":"reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982","title":{"rendered":"Reynold Rajamani & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 July, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Reynold Rajamani & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 July, 1982<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1261, \t\t 1983 SCR (1)\t 32<\/div>\n
Author: R Pathak<\/div>\n
Bench: Pathak, R.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nREYNOLD RAJAMANI & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT30\/07\/1982\n\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S.\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S.\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nISLAM, BAHARUL (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1982 AIR 1261\t\t  1983 SCR  (1)\t 32\n 1982 SCC  (2) 474\t  1982 SCALE  (1)566\n\n\nACT:\n     Indian Divorce  Act 1869,\tSs. 7, 10 - `Mutual consent'\nwhether a ground for divorce.\n     Interpretation  of\t  Statutes-Matrimonial\tstatutes   -\nLegislation  by\t incorporation\t-  Post\t 1947  British\tlaws\nwhether incorporated into Indian law.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellants,  who were husband and wife belonging to\nthe Roman  Catholic Community  were married under section 27\nof the\tIndian Christian  Marriage Act\t1872. They  filed  a\njoint petition\tunder Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act\nfor a  decree of  divorce by  mutual consent in the District\nCourt. The  trial court dismissed the petition on the ground\nthat section  28 of  the Special  Marriage Act\tcould not be\navailed of.  The Supreme  Court allowed\t the  appellants  to\namend their joint petition to enable them to rely on section\n7 of  the Indian Divorce Act 1869 read with section 1 (2)(d)\nof the\tMatrimonial Causes  Act 1973  of England and to seek\ndivorce on  the ground\tthat they had been living separately\nfor more  than two  years and  had not\tbeen  able  to\tlive\ntogether   and\t that\tthe   marriage\t had   broken\tdown\nirretrievably, and  that therefore  they were  entitled to a\ndecree of  divorce. The District Court however dismissed the\npetition holding  that they  were not  entitled to  rely  on\nsection 1  (2)(d) of the English Statute. In appeal the High\nCourt affirmed the view taken by the trial Court.\n     In the  appeal to this court it was contended on behalf\nof the\tappellants: (1)\t that the  trial court\tand the High\nCourt were  wrong and  that section  7 of the Indian Divorce\nAct 1869  incorporated the  provisions of section 1(2)(d) of\nthe Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and that the appellants were\nentitled to  the benefit  of the  ground for  divorce as set\nforth in  the latter  enactment, and  (2) that\tthe  Letters\nPatent jurisdiction enjoyed by the High Court in Matrimonial\nmatters is  sufficiently extensive  to enable the High Court\nto make a decree for divorce.\nDismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: [By the Court]\n33\n     Mutual consent  is not  a ground  for divorce under the\nIndian Divorce\tAct 1869.  The provisions of section l(2)(d)\nof the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 of England cannot be read\ninto section 7 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. [39 A]\n[Per Pathak and Baharul Islam, JJ.]\n     1. Whether\t a provision  for divorce  by mutual consent\nshould be included in the Indian Divorce Act is a matter for\nlegislative policy.  The courts\t cannot\t extend\t or  enlarge\nlegislative policy  by adding  a provision  to\tthe  statute\nwhich was  never enacted  there. It  is\t for  Parliament  to\nconsider whether  the Indian  Divorce Act,  1869  should  be\namended so  as to  include a provision for divorce by mutual\nconsent. [38 C-D; 39 F]\n     2. The  Letters Patent jurisdiction enjoyed by the High\nCourt in  matrimonial matters cannot be construed to include\na ground  for divorce  not specifically set forth in section\n10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. [39 E]\n     M. Barnard\t v. G.H.  Barnard A.I.R. 1928 Cal. 657; Miss\nShireen Mall  v. John James Taylor A.I.R. 1952 Pb. 277: T.M.\nBashiam v.  M. Victor  A.I.R. 1970  Mad. 12;  aad A.  George\nCornelius v.  Elizabeth Dopti  Samadanam A.l.R.\t 1970,\tMad.\n240. approved.\n[Per Chinnappa Reddy and Baharul Islam, JJ.]\n     Legislation whenever  made by  Parliament of  a foreign\nstate cannot automatically become part of the law of another\nsovereign state. Whatever interpretation of section 7 of the\nIndian Divorce\tAct, 1869  was permissible before August 15,\n1947 when  the British\tParliament  had\t plenary  powers  of\nlegislation over  Indian territory, no interpretation is now\npermissible which  would incorporate  post-1947 British laws\ninto the Indian laws. [39 G-H; 40 A]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2631 of
\n1982.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t judgment and  order
\ndated the  3rd October,\t 1980 of the Delhi High Court in C..
