Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar vs Sunanda on 20 March, 2001
12. I also find force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-wife that non-payment of maintenance pendente lite amount by the respondent-husband in spite of the directions given by this Court amounts to 'wrong' under Section 23 of the Act and on this ground also the respondent-husband is not entitled for a decree of divorce. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar v. Sunanda (supra) has categorically held that the refusal to pay maintenance by the husband to the wife, as ordered by the Court, amounts to commit a wrong within the meaning of Section 23 of the Act and the trial Court was held to be justified in declining to allow prayer of the husband for dissolution of the marriage. It was held that while considering the matter regarding the divorce between spouses, non-payment of maintenance allowance is one of the relevant considerations.
Section 24 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Shakuntla Kumari vs Om Prakash Ghai on 6 October, 1980
These allegations are general in nature and because of these trivial disputes, the marriage cannot be dissolved. No specific instance has been alleged or proved. From the evidence available, on the record, I am satisfied that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court while accepting the divorce petition and granting a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties cannot be sustained. While recording the findings in favour of the respondent-husband on the point of cruelty, learned trial court has relied upon the decision in Smt. Shakuntala Kumari v. Om Parkash Ghai,2 A.I.R. 1981 Delhi 53, which is not relevant for the present controversy. It was held in that case that normal and healthy sexual relationship is one of the basic ingredients of a happy and harmonious marriage. A wilful denial of sexual relationship by a spouse when the other spouse is anxious for it would amount to mental cruelty. In the present case,it is not the case of the respondent-husband that the appellant-wife denying the sexual relationship with him.
Bani W/O Parkash Singh vs Parkash Singh on 11 January, 1996
Similarly, this Court in Bani v. Parkash Singh,3 (1996-3)114 P.L.R. 554 has held that when the husband fails to pay maintenance and litigation expense to the wife, his defence is liable to be struck off; and consequently, the appeal filed by the wife was allowed and the decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by the trial court was set aside. It has been held that;-
Section 28 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
1