Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 68 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Ramchander vs Ananta on 24 February, 2015

T.Kavitha vs T.Thiruselvan ... on 27 August, 2019

In the same judgment, a previous judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchander v. Ananta reported in (2015) 11 SCC 539 was relied upon. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the appellant is not helpful to her as this Court and the lower appellate Court has accepted the appellant's case that mere criminal complaint alone cannot be treated as an Act of cruelty causing mental agony to the other spouse. In this case, the wife has preferred a complaint making serious allegations against the husband. Since the truth or otherwise need not be examined at this stage, the complaint as such has no relevance in this context. However, the further representation of the wife to pursue her complaint in other forum with a determination to cause mental hardships to the husband by initiating departmental proceedings against him cannot be ignored. The wife has achieved in pursuing her objective. The respondent was not only arrested but subsequently suspended from service 10/18 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.S.A.(MD)No.34 of 2014 during pendency of criminal complaint. It is in these circumstances, this Court is also inclined to consider the facts in detail. As pointed out earlier, the appellant had more grievance against the respondent and she has specific allegations of harassment and mental cruelty caused by the husband. A wife who is interested in saving the matrimonial life would certainly think thrice before making serious allegations against her husband in a matrimonial proceedings. As a matter of fact, the allegations made by her in the counter would justify her to come to Court to seek divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. The wife has not specifically denied the allegations that she is living separately some time after her child's birth. She did not dispute the message she had given to the husband. From the facts admitted by the wife, the decision of lower appellate Court based on appreciation of evidence cannot be faulted. The admitted incidents would show that the appellant/wife treated her husband with cruelty by making negative comments about the appearance of the husband's parents. Though it is stated in the counter affidavit that the husband was assaulting her always demanding dowry, no independent witness was examined to 11/18 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.S.A.(MD)No.34 of 2014 prove any of the allegations she had made against her husband. The wife who has given the list of jewels which her parents had given to her at the time of marriage did not bother to specifically denying any of the incidents cited by the husband in the petition as acts of cruelty.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S S Sundar - Full Document

Smt. Aparna Dey vs Shri Alok Dey on 9 September, 2020

In this regard the decision of this Court in the case of Ramchander vs. Ananta (2015) 11 SCC 539 relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant would be relevant, wherein while taking note of similar instances this Court has held that the same would not amount to cruelty and such instances would not be convincing enough to lead to a conclusion that the marriage is irretrievably broken down.
Tripura High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S G Chattopadhyay - Full Document

Geetha vs Sundaramohan on 16 March, 2015

In this regard the decision of this Court in the case of Ramchander vs. Ananta (2015) 11 SCC 539 relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant would be relevant, wherein while taking note of similar instances this Court has held that the same would not amount to cruelty and such instances would not be convincing enough to lead to a conclusion that the marriage is irretrievably broken down.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

C Sridhar Kiran vs D Anuradha on 21 September, 2022

M.VENKATESWARLU13,RAMCHANDER vs. ANANTA14, V.VENKATESHWARLU v. SMT. V.MAMATHA15, KAMLESHWARI BAI v. PEELURAM LATKHOR SAHU16, NABAKUMAR BANIK v. SMT. AMITA DATTA17,NAVAL KISHORE SOMANI v. POONAM SOMANI18 and SMT. PIYASA GHOSH v. SOMNATH GHOS19, 5 I(2020)DMC 687(SC) 6 II (2020) DMC 100 (DB) 7 III(2020)DMC 130(DB) (Cal.) 8 AIR 2011 SC 114 9 AIR 2010 A.P. 185 10 AIR 2006 AP 4 11 AIR 2006 AP 269 12 AIR 2006 SC 1675 13 2010(3) ALD 217 (DB) 14 LAWS (SC)2015 2 89 15 AIR 2014 A.P. 24 16 AIR 2010 CHHATTISGARH 16 17 AIR 2009 GAUHATI 103 18 AIR 1999 AP 1 19 AIR 2009 CALCUTTA 90
Telangana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - G S Devi - Full Document

C.Sridhar Kiran vs D.Anuradha on 21 September, 2022

M.VENKATESWARLU13,RAMCHANDER vs. ANANTA14, V.VENKATESHWARLU v. SMT. V.MAMATHA15, KAMLESHWARI BAI v. PEELURAM LATKHOR SAHU16, NABAKUMAR BANIK v. SMT. AMITA DATTA17,NAVAL KISHORE SOMANI v. POONAM SOMANI18 and SMT. PIYASA GHOSH v. SOMNATH GHOS19, 5 I(2020)DMC 687(SC) 6 II (2020) DMC 100 (DB) 7 III(2020)DMC 130(DB) (Cal.) 8 AIR 2011 SC 114 9 AIR 2010 A.P. 185 10 AIR 2006 AP 4 11 AIR 2006 AP 269 12 AIR 2006 SC 1675 13 2010(3) ALD 217 (DB) 14 LAWS (SC)2015 2 89 15 AIR 2014 A.P. 24 16 AIR 2010 CHHATTISGARH 16 17 AIR 2009 GAUHATI 103 18 AIR 1999 AP 1 19 AIR 2009 CALCUTTA 90
Telangana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - G S Devi - Full Document

G.P. Rajkumar vs Sunanthini on 1 December, 2022

(f) The instances of cruelty cannot be taken in isolation but the cumulative effect of facts and circumstances of the case has to be taken to 19/29 19/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.53 and 54 of 2018 & CMP.Nos.722 of 2018 and 20244 of 2022 ascertain whether the person seeking divorce had been subjected to mental cruelty. (Ramachander vs. Ananta 2015(11) SCC 539 para10).
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next