New Delhi, March 16: The Supreme Court has set aside a divorce granted to a Delhi government employee who had alleged cruelty by his wife, saying the instances could not be a ground for judicial separation unless such behaviour was of a continuing nature.

Also, such alleged acts of cruelty should have occurred close to the date of filing the divorce suit, the court said in a recent order.

Sanjay Singh, a caretaker with the Delhi government, had obtained divorce from a matrimonial court in December 2010 on various unsubstantiated grounds that included his wife Suman "coming into the drawing room of her matrimonial home in her nightdress" the day after their marriage in February 1999.

Sanjay had also alleged that his wife often misbehaved with his relatives and wanted him to leave his parents. All these alleged instances, Sanjay said, occurred prior to 2006, though he filed the divorce suit only in 2010. The couple have two daughters.

The only instance of cruelty alleged in 2010 was that of Suman reportedly walking into Sanjay's office and speaking to him rudely in front of his colleagues. Delhi High Court had in May 2013, upheld the divorce, following which Suman appealed in the apex court.

In the Supreme Court, a bench of Justices R.K. Agrawal and A.M. Sapre set aside the earlier orders. "In our view, the incidents which occurred prior to 2006 could not be relied on to prove the instances of cruelty because they were deemed to have been condoned by the acts of the parties. A petition seeking divorce on some isolated incidents alleged to have occurred 8-10 years prior to filing of the date of the petition cannot furnish a subsisting cause of action to seek divorce after 10 years or so," the bench said.

"The incidents alleged should be of a recurring nature or continuing one and should be in near proximity with the filing of the petition. A few isolated incidents of long past and that too found to have been condoned due to the compromising behaviour of the parties cannot constitute an act of cruelty within the (Hindu Marriage) Act," the bench added.

The apex court rejected the husband's argument that an incident which occurred somewhere in 2010 when the wife visited his office and allegedly misbehaved with him in front of other officers would constitute an act of cruelty justifying divorce.

"In the first place, no decree for divorce on one isolated incident can be passed. Secondly, there could be myriad reasons for causing such isolated incident. Merely because both exchanged some verbal conversation in presence of others would not be enough to constitute an act of cruelty unless it is further supported by some incidents of alike nature. It was not so.

"In our considered view, as it appears to us from perusal of the evidence that it is the respondent (husband) who withdrew from the appellant's (wife) company without there being any reasonable cause to do so," Justice Sapre said, setting aside the divorce decree.

The court observed that the couple should start living together, "realising their duties for each other and as mother and father towards their grown-up daughters".

"Both should, therefore, give quite burial to their past deeds/acts and bitter experiences and start living together and see that their daughters are well settled in their respective lives.""Such reunion, we feel, would be in the interest of all family members in the long run and will bring peace, harmony and happiness. We find that the respondent is working as a 'Caretaker' in the Government Department . He must, therefore, be the 'Caretaker' of his own family that being his first obligation and at the same time attend to his Government duties to maintain his family."