#divorce Archives - Page 2 of 3

11 Sep

Breaking the Chains: Delhi High Court Grants Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion

Prime Legal

Blog #cruelty, #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #divorce, #divorcecase

Case Title: Poonam Wadhwa vs. Rajiv Wadhwa

Date of Decision: September 6, 2023

Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 197/2022

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Introduction

This case involves an appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, challenging a previous judgment that dismissed the appellant’s petition for divorce based on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The appellant, Poonam Wadhwa, sought a divorce from her husband, Rajiv Wadhwa, citing various acts of cruelty and desertion.

Factual Background

Poonam Wadhwa and Rajiv Wadhwa were married on April 9, 1989, according to Hindu customs. However, they had no children during their marriage. After nearly seven years of living together, they separated on November 27, 1996. Poonam alleged that she had endured physical and mental cruelty from Rajiv and his family.

Legal Issues

The primary legal issues in this case revolve around whether the appellant’s claims of cruelty and desertion meet the criteria for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Contentions

The appellant claimed that she suffered physical and mental cruelty, including physical abuse, demands for money, false allegations of illicit relationships, and threats of suicide by the respondent.
The appellant also asserted that she had been deserted by the respondent for over two years prior to filing the petition for divorce.

Observation and Analysis

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties. While the appellant’s claims of physical cruelty lacked concrete proof, the court found that there was substantial evidence of mental cruelty due to the significant financial disparity between the parties, false allegations made by the respondent, and the long separation of over 27 years. The court relied on legal precedents in the cases of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1998), Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006), Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur (2010), Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023) and guidelines regarding mental cruelty in divorce cases, emphasizing that the continuation of a dead marriage could itself be a form of cruelty.

Decision of the Court

The High Court allowed the appeal and granted divorce to Poonam Wadhwa on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) and Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court concluded that the extended separation, coupled with the evidence of mental cruelty, justified the dissolution of the marriage.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

Click here to view judgment

9 Aug

Karnataka High Court Ruled Calling And Insulting Spouse For Darker Skin Amounts Cruelty And A Valid Ground For Divorce

Prime Legal

Blog #divorce, #Karnataka High Court

Title: ABC And XYZ

Case NO: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8998 OF 2017

Date of Order: 03-07-2023

CORAM:HON’BLE JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON’BLE JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that cruelty would be established if a wife engages in insulting her husband based on his ‘dark’ complexion, distancing herself from him due to this reason, and making unfounded accusations of extramarital affairs as a way to conceal her actions

FACTS OF THE CASE

In 2007, the couple entered into matrimony and later became parents to a daughter. In 2012, the husband initiated divorce proceedings at a family court in Bengaluru. The husband’s contentions centered around his wife’s consistent belittlement of him due to his “darker complexion.” Additionally, in 2011, the wife lodged a reportedly “false” complaint against him and his relatives, invoking Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, accusing them of wrongdoing. Furthermore, she chose to depart from the petitioner’s company to reside with her parents. The wife contested these allegations, asserting that the husband engaged in an extramarital affair. She also alleged that the petitioner subjected her to physical abuse and that her treatment within his family was unfavorable.

COURT’S OBSERVATION

Upon reviewing the evidence presented by the wife regarding her allegations of her husband’s extramarital affair, the Court concluded that there was no credible evidence to support the claim that the husband was involved in such a relationship. Additionally, there was no proof that the husband had a child with the alleged woman, as the birth certificate provided did not mention any child’s name.

As a result, the Court determined that the accusations made by the wife against the husband were completely baseless and without proper foundation. The Court emphasized that making such groundless allegations in legal documents could inflict significant mental distress on the accused party.

The Court also criticized the Family Court for not considering the impact of these unfounded and reckless character allegations against the husband. It noted that during cross-examination, the wife expressed willingness to be with her husband but refused to retract her complaints. This refusal to withdraw the complaints despite being willing to reconcile with the husband indicated a significant rift between the couple.Thus the court allowed the appeal filed by the husband and set aside the family court order refusing divorce decree.

Written by- Shreya Sharma

Click here to view Judgement

1 Aug

Karnataka High Court says that the divorce cases should be decided by family courts within one year

Prime Legal

Blog #divorce, #judgement, #Karnataka High Court

Title: SRI. N RAJEEV AND SMT. C. DEEPA

Decided on: 26^th July 2023

WRIT PETITION NO. 14769 OF 2023

CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court put forward a point in this judgement that the courts (trial courts) should make all efforts to try to dispose of matrimonial cases that involve fro the prayer for the dissolution or to nullify the marriage within one year. It provided an outer limit of one year.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner in this case is aggrieved by the prolonged pendency of his matrimonial case, wherein he seeks a decree for the dissolution/nullity of his marriage with the respondent on fault grounds. The petitioner’s counsel argues that the right to speedy justice, recognized as a constitutional guarantee under Article 21 by the Apex Court, warrants a direction for the prompt resolution of the said case.

