Law relating to Divorce


You will find here law points along with case laws relating to Divorce.

 

O.P. SHEORAN & ASSOCIATES

(Law Firm)

111, SHIV NAGAR - II, MURLIPURA

SIKAR ROAD, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)

Website:- www.stlegal.in

Email:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  

Contact Us : 0141-2262495/ Mob: +91-9950984566

Practicing at: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JAIPUR 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LAW RELATING TO DIVORCE IN INDIA WITH CASE LAWS 

 

RAJ KUMAR RANA Vs. RITA RATHORE

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13B, 13(1-a) – Constitution of India, Article 142 – Divorce – By Mutual Consent – Petition for divorce filed by appellant against respondent on ground of cruelty and desertion – The same was dismissed by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court – In Appeal before the Apex Court respondent-wife filed affidavit agreeing for divorce – Taking into consideration that the relationship between the parties are strained for quite a long time, judgments of both the courts below set aside and this appeal is allowed – In order to render justice between the parties, in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is dissolved by mutual consent – The amount of Rs.10,00,000/- lying in this Court’s deposit directed to be invested in the name of minor son represented by the respondent in any one of the Nationalized Bank as per the choice of the respondent till he attains majority – The respondent permitted to withdraw the periodical interest accrued thereon once in a year directly from the bank and the same shall be utilized for the welfare of the minor son.

 

RAMCHANDER Vs. ANANTA

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) – Divorce – Ground of Mental Cruelty and Desertion – Decree of divorce passed by the trial Court set aside by High Court – Instances of mental cruelty pleaded by the appellant the defendant- wife did not like to live in the joint family, the defendant-wife used to abuse him as ‘Dhobi’ and the son as ‘Dhobi’s son’, defendant-wife was reluctant to do any household work and was not cooking food for the plaintiff and the child which necessitated the bringing of food from outside not substantiated hence rightly set aside by High Court – The aberration on the part of the wife in filing case u/s 498A has been condoned by the husband by resuming cohabitation and they continued to live together till the date of alleged separation in 2003 – Allegation made by the wife that he has been involved in an extra marital affair with the daily rated mazdoor lady working under him – Mere failure to prove such allegation would not entitle the husband to a decree of divorce as rightly held by the High Court – The conduct of the wife that had been complained of appears to be not so grave and weighty that it can be treated to be more serious than ordinary wear and tear of married life – The trial court has not indicated with any clarity in its judgment as to how the testimonies of the witnesses with regard to desertion were not found reliable by it – The High Court on going through their testimonies has concluded that it does not find their evidence unworthy of credence – Held that the ground of desertion alleged is also not established – Contention on behalf of the appellant that the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant has irretrievably broken down repelled – Appeal liable to be dismissed.

 

SUNIL Vs. SAKSHI @ SHWETA & ANR.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1) (i-a) and (i-b) – Divorce – Ex parte Decree – Challenge as to – The only question framed by the High Court is “Whether the impugned judgment and decree call for our interference?” – No question as to whether the appellant-husband played fraud on the Family Court and obtained the decree of dissolution of marriage or whether the appellant-husband committed any offence punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code was framed by the High Court – Main allegation made by the 1st respondent- wife is that the husband played fraud on the Family Court and obtained the decree of dissolution of marriage – She submitted that she had not engaged any counsel in the case and that blank Vakalatnama was taken at the time of settlement for their mutual divorce and that she never appeared before the Family Court – The High Court failed to notice that this is a case in which there is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided without framing a proper issue and in absence of evidence on record – Merely, because of the fact that print out of the case papers of both the parties have been taken from one and the same computer software it cannot be presumed that blank Vakalatnama signed by the 1st respondent-wife was misused by the appellant-husband or he played fraud and used the same to engage some other senior counsel – Such finding of the High Court is not based on evidence but on mere presumption and conjecture – Impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court setting aside the decree passed by the Family Court, Belgaum by imposing costs of Rs.25,000/-on the appellant-husband and directing the Family Court to lodge a complaint through Sheristedar of the Court with the jurisdictional Police against the appellant-husband for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 417,419, 426, 464,465 and 468 of IPC liable to be set aside.

