Whether party can ask court to mould relief to take advantage of his own wrong?

 Further, it is urged by the learned senior Counsel on behalf of Appellant-Company that there is no question of reinstatement of the concerned workmen and payment of back wages to them since the concerned department/unit of the Appellant-Company in which they were employed no longer exists and therefore, requested this Court to mould the relief granted by the courts below. The said contention is rightly rebutted by the learned senior Counsel on behalf of the Respondent-Union by placing reliance on the case of Workmen of Sudder Workshop (supra), wherein this Court held that the Court cannot sympathise with a party which gambles in litigation to put off the evil day, and when that day comes, prays to be saved from its own gamble. The said contention urged on behalf of the Respondent-Union must be accepted by us as the same is well founded. Therefore, we hold that moulding of the relief is not permissible in this case at this stage when the matter has reached this Court keeping in mind the legal principle laid down by this Court on this aspect of the matter in the case referred to supra.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5319 OF 2008
MACKINON MACKENZIE & COMPANY LTD.
V
MACKINNON EMPLOYEES UNION

Citation;AIR2015SC1373, (2015)4SCC544, 
Coram:
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Print Page

When in divorce proceeding husband can not be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong?

In the instant case, however, the facts are entirely different. The appellant cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. It may be noticed that Section 23(1)(a) of the 'Act' provides that in any proceedings under the 'Act', decree can only be granted by the Court, if the ground for granting relief exists and if it is satisfied that the petitioner is not in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief; and not otherwise. In the instant case, as noticed earlier, since the appellant himself is to be blamed for his wife/ respondent living separately, and since the ground of 'desertion' on her part has not been established; he is not entitled to a decree for divorce, as prayed by him.
Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shrikant Ramsajiwan Tripathi vs Saroj on 8 April, 2000

Bench: V Agarwal

Citation:AIR2001MP94,II(2001)DMC295,ILR[2001]MP12022, 2000(3)MPLJ404

Print Page

Basic concept of taking advantage of his own wrong in matrimonial law

There is no obligation cast by the statute on the party praying
for the relief of dissolution of marriage that he/she should call upon
other party against whom decree of restitution of conjugal rights has
been passed to satisfy the decree and that being so, it cannot be
said that the party asking for divorce on such ground has committed
wrong if he is not followed the said course. In order to constitute the
“wrong”, within the meaning of Section 23 (1) (a) of the said Act, it
has to be something more than mere disinclination of the petitioner husband
to agree to or an offer of re-union after filing of divorce
petition. The alleged misconduct must be serious enough to justify

the denial of the relief to which the petitioner is otherwise entitled to.
The word “wrong” envisaged under Section 23 (1) (a) of the Act has
to be a “wrong” of a kind different from a mere conduct of refusing to
resume conjugal relationship after passing the decree of restitution of
conjugal rights. In our considered opinion, the learned Judge of
Family Court, Aurangabad has thus taken a wrong view that refusal
of petitioner-husband to take back respondent-wife after institution of
divorce proceeding and not taking any steps for restitution of
conjugal rights during or after the statutory period is over, would
constitute a ground for refusing decree of divorce. There is nothing
on record to show that after passing decree of restitution of conjugal
rights and before making petition for divorce, the petitioner-husband
had created obstruction in complying with the decree by the wife or
that the petitioner-husband wanted that the decree should not be
complied with so that he may obtain divorce on the basis of said
decree for restitution of conjugal rights. In our considered onion, the
petitioner-husband is not in any way taking advantage of his own
wrong in this case. Thus, we are not inclined to hold that the
petitioner-husband has resorted to proceeding for restitution of
conjugal rights only as device to obtain the decree of divorce.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2004

Arun s/o Narayanrao Marathe Vs Varsha w/o Arun Marathe


CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND
V. K. JADHAV, JJ.

Dated :14.10.2014

Citation;2015(2)MHLJ400

Print Page

Whether court should grant Divorce decree if petitioner is taking advantage of his own wrong?

In the case of Savitri Pandey (supra), the Apex Court held that in
any proceedings under the Act whether defended or not the Court would
decline to grant relief to the petitioner if it is found that the petitioner
was taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the
purposes of the reliefs contemplated under Section 23(1) of the Act. No
party can be permitted to carve out the ground for destroying the family
which is the basic unit of the society. The foundation of the family rests
on the institution of a legal and valid marriage. Approach of the court
should be to preserve the matrimonial home and be reluctant to dissolve
the marriage on the asking of one of the parties. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6066 OF 2014
Meenal Nigam … Petitioner
Vs.
Ravi Kalsi … Respondent

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.

Pronounced on: 13TH MARCH, 2015
Citation;2015(2) MHLJ 764
Read original judgment here; click here

Print Page