The court has dispensed with the need to serve notice to the respondent spouse, as no adverse order is being issued against her interests. Moreover, she will have ample opportunity to participate in the trial of the case before the lower court and will also benefit from the early resolution of the matter.

Court Analysis and Decision

Justice Krishna S Dixit observed “Matrimonial causes should be tried & disposed off on a war footing, at least as a concession to the shortness of human life.” He further pointed out the importance of early disposal and said “So that in the event of granting such a decree, the parties may restructure their lives.”

It then opined “It hardly needs to be stated ‘life is lost in living’. Delay in disposal of such cases very badly affects the parties thereto, needs no deliberation.”

The court made the observation in response to a petition by N Rajeev, ordered the family court to resolve his 2016 marriage dissolution/nullity case within three months.

Written by- Shreya Sharma

Click here to view judgement

26 Jul

The Delhi High Court: Petitioner allowed to file written statement; Can’t assume that it is not required in a divorce suit due to the filing for transfer petition before the SC.

Prime Legal

Blog #delhihighcourt, #divorce, #HighCourt, #highcourtdelhi, #writtenstatement, Blog, Prime Legal

Title: Babita vs Manish Shoukeen

Date of decision: 18th July, 2023

+ CM(M) 752/2023 & CM APPL. 23729/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Introduction

Delhi High Court allowed the written statement to be filed by petitioner setting aside the order of the family court and held that by merely filing a transfer petition before the Supreme Court, the petitioner could not have assumed not to file her written statement in the Divorce Petition. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner shall file the written statement before the learned Family Court, within a period of one week from today. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be shown any further indulgence in case of a default made in defending the Divorce Petition.

Facts of the case

In HMA No.1027/2019, Babita v. Manish Shokeen (hereinafter referred to as the “Divorce Petition”), the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court of Delhi issued orders dated 21.12.2022 and 21.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned orders”).

The learned Family Court was happy to shut the petitioner’s opportunity to submit her written statement in this case and to dismiss the petitioner’s defence. The learned Family Court denied the petitioner’s request to have the order from 21.12.2022 recalled by the impugned ruling dated 21.03.2023.

The petitioner’s claim is that she lives in a hamlet in the Jhajjar District of Haryana. She had already filed a lawsuit in the Jhajjar Courts against the respondent here. She was served with the summons in the respondent’s divorce petition, and on May 30,2022, she appeared in court.

He adds that she had submitted a plea to the Supreme Court asking for the divorce case, Babita v. Manish Shokeen, TR.P.(C) 2395/2022, to be transferred from the learned Principal Family Court at Jhajjar, Haryana, to the learned Family Court at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

Even though there were costs involved, she didn’t file the written statement.

The petitioner claims that she then got in touch with the attorney who was assisting her in the court proceedings in Jhajjar, who encouraged her to get her written statement ready and submit it with the application to have the order from 21.12.2022 recalled on 21.03.2023. However, the learned Family Court was happy to reject the aforementioned motion seeking to recall the ruling and declined to enter her written statement into the record.

Analysis of the court

It is undisputed that the petitioner has been living with her young kid, who is 7 years old, in a hamlet in the Jhajjar District of Haryana years. The fact that a lawyer attended on her behalf before the learned Family Court on her behalf on September 2, 2022, and November 9, 2022, plainly demonstrates that she has hired a lawyer to represent her interests in the divorce petition. Although it is true that the petitioner could not have assumed on her own that she was not required to file a written statement in the divorce petition by simply filing a transfer petition with the Supreme Court, in my opinion, the aforementioned circumstances would act to mitigate the default that the petitioner has committed in failing to file the written statement on time.

Additionally, it should be remembered that the Family Court’s current petition was not of a commercial or lucrative character. The parties’ social and family rights are to be determined there. On the petitioner’s argument, the Supreme Court has already moved the divorce suit to the learned Principal Family Court in Jhajjar, Haryana. In reality, it is important to note that although the divorce petition was filed in 2019, the respondent wasn’t served until about May 30,2022. Therefore, it had taken the petitioner three years to serve the respondent. Given these facts, the petitioner may have been given one final break by taking her official written statement.

