Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Hemsingh @ Tinchu v. Smt. Bhawna has held that once cruelty is found to be committed, the cause of action to seek divorce does arise.

What was the Background of Hemsingh @ Tinchu v. Smt. Bhawna Case?

• In this case, the respondent (wife) had sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty.
• The learned Principal Judge, of Family Court has dissolved the marriage between the parties at the instance of the respondent.
• Thereafter, the appellant (husband) filed an appeal before the High Court.
• Dismissing the appeal, the High Court held that the act of cruelty was established.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench comprising Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Shiv Shanker Prasad held that once cruelty is found to be committed, the cause of action to seek divorce does arise. How the parties may conduct themselves, thereafter, may remain a relevant factor. Yet, no rule of law may arise as may dictate to the Court to pass an order to restore the matrimonial relationship between the parties, without looking into the other attending circumstances.
• The Court further held that the acts of cruelty were not sporadic or singular as may have warranted any further consideration.

What is the Cause of Action?

• About:
  • Cause of Action is a bundle of facts which when taken with the facts applicable to them gives the plaintiff the right to relief against the defendant.
  • In other words, it is the factual circumstances which led to the dispute arising between the parties.
  • Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) deals with the concept of cause of action.
• Section 20 of CPC:
  • This Section states that subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction—

(a) The defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or

(b) Any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally works for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

• Case Laws:
  • In South East Asia Shipping v. Nav Bharat Enterprises (1996), the Supreme Court held that cause of action is essentially a bundle of facts which led to the genesis of the dispute, and to the plaintiff obtaining a right in law to approach the court for legal redress. The cause of action, therefore, necessarily includes an act of the defendant, in the absence of which the suit itself could not possibly exist.
  • In Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India & Ors. (2000), the Supreme Court held that the term cause of action had a judicially established meaning. It refers to the conditions surrounding the violation of the right or the direct cause of the conduct.