\n(Main) No. 184 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
     Miss Lily\tThomas, K  S. Gill  and S.K.  Arora, for the
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
     S.T. Desai and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondent.
\n     The following Judgments were delivered;\n<\/p>\n
     PATHAK J.\tThe appellants,\t who  belong  to  the  Roman
\nCatholic community, were married on December 30, 1967 in
\n34<\/span>
\nPodannur in  the State\tof Tamil  Nadu under  s. 27  of\t the
\nIndian Christian  Marriage Act,\t 1872. On July 26, 1979 they
\nput in\ta joint petition under s. 28 of the Special Marriage
\nAct for\t a decree  of divorce by mutual consent in the Court
\nof the\tlearned District Judge, Delhi. On March 11, 1980 the
\ntrial court  dismissed the petition on the ground that s. 28
\nof the\tSpecial Marriage  Act could  not be  availed of. The
\nappellants filed ‘a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi
\nwhich having been dismissed they proceeded in appeal to this
\nCourt. In  the appeal  they applied  for permission to amend
\nthe joint  petition to\tenable them to rely upon s. 7 of the
\nIndian Divorce\tAct, 1869  read with  s. 1  (2) (d)  of\t the
\nMatrimonial Causes  Act, 1973  of England. The amendment was
\nallowed, and  the appellants filed an amended joint petition
\ni n  the trial\tcourt –\t seeking divorce  on the ground that
\nthey had  been living separately for more than two years and
\nhad not\t been able  to live  together and their marriage had
\nbroken down  irretrievably and\ttherefore they were entitled
\nto a  decree of\t divorce under\tthe aforesaid provisions. On
\nAugust 16,  1980 the  trial  court  dismissed  the  petition
\nholding that  the appellants were not entitled to rely on s.
\nI (2)  (d) of  the English  statute. The appellants took the
\nmatter to  the High  Court or  Delhi and  the High Court has
\naffirmed the view taken by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
     In this  appeal Miss  Lily Thomas,\t appearing  for\t the
\nappellants, contends that the trial court and the High Court
\nare wrong  and that  in reading\t s. 7  of the Indian Divorce
\nAct, 1869  the provisions of s. I (2) (d) of the Matrimonial
\nCauses Act,  1973 must\tbe deemed to be incorporated therein
\nand therefore  the appellants are entitled to the benefit of
\nthe ground for divorce set forth in the latter enactment. In
\ndeference to  Miss Thomas’s  vehement submissions and having
\nregard to  the importance  of the  question we\theard her at
\nlength but we indicated that the point raised by her did not
\ncarry conviction,  and we reserved judgment in order to give
\na fully reasoned order Shortly thereafter, Miss Thomas’s put
\nin an  application asserting  that she\thad information that
\nthe  Government\t  of  India   was  proposing  to  amend\t the
\nmatrimonial law\t in relation  to the  Christian community in
\nIndia and praying that in the circumstances judgment may not
\nbe delivered  for sometime.  There  has,  however,  been  no
\nChange in  the law  since, and\tit is appropriate, we think,
\nthat judgment  should  be  pronounced  now  without  further
\ndelay.\n<\/p>\n
35<\/span><\/p>\n
     The main  contention raised  by Miss Thomas is that the
\nappellants are entitled to the benefit of s. 7 of the Indian
\nDivorce Act  and therefore,  by reason of that provision, to
\nrely on\t s. 1  (2) (d)\tof the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973.
\nThere is  no doubt that if the provisions of s. 1 (2) (d) of
\nthe English  statute can  be read  in s.  7  of\t the  Indian
\nDivorce Act  and  the  appellants  can\testablish  that\t the
\nconditions set\tforth in  s. i\t(2) (d)\t are  made  out\t the
\nappellants will\t be entitled  to claim\ta decree of divorce.