 

ANIL KUMAR Vs. SMT. MAMTA

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 13, 12 – Divorce – On Ground of Fraud – Fraud by the appellant-husband while entering into matrimony as regards his name and job status and qualifications as also his attempt to contact second marriage – Neither before nor after the marriage, the appellant-husband treated the respondent-wife fairly and rather, his conduct definitely fell short of fair conduct so as to maintain the matrimony – No reason to consider interference in the appeal.

 

JASPAL SINGH Vs. KARAMJIT KAUR

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, s.13(1)(i-a) & (i-b) and 25 – Divorce – Cruelty – Desertion – Permanent alimony – It is proved on record that conduct of respondent/wife was consistently bad and she kept pestering her husband for living separately from his family and also insulted him in presence of others – She also leveled false allegations against character of appellant/husband – Evidence on record also shows that appellant and his parents had intention of rehabilitating her but there was no outcome and presumption is that respondent had refused to live with appellant – She says that she had always been willing to live with her husband, but when husband and his family members went to bring her, she refused to accompany them – Appellant successfully established grounds of cruelty and desertion – Appellant entitled to decree of divorce – However, permanent alimony of Rs.10,000/- P.M. is fixed which appellant shall pay to respondent till her death or her re-marriage, whichever is earlier – Appeal allowed.

 

POOJA Vs. MADAN LAL

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, s.13(1)(i-a) – Divorce – Cruelty – Proof – Averments regarding appellant/wife being inflicted with merciless beating and being kept hungry have not been denied by respondent/husband – There is evidence and material on record to establish that appellant was inflicted with beating by respondent – Therefore, there is material on record otherwise than that of mere evasive denial that respondent used to beat appellant which certainly amounts to cruelty – Respondent has also in deceitful manner got his son from her; besides, respondent has leveled allegations that appellant is living with undesirable persons and whenever he approaches police and makes complaints, she changes her residence – These allegations are without any substance and it is not mentioned as to which residence appellant has changed; besides, who were persons that were coming to her – This by itself is sufficient ground to hold that respondent has treated appellant with cruelty – Held, it cannot be said that respondent has not treated appellant with cruelty – Appellant entitled to decree of divorce – Appeal allowed.

 

GAURAV KAPOOR Vs. KOMAL BABBAR

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13-B – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 – Divorce by Mutual Consent – Living separately – Living separately for a period of one year or more – Expired on date of filing of petition – Found that specific statement was made by petitioners that they had stopped living together as husband and wife since beginning of month of August, 2012 – Nothing contrary is available on record – No doubt, it was also mentioned in petition that physical separation took place in month of June, 2013 when petitioner No. 2 returned to her parents house in Delhi – Relevant date is August, 2012 which is to be treated and considered as no desire to perform marital obligation – On face of it, decision passed by the Supreme Court is directly applicable to present case – Petitioners filed a joint petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent after expiry of one year – Therefore, order dismissing application is not sustainable and the same is quashed – Petition disposed of.

 

VIDHYA VISWANATHAN Vs. KARTIK BALAKRISHNAN

Undoubtedly, not allowing a spouse for a long time, to have sexual intercourse by his or her partner, without sufficient reason, itself amounts mental cruelty to such spouse….. Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty….. we do not find any ground to interfere with the decree of divorce passed by the High Court on the ground of cruelty. However, we are conscious of the fact that the appellant, as stated by her, was doing a job before her marriage, and she (Vidhya Vishwanathan) has stated as D.W.1 that at present she is not doing any work. As such we think it just and proper to direct the respondent to pay to the appellant (wife) one time lump sum amount of alimony. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in mind the economic status of the parties, a direction to the respondent to pay Rs.40 lakhs (Rupees forty lakhs only) as one time alimony to the appellant, would meet the ends of justice.