Mrs. Manisha Sandeep Gade vs Sandeep Vinayak Gade on 1 October, 2004
Same was the approach in the case of V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 352 (0.77 seconds)Documents citing
V. Bhagat vs Mrs. D. Bhagat on 20 August, 1991
Smt. Sushma Kohli @ Satya Devi vs Shri Shyam Sunder Kohli on 14 August, 2002
"19. Another submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The said plea was sought to be supported on the fact that the respondent had collected all the articles by executing a receipt with no intention of coming back to the matrimonial home. In my considered opinion the same could not be a ground for allowing the dissolution of marriage. In this connection, it may be appropriate to state that irretrievable break down of marriage is not a ground recognized by law for grant of decree of divorce. The Supreme Court, of course, by exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India granted such a decree for irretrievable break down of marriage in the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.);. The said power, in my considered opinion, is, however, not available to the High Court for the High Court is bound by the statutory provisions made in that regard and cannot grant a decree which is not recognized by the aforesaid statutory provisions.
Sushma Kohli @ Satya Devi vs Shyam Sunder Kohli on 14 August, 2002
"19. Another submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The said plea was sought to be supported on the fact that the respondent had collected all the articles by executing a receipt withno intention of coming back to the matrimonial home. In my considered opinion the same could not be a ground for allowing the dissolution of marriage. In this connection, it may be appropriate to state that irretrievable break down of marriage is not a ground recognized by law for grant of decree of divorce. The Supreme Court, of course, by exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India granted such a decree for irretrievable break down of marriage in the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.) (supra). The said power, in my considered opinion, is, however, not available to the High Court for the High Court is bound by the statutory provisions made in that regard and cannot grant a decree which is not recognized by the aforesaid statutory provisions. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Anil Kumarv.
Rajan Vasant Revankar vs Mrs. Shobha Rajan Revankar on 24 March, 1994
49. Before parting with this case, we wish to once again refer the Supreme Court decision in Bhagat's case. In that case, the allegations levelled by the husband against the wife were held not proved but, inter alia, on account of the allegations made by the wife in her statement, which allegations were totally reckless and unwarranted, the Supreme Court thought it fit to dissolve the marriage between the parties. While doing so, in Para 22 of the Judgment at page 441 of the Report , the Supreme Court referred to the fact that though irretrievable break down of the marriage is not a ground by itself for divorce, while scrutinising the evidence on record to determine whether the grounds alleged are made out and in determining the relief to be granted, the circumstance that the
marriage has irretrievably broken down can certainly be borne in mind. We have already indicated above, the attitude adopted by the wife and her father. In our view, the marriage between the spouses has irretrievably broken down. This is, thus, an additional factor which has to be borne in mind while considering the question of granting the decree for divorce. On the evidence that has been led by the parties, we do not think that the husband is taking advantage of his own wrong so as to disentitle him to a decree for divorce. Indeed, nothing was pointed out to us in this behalf by the respondent/wife and having perused the entire material on record, we have no hesitation in recording such a finding as required by Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, the husband is entitled to a decree for divorce.
K.S.Palanisamy vs Ramasamy on 17 January, 2017
16.The Honble Delhi High Court in the case of V.Bhagat v. Mrs.D.Bhagat reported in AIR 1992 DELHI 267 held as follows:
Anil Kumar vs Sunita on 12 September, 1997
"In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), 1994 (1) SCC 337:1994 AIR SCW 45, this Court has explained the concept of cruelty both mental and physical which could entitle an applicant to claim divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Smt. Praveena Tank vs . on 19 November, 2014
In V. Bhagat v. D. S. Bhagat (supra), the Supreme Court had observed that, thus at page 437 of JT (SC) (at p. 717 of AIR),
"17. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility of otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. It is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made."
Inderjit Mehta vs Smt. Parveen Mehta on 1 June, 2000
21. On the question of desertion, the learned District judge referred to the authorities, namely, V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat, 1994 M.L.J.1 (SC) where in it was observed that there is no rule of the thumb to prove cruelty and desertion in every case by leading a particular type of evidence, and whether the acts of the guilty spouse amount to cruelty or desertion depends on the facts of each case.
Pranay Kumar Kundu vs Smt. Rupanjana Kundu on 15 February, 2019
The case of Dr. N.G. Dastane
v. Mrs. S. Dastane (supra) , as referred by appellant, was also noticed by the
Apex Court including the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.) (supra), as
referred by the respondent with many other cases.
Bhargavkumar Pranshankar Shukla vs Chhayaben Bhargavkumar Shukla on 21 October, 2002
(7) He has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat, reported in AIR 1994 SC 710 particularly Para 17 on page 71 and Para 23 on page 721.