\nBut we\tare not\t satisfied that\t s. I (2) (d) of the English
\nstatute can  be read  in s. 7 of the Indian Divorce Act Sub-
\nss. (l)\t and (2) of s. I of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973
\nprovides:-\n<\/p>\n
     “(I) Subject to section 3 below, a petition for divorce
\n\t  may be presented to the court by either party to a
\n\t  marriage on  the  ground  that  the  marriage\t has
\n\t  broken down irretrievably.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  The court hearing a petition for divorce shall not
\n\t  hold\t the\tmarriage   to\thave   broken\tdown
\n\t  irretrievably unless\tthe petitioner satisfies the
\n\t  court of  one or more of the following facts, that
\n\t  is to say-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)\tthat the  respondent has  committed adultery
\n\t       and the\tpetitioner finds  it intolerable  to
\n\t       live with the respondent;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  that the respondent has behaved in such a way
\n\t       that  the  petitioner  cannot  reasonably  be
\n\t       expected to live with the respondent;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)\t  that\tthe   respondent  has  deserted\t the
\n\t       petitioner for  a  continuous  period  of  at
\n\t       least two  years\t immediately  preceding\t the
\n\t       presentation of the petition,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (d)\tthat the  parties to the marriage have lived
\n\t       apart for a continuous period of at least two
\n\t       years immediately  preceding the presentation
\n\t       of  the\t petition  (hereafter  in  this\t Act
\n\t       referred to  as “two  years’ separation”) and
\n\t       the respondent  consents to  a  decree  being
\n\t       granted;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
36<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  (e)\tthat the  parties to the marriage have lived
\n\t       apart for  a continuous\tperiod of  at  least
\n\t       five   years    immediately   preceding\t the
\n\t       presentation of\tthe petition  (hereafter  in
\n\t       this  Act   referred  to.   as  “five  years’
\n\t       separation).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The circumstances set forth in sub-s. (2) of s. 1 constitute
\nthe basis  for holding\tthat the  marriage has\tbroken\tdown
\nirretrievably. Can  these provisions  be deemed incorporated
\nin s. 7 of the Indian Divorce Act ? S. 7 provides:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “7. Subject  to the  provisions contained  in this
\n     Act, the  High Courts and District Courts shall, in all
\n     suits and proceedings hereunder, act and give relief on
\n     principles and  rules which, in the opinion of the said
\n     Courts, are  as nearly  as may  be conformable  to\t the
\n     principles and rules on which the Court for Divorce and
\n     Matrimonial Causes\t in England  for the time being acts
\n     and gives relief:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided  that   nothing  in\tthis  section  shall
\n     deprive the said Courts of jurisdiction in a case where
\n     the parties  to  a\t marriage  professed  the  Christian
\n     religion at  the time of the occurrence of the facts on
\n     which the claim to relief is founded.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The section  requires that in all suits or proceedings under
\nthe Indian  Divorce Act\t the High  Court and District Courts
\nshall “act  and give  relief on\t principles and rules” which
\nconform as  nearly as  may be to the principles and rules on
\nwhich the  Court  for  Divorce\tanc  Matrimonial  Causes  of
\nEngland acts  and gives\t relief. What is contemplated is the
\nmanner in which the court will exercise its jurisdiction for
\nthe purpose of disposing of a pending suit or proceeding The
\nexpression “principles\tand rules” does not mean the grounds
\non which a suit or proceeding may be instituted. The grounds
\nare ordinarily\tplaced in  the suit  or proceeding  when the
\npetitioner comes  to court  and invokes its jurisdiction. It
\nis after  the suit  or proceeding  is entertained  that\t the
\nquestion arises\t of deciding  on the  norms to be applied by
\nthe court  for the  purpose of\tdisposing of  it. If it were
\notherwise, plainly  there would\t be a conflict with s. 10 of
\nthe Indian  Divorce Act.  For s.  10 sets fourth the limited
\ngrounds on which a petition may be presented by a husband or