As a result, the current petition is approved. Within a week from now, the petitioner must submit the written statement that was scheduled to be submitted to the learned Family Court in Jhajjar, Haryana, on March 21, 2023. It is made plain that if the petitioner fails to properly defend the divorce petition, additional leniency will not be extended to them

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

Click to review the judgement

17 Jul

Mental Cruelty can never be a ground to initiate proceedings for Vindication of rights: Madras High Court.

Prime Legal

Blog, blog # Justice R.Vijayakumar., # proceedings, #divorce, #MadrasHighCourt, #Mentalcruelty, #Vindication

TITLE: Chandra Vs. Selvaraj.

Decided On: July 12, 2023

C.M.S.A(MD)No.15 of 2011
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.Vijayakumar.

Introduction:

The respondent herein had filed HMOP.No.35 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Karur seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The said petition was dismissed by the Trial Court. Challenging the same, the respondent herein had filed CMA(MD).No.2 of 2010 before the District Court, Karur. The First Appellate Judge after re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the appeal and granted a decree for divorce. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/wife. The appellant herein had got married to the respondent on 14.09.1987. Out of the said wedlock, a son was born to them who is now a major.

Facts:

In the present case, the respondent Husband had filed a petition seeking for divorce from his wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion before the Additional Subordinate Count Karur. He had alleged that she was leading an adulterous life and even after several requests, had refused to abandon the illicit activities. He said he had purchased an immovable property in the name of his wife out of love and affection and constructed a building after obtaining a loan. He submitted that she, claiming rights over the property, filed a suit for injunction and as a counter blast, he filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Though his suit was dismissed, on appeal, it was partly allowed. He also submitted that she had initiated proceedings seeking guardianship of their minor son. He further informed the court that though she had also lodged a complaint alleging that he had claimed dowry, the same was dismissed.

On the other hand, the wife had argued that the immovable property was purchased out of her earnings and the building was also put up using a loan obtained by her and thus her husband had no right over the property. She further contended that the allegations of adultery were completely false. She also claimed that her husband had contracted a second marriage and had been having an adulterous life since 2001 and had deserted her and their minor son without providing any maintenance.

The trial court held that there was no desertion and that filing a criminal case against the husband could not be seen as an incident of cruelty. The court thus dismissed the petition. When the husband filed an appeal, the First appellant court reiterated that the husband had not established his allegation of adultery. However, the court also observed that the attitude of the wife was to harass the husband by filing petitions one after the other. Ruling that though there was no specific cruelty, the court said the husband had suffered mental cruelty due to the complaints lodged against him.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The high court noted that even after initiation of civil and criminal court proceedings, the wife never left the matrimonial home and it was in fact the husband who had left the matrimonial home and contracted a second marriage. The court also noted that there was no reason established to the effect that he was forced to leave the matrimonial home due to mental cruelty. The court said that the bone of contention between the parties was the property in which he and their son were residing. The court noted that when the appellant court partially decreed the suit to the effect that land belonged to him and building belonged to her, the wife challenged the decree but he had not challenged the same. Thus, the court observed that the husband had conceded the title of wife over the building which would mean that the initial injunction suit by the wife was not without any basis and only for causing mental cruelty.

The court also noted that though an initial criminal proceeding initiated by the wife for bigamy had ended in acquittal, the husband had not disputed the allegation anywhere in the counter or during cross examination. The court added that mere acquittal from the criminal proceedings, could not be taken to mean that the wife had committed mental cruelty, when she had otherwise made out a prima facie case. “Just because he was acquitted from the said criminal proceedings, the proceedings initiated by the wife cannot be branded as a mental cruelty especially when she had made out a prima facie case of the husband contracting a second marriage,” the court said. The court added that the First Appellant Court had erred by blaming the wife for not taking any measures for restitution of conjugal rights when the husband had left the matrimonial home and contracted second marriage. “When the husband had left the matrimonial home and he is residing away and there is an allegation of second marriage on the husband, the wife cannot be blamed for not taking steps to restore the conjugal rights: The First Appellate Court was not right in placing the blame upon the wife for not filing any application for restitution of conjugal rights after amiving at a finding that the husband has miserably failed to prove the allegation of adultery” the court observed.

Conclusion:

This Court is of the considered opinion that the divorce petition lacks pleadings with regard to the mental cruelty, desertion and the deposition of the husband relating to the said allegation do not support the case of the husband. The litigation initiated by the wife is only to protect her property rights and her custody of her son. When the Initiation of such proceedings is for the vindication of her rights, the said proceedings can never be considered to be a ground for mental cruelty. The court observed that the findings of the First Appellate Court that the attitude of the wife was to harass her husband by filing petitions, was not legally sustainable and without any basis. The court thus set aside the same and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

1 2 3