Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1238 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing K. Srinivas Rao vs D.A. Deepa on 22 February, 2013

Swati vs Arvind Mudgal on 29 January, 2015

30.12 As per the settled legal position, the false, baseless, scandalous and malicious allegations made by the respondent in his written statement against the petitioner has the effect of causing deleterious effect on the mind of the petitioner and is the worse form of cruelty. This case is squarely covered by the well settled principles laid down in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (supra), Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neelam Vijaykumar Bhate (supra), MAT. APP. 5/2013 Page 42 of 45 Navin Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (supra), K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (supra), Hemwati Tripathi v. Harish Narain Tripathi (supra), D.N. Sharma Sharma v. Usha Sharma (supra), Jay Dayal v. Shakuntala Devi (supra), Ramesh Kumar v. Aakash Sharma (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 4 - J R Midha - Full Document

Bhaskar Mishra vs Mrs. Mala Jha @ Gudiya on 4 February, 2020

In the case of K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to several precedents on the point as to the effect of filing of false criminal cases by either of the spouse. It has been held that if a false criminal complaint is preferred by either spouse, it would invariably and inevitably constitute matrimonial cruelty, such as would entitle other spouse to claim a divorce. The judgment of the acquittal rendered by the criminal court between the parties can be duly taken notice of in the present appeal between the same parties on the plea of divorce by the aggrieved husband. Apart from that we find that the respondent has shown complete indifference and apathy to the conjugal life as she has neither appeared to contest the suit nor chosen to appear in the present appeal despite notice by the paper publication.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A K Singh - Full Document

Kamalika Majumdar Nee Das vs Subhapriya Majumdar on 11 June, 2025

24. Furthermore, a glaring and fundamental error, which regrettably vitiates the Trial Court's judgment, was its complete silence and non- consideration of the husband's two prior marriages (Exhibits B and C). This deliberate suppression of such a crucial and material fact concerning one's marital history at the solemnization of marriage, especially when it involved a contentious prior dissolution and criminal proceedings (a 498A IPC case), constitutes profound and inexcusable mental cruelty to the appellant. This deceit strikes at the very core of the matrimonial relationship, irrevocably undermining its foundation of trust and severely impacting the wife's fundamental rights and well-being.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharyya - Full Document

Devesh Yadav vs Meenal on 8 April, 2022

[32] Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa (supra) has observed that though irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, however, marriage which is dead for all purposes, cannot be revived by Court's verdict, if parties are not willing since marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they have dried up, there is hardly any 23 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 09-04-2022 06:14:33 ::: 24 FAO-M-208 of 2013 chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by court decree.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - R Bahri - Full Document

Praveen Mohammad vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 5 August, 2024

8. It is settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court can quash non- compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties. Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the cases arising out of matrimonial differences should be put to a quietus if the parties have reached an amicable settlement. Reliance may be placed upon: B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675; K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A.Deepa, (2013) 5SCC 226; Yashpal Chaudhrani and Others vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8179.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

Prabal Kumar Dixit vs Smt. Rimpal Dixit on 16 January, 2025

It is equally well-settled in law that lodging of false complaint amounts to cruelty {See: (2014) 7 SCC Malathi Vs. B.B. Ravi, (2013) 5 SCC 226 K. Shrinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa, (2014) 16 SCC 34 K. Shrinivas Vs. Ku. Sunita and AIR 2003 MP 271 Johnson M. Joseph alias Shajoo Vs. Smt. Aneeta Jhonson)} (15) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra) has considered the aspect of irretrievable breakdown and held that the same can be made a ground for divorce.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Hirdesh - Full Document

Surinder Pal Singh vs Mandeep Kaur on 26 February, 2016

"14 Needless to say that there appears no illegality or perversity in the judgment of learned trial Court. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, 2013 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 232; 2013 (2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 102: 2013 (5) SCC 226 that it is now beyond cavil that if a false criminal complaint is preferred by either spouse it would invariably and indubitably constitute matrimonial cruelty, such as would entitle the other spouse to claim a divorce."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Indrasan Gond vs Lalmuni Devi on 25 April, 2013

15. The learned counsel strongly relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2013 (1) PLJR 321 SC K. Sriniwas Rao vs. D.A. Dipa and submitted that since last 21 years the parties are residing separately and there is no chance of residing both of them together and meeting the conjugal life as earlier, no purpose will be served by not granting the decree. So far this submission is concerned also I find no force because in the said decision itself it has been held that irretrievable break down of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Act. Here in the present case we have seen the witnesses produced by the appellant who have only baldly stated that the respondent is residing without any rime and reason with her parents. On the contrary, according to the respondent she has been driven out by assaulting from the house. As has been stated in Ext. 1 and 1/1 no such stand was taken by the petitioner appellant in the said proceeding and the concerned court has already granted maintenance. Now therefore, the fact emerges that the appellant himself assaulted the respondent and drove her out of the house. The respondent was saying and still saying that she was ready and is still ready to go and reside with the appellant but the appellant himself refusing to keep her. On the other hand, the appellant is saying that because there is no chance of re-union by the appellants the divorce may be granted. This is nothing but the ulterior motive of the appellant. In one hand he is Patna High Court FA No.203 of 2001 dt.25-04-2013 11 driving her out from the house and then saying it is impossible to keep her therefore, the divorce should be granted. On this ground alone therefore, no divorce can be granted.
Patna High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - M Sahoo - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next