\nwife for dissolution of the marriage.\n<\/p>\n
37<\/span><\/p>\n
     It\t cannot\t  be  denied   that  society   is  generally
\ninterested in  maintaining the\tmarriage bond and preserving
\nthe matrimonial\t state with  a view  to protecting  societal
\nstability,  the\t family\t home  and  the\t proper\t growth\t and
\nhappiness of  children of  the marriage. Legislation for the
\npurpose of  dissolving the  marriage constitutes a departure
\nfrom  that   primary  principle,   and\tthe  Legislature  is
\nextremely, circumspect in setting forth the grounds on which
\na marriage  may be dissolved. The-history of all matrimonial
\nlegislation  will  show\t that  at  the\toutset\tconservative
\nattitudes influenced  the grounds  on  which  separation  or
\ndivorce could  be granted.  Over the decades, a more liberal
\nattitude has  been adopted, fostered by a recognition of the
\nneed for  the individual  happiness  of\t the  adult  parties
\ndirectly involved. But although the grounds for divorce have
\nbeen liberalised,  they nevertheless  continue\tto  form  an
\nexception to the general principle favouring the continution
\nof the\tmarital tie.  In our  opinion,\twhen  a\t legislative
\nprovision specifies  the grounds  on which  divorce  may  be
\ngranted they  constitute the  only conditions  on which\t the
\ncourt has  jurisdiction to grant divorce. If grounds need to
\nbe added  to those  already specifically  set forth  in\t the
\nlegislation, that is the business of the Legislature and not
\nof the\tcourts. It  is another matter that in construing the
\nlanguage in  which the\tgrounds are  incorporated the courts
\nshould give  a liberal\tconstruction to it. Indeed, we think
\nthat the  courts must  give the fullest amplitude of meaning
\nto such\t a provision.  But it  must  be\t meaning  which\t the
\nlanguage of the section is capable of holding. It cannot’ be
\nextended  by  adding  new  grounds  not\t enumerated  in\t the
\nsection.\n<\/p>\n
     When  therefore   s.  10  of  the\tIndian\tDivorce\t Act
\nspecifically sets  forth the grounds on which a marriage may
\nbe dissolved,  additional grounds  cannot be included by the
\njudicial construction  of some\tother  section\tunless\tthat
\nsection plainly\t intends so.  That, to\tour mind,  s. 7 does
\nnot. We\t may point out that in M. Barnard v. G.H. Barnard(l)
\nthe Calcutta  High Court  repelled a  similar contention and
\nheld that  s. 7 could not be construed so as to “import into
\nIndian Divorce\tJurisprudence any  fresh ground\t for  relief
\nother than  those set  forth in\t s. I()”  and that “the only
\ngrounds on  which a  marriage may be dissolved are those set
\nforth in s. 10 of the Act…”. The Punjab High Court in Miss
\nShireen Mall v. John James Taylor(2) has also taken the view
\nthat the grounds set forth in s. 10 of the Indian\n<\/p>\n
     (l) AIR 1928 Cal. 657.\n<\/p>\n
     (2) AIR 1952 Pb. 277.\n<\/p>\n
38<\/span><\/p>\n
Divorce Act  cannot be\tenlarged by reference to s. 7 of the
\nAct. So also has a Special Bench of the Madras High Court in
\nT.M. Bashiam v.\t Victor(l) and\ta Single Judge of that Court
\nin A. George Cornelius v. Elizabeth Dopti Samadanam.(2)
\n     Miss Thomas  appeals to us to adopt a policy of “social
\nengineering” and  to give to s. 7 the content which has been
\nenacted in  s. 28  of the  Special Marriage Act, 1954 and s.
\n13B of\tthe Hindu  Marriage Act, 1955, both of which provide
\nfor divorce  by mutual\tconsent. It  is possible to say that
\nthe  law  relating  to\tHindu  marriages  and  to  marriages
\ngoverned  by  the  Special  Marriage  Act  presents  a\tmore
\nadvanced stage\tof development\tin this area than the Indian
\nDivorce Act.  However, whether\ta provision  for divorce  by
\nmutual consent\tshould be included in the Indian Divorce Act
\nis a  matter of legislative policy. The courts cannot extend
\nor enlarge  legislative policy\tby adding a provision to the
\nstatute which was never enacted there.\n<\/p>\n
     Reference is  made by  Miss Thomas\t to s. 2 (ix) of the
\nDissolution of\tMuslim Marriage Act, 1939 which empowers the
\ncourt to dissolve a Muslim marriage on any ground other than
\nthose already enumerated in the section “which is recognised
\nas valid  for the  dissolution\tof  marriages  under  Muslim
\nlaw.” No such provision is contained in s. 10 of the Indian
\nDivorce Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel of the appellants has referred us to B.
