Sadananda Kini vs Sulochana Kini

M.S. Menon C. J.

This appeal is by the husband whose petition for judicial separation from his wife, the respondent, was dismissed by the court below. It is contended before us by counsel for the appellant that the decision of the court below should be reversed. The ground relied on for judicial separation is what is stated in sub-clause (6) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Act under which the petition was filed. That sub-clause reads as follows:

(6) has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party.

The question therefore is whether the appellant has established that he has reasonable apprehension in the mind that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent. It is certainly not a subjective feeling that the section demands. The evidence in the case has been analyzed by the court below and we find that even accepting all that is stated in the petition and in support of it by the appellant in his evidence, it has not been established that the behavior of the respondent has been such as to induce a reasonable apprehension that to live with the respondent would be harmful or injurious to the appellant. No doubt, the appellant may have cause to feel dissatisfied or even unhappy. He may feel quite annoyed too. But these feelings are not sufficient to enable the court to order judicial separation. This aspect has been dealt with in paragraph 2 at page 832 of the commentaries of Mulla on Hindu Law, 12th Edition. We think that the conclusion reached by the court below is correct and dismiss this appeal. No costs.