Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 143 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Durga Prasanna Tripathy vs Arundhati Tripathy on 23 August, 2005

V.M. Jawahar Lal vs K.A. Sheela on 30 November, 2017

In this context, useful reference can be made to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in (Durga Prasanna Tripathy vs. Arundhati Tripathy) reported in (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 353 relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent wherein it was held that the long separation of the couple is a ground for dissolution of their marriage. The ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above decision squarely applies to the facts of the case. In this case also, the appellant and the respondent are residing separately for about 10 years and therefore, no useful purpose will be served by directing them to get united in the matrimonial home especially when the matrimonial relationship between them has broken down irretrievably.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - R Subbiah - Full Document

A. Viswanathan vs G. Lakshmi @ Seetha on 20 November, 2006

g. In its decision reported in (2005) 7 SCC 353 in the case of Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy, the Supreme Court held as under: (Paras 21,27 & 28) "In our view, that 14 years have elapsed since the appellant and the respondent have been separated and there is no possibility of the appellant and the respondent resuming the normal marital life even though the respondent is willing to join her husband. There has been an irretrievable breakdown of marriage between the appellant and the respondent. The respondent has also preferred to keep silent about her absence during the death of her father-in-law and during the marriage ceremony of her brother-in-law. The complaint before the Mahila Commission does not implicate the appellant for dowry harassment though the respondent in her evidence before the Family Court has alleged dowry harassment by the appellant. It is pertinent to mention here that a complaint before the Mahila Commission was lodged after 7 years of the marriage alleging torture for dowry by the mother-in-law and brother-in-law during the initial years of marriage. The said complaint was filed in 1998 that is only after notice was issued by the Family Court on 27.03.1997 on the application filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court, on examination of the evidence on record, and having observed the demeanour of the witnesses concluded that the appellant had proved that the respondent is not only cruel but also deserted him for more than 7 years. The desertion as on date is more than 14 years and, therefore, in our view, there has been an irretrievable breakdown of marriage between the appellant and the respondent. Even the Conciliation Officer before the Family Court gave its report that the respondent was willing to live with the appellant on the condition that they lived separately from his family. The respondent in her evidence had not disputed the fact that attempts have been made by the appellant and his family to bring her back to the matrimonial home for leading a conjugal life with the applicant. Apart from that, relationship between the appellant and the respondent have become strained over years due to the desertion of the appellant by the respondent for several years. Under the circumstances, the appellant had proved before the Family Court both the factum of separation as well as animus deserendi which are the essential elements of desertion. The evidence adduced by the respondent before the Family Court belies her stand taken by her before the Family Court. Enough instances of cruelty meted out by the respondent to the appellant were cited before the Family Court and the Family Court being convinced granted the decree of divorce. The harassment by the in-laws of the respondent was an afterthought since the same was alleged after a gap of 7 years of marriage and desertion by the respondent. The appellant having failed in his efforts to get back the respondent to her matrimonial home and having faced the trauma of performing the last rites of his deceased father without the respondent and having faced the ill-treatment meted out by the respondent to him and his family had, in our opinion, no other efficacious remedy but to approach the Family Court for decree of divorce.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 8 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

C. Premalatha vs A. Baskar on 2 November, 2018

It is also note worthy to mention that C.C. No. 113 of 2002 ended in acquittal against which the appellant did not prefer any appeal. When once the respondent was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on the basis of a false or frivolous complaint preferred by the appellant, the matrimonial relationship would definitely get strained and the chance for re-union becomes impossible. The matrimonial relationship will get widened and thereafter, the husband cannot be expected to take back the wife to resume the marital life. As observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case in (Durga Prasanna Tripathy vs. Arundhati Tripathy) reported in (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 353 the appellant and the respondent have spent their prime time and valuable time in litigation before the Civil and Criminal Forum and therefore also, there cannot be any resumption of marital life between them.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document

V.M. Jawahar Lal vs K.A. Sheela on 30 November, 2017

In this context, useful reference can be made to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in (Durga Prasanna Tripathy vs. Arundhati Tripathy) reported in (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 353 relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent wherein it was held that the long separation of the couple is a ground for dissolution of their marriage. The ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above decision squarely applies to the facts of the case. In this case also, the appellant and the respondent are residing separately for about 10 years and therefore, no useful purpose will be served by directing them to get united in the matrimonial home especially when the matrimonial relationship between them has broken down irretrievably.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document

Ajay Kumar Nishad vs Mrs. Sarojini Lata Kumari on 27 June, 2018

19. Irretrievable break down of marriage is not a recognized ground under the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage though it carries lot of weight taken together with other factors like incidences of cruelty or other grounds available under Section 13 of the Act of 1955. Therefore, if the appellant has failed on both the grounds alleged against the respondent, marriage between the parties cannot be dissolved on the sole argument that parties have been living separately for 13 years and their marriage has irretrievably broken down. As such, the appellant cannot draw much mileage from the case of Durga Prasanna Tripathy Vs. Arundhati Tripathy (supra). It would amount to giving premium to a spouse who have himself been held guilty of cruelty in marriage.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A K Singh - Full Document

T.Gopalakrishnan vs Murugeswari on 10 September, 2008

In the decision reported in 2006 (1) Law Weekly 162 (Durga Prasanna Tripathy Vs. Arundhati Tripathy) the concerned Family Court has granted divorce mainly on the ground that a workable solution is certainly not possible. The concerned High Court has reversed the order passed by the Family Court. But, the Honourable Apex Court has set aside the order passed by the High Court and restored the order passed by the Family Court. Therefore, it is quite clear that in the interest of justice and also in the interest of parties, the Court can grant divorce mainly on the ground that the marriage in question is irretrievably broken, even though the same is not found as one of the grounds mentioned under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A Selvam - Full Document

V.M. Jawahar Lal vs K.A. Sheela on 30 November, 2017

In this context, useful reference can be made to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in (Durga Prasanna Tripathy vs. Arundhati Tripathy) reported in (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 353 relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent. The ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above decision squarely applies to the facts of the case. In this case also, the appellant and the respondent are residing separately for about 10 years and therefore, no useful purpose will be served by directing them to get united in the matrimonial home especially when the matrimonial relationship between them has broken down irretrievably.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next