\nIswarayya  v.  Swarnam\tIswarayya(3)  and  George  Swamidoss
\nJoseph v.  Miss Harriet\t Sundari Edward.(4)  Nothing said in
\nthose  cases  helps  the  appellants.  The  first  case\t was
\nconcerned with\tthe question  whether an appellate court can
\nincrease the amount of alimony payable by the husband to the
\nwife without an appeal by her. And the second deals with the
\nquestion whether  the Indian  Courts can  make a decree nisi
\nfor nullity  absolute within  a\t shorter  period  than\tthat
\nspecifically mentioned in the Indian Divorce Act.\n<\/p>\n
     (1) A.l.R. 1970 Mad. 12.\n<\/p>\n
     (2) A.l.R. 1970 Mad. 240.\n<\/p>\n
     (3) A.I.R. 1931 Privy Council 234.\n<\/p>\n
     (4) A.l.R. 1955 Mad. 341.\n<\/p>\n
39<\/span><\/p>\n
     We are  not satisfied  that s.  7 of the Indian Divorce
\nAct can be read to include the provisions of s. I (2) (d) of
\nthe Matrimonial\t Causes Act,  1973. This  contention of\t the
\nappellant must fail.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel for the appellants then points out that
\na Christian  marriage can  be registered  under the  Special
\nMarriage Act,  1954 and\t that  there  is  no  reason  why  a
\nmarriage registered  under the Indian Christian Marriage Act
\nshould not  enjoy an  advantage\t which\tis  available  to  a
\nmarriage registered under the Special Marriage Act. Reliance
\nis  placed   on\t the   constitutional  prohibition   against
\ndiscrimination embodied\t in Article  14 of the Constitution.
\nAssuming that  the marriage  in this  case could  have\tbeen
\nregistered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, inasmuch as
\nit was\tsolemnised in  1967 it\twas open  to the  parties to
\navail of  that Act  instead of\thaving resort  to the Indian
\nChristian Marriage  Act, 1872.\tIn the\tcircumstances, it is
\nnot open  to the appellants to com plain of the disadvantage
\nnow suffered by them.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  also urged\tby the\tappellants that\t the Letters
\nPatent jurisdiction enjoyed by the High Court in matrimonial
\nmatters is  sufficiently extensive  to enable the High Court
\nto make\t a decree  for divorce on the ground now pleaded. We
\nhave examined  the matter  carefully and  we do\t not see how
\nthat jurisdiction can be construed to include a ground which
\nis not\tspecifically set  forth in  E s.  10 of\t the  Indian
\nDivorce Act.\n<\/p>\n
     We are  not satisfied  that this appeal can succeed. It
\nis for\tParliament to  consider whether\t the Indian  Divorce
\nAct, 1869 should be amended so as to include a provision for
\ndivorce by  mutual  con-  sent.\t The  appeal  fails  and  is
\ndismissed but  in the  circumstances there is no order as to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
     CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J. I agree with my brother Pathak, J.
\nthat ‘mutual  consent’ is not a ground for divorce under the
\nIndian Divorce\tAct and that the provisions of s. 1(2)(d) of
\nthe British  Matrimonal Causes Act, 1973 cannot be read into
\nthe Indian  Divorce Act\t merely\t because  of  s.  7.  lt  is
\nunthinkable that legislation whenever made by the Parliament
\nof a  foreign state may automatically become part of the law
\nof another sovereign State. Legislation by incorporation can
\nnever go  so  far.  Whatever  interpretation  of  s.  7\t was
\npermissible  before   August  15.   1947  when\tthe  British
\nParliament
\n40<\/span>
\nhad plenary  powers of legislation over Indian territory, no
\ninterpretation is  now permissible  which would\t incorporate
\npost-1947 British laws into Indian law.\n<\/p>\n
     My brother\t Pathak J.  has pointed out that the history
\nof matrimonial\tlegislation has\t been towards liberalisation
\nof the\tgrounds for  divorce. Inevitably  so. The history of
\nmatrimony itself,  in the  recent past,\t has been a movement
\nfrom ritual  and sacrament  to reality\tand contract even as
\nthe history  of the  relationship of the sexes has been from
\nmale dominance\tto equality between the sexes. But the world
\nis still  a man’s world and the laws are man-made laws, very
\nmuch so. We have just heard that in an advanced country like
\nthe United  States of  America, the  Equal Rights  for Women
\nAmendment could\t not  be  successfully\tpushed\tthrough\t for
\nfailure to  obtain the\tsupport of  the necessary  number of
\nStates. Our  constitution-makers  and  our  Parliament\thave
\ncertainly done\tbetter. We  have  constitutional  and  legal
\nequality for  the sexes.  But even  so, economic  and social
\nequality between  the sexes  appears to\t be a  very  distant
\ngoal. One  has only  to read  the daily\t sickly\t reports  of
\n‘dowry deaths’\tand ‘atrocities\t on women’  to realise\tthat
\nwomen, in  our country,\t are yet  treated as commodities and
\nplay-things. The  root cause  of the  inequality between the
\nsexes, like  other class  inequalities, is  their social and
\neconomic inequality. All inequality will end when social and
\neconomic inequality  ends. It  isl therefore,  obvious\tthat
\ntrue equality  between the  sexes and else where is possible
\nonly when  economic and\t social inequalities  disappear. Our
\nConstitution proclaims,\t in the\t Preamble, the establishment
\nof a  socialist State  where there  will be justice, social,
\neconomic and  political, as our constitutional goal and this
\nis reiterated  in  the\tFundamental  Rights’  and  Directive
\nPrinciples’ Chapters.  But, the\t march towards equality’ and
\neconomic and  social justice  is still\ta ‘long\t march’\t and
\nmeanwhile, what\t of divorce by mutual consent ? Yes, I agree
\nwith Miss  Lily Thomas that divorce by mutual consent should
\nbe available to every married couple, whatever religion they
\nmay profess  and however,  they were  married.\tLet  no\t law
\ncompel the  union of  man  and\twoman  who  have  agreed  on
\nseparation. If\tthey desire  to be  two, why  should the law
\ninsist that  they be  one ?  But I have a qualification, The
\nwoman must  be protected. Our society still looks askance at
\na divorced  woman. A  woman divorcee  is yet  a suspect. Her
\nchances of  survival are  diminished by the divorce. So, the
\nlaw which  grants the decree for divorce must secure for her
\nsome measure of economic
\n41<\/span>
\nindependence. It  should be  so whatever  be the  ground for
\ndivorce, A whether it is mutual consent, irretrievable break
\ndown of\t the marriage,\tor  even  the  fault  of  the  woman
\nherself. Every divorce solves a problem and creates another.
\nBoth  problems\t need  to   be\tsolved,\t no  matter  who  is
\nresponsible for\t the break  down of  the  marriage.  If\t the
\ndivorce law  is\t to  be\t a  real  success,  it\tshould\tmake
\nprovision  for\tthe  economic  independence  of\t the  female
\nspouse. After  all, Indian-  society today is so constituted
\nthat a\tWoman is  generally helpless and her position become
\nworse if  she is  divorced. It\tis necessary  that  the\t law
\nshould protect\ther interest.;\teven if\t she  be  an  erring
\nspouse, lest  she  become  destitute  and  a  dead  loss  to
\nsociety.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n42<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Reynold Rajamani & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 July, 1982 Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1261, 1983 SCR (1) 32 Author: R Pathak Bench: Pathak, R.S. PETITIONER: REYNOLD RAJAMANI & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT30\/07\/1982 BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. REDDY, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-58860","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nReynold Rajamani & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 July, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Reynold Rajamani & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 July, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1982-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-08T22:20:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Reynold Rajamani & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 July, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-08T22:20:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982\"},\"wordCount\":2934,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982\",\"name\":\"Reynold Rajamani & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 July, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-08T22:20:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Reynold Rajamani & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 July, 1982\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Reynold Rajamani & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 July, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Reynold Rajamani & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 July, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-08T22:20:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Reynold Rajamani & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 July, 1982","datePublished":"1982-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-08T22:20:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982"},"wordCount":2934,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982","name":"Reynold Rajamani & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 July, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-08T22:20:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reynold-rajamani-anr-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-30-july-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Reynold Rajamani & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 July, 1982"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58860","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58860"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58860\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58860"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58860"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58860"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}