Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)
Rita Das Biswas vs Trilokesh Das Biswas on 17 May, 2006 cites

Dr. N.G. Dastane vs Mrs. S. Dastane on 19 March, 1975

In Dastane (supra) the Apex Court observed that in case of the allegation of mental cruelty the inquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouses. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injuries to live with the other, ultimately is matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. In the present case, the conduct of the wife, as alleged, that she was averse to cohabitation can be said to be per se unlawful as it is the legal duty of every spouse to willingly participate in cohabitation, which has been held to be the foundation of every marriage.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 555 - Full Document

Shobha Rani vs Madhukar Reddi on 12 November, 1987

In Sobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (supra), the appellant was a postgraduate in Biological Sciences. She was married to a doctor. Their relation became bitter soon after the marriage. The appellant wife moved the Court for divorce on the ground of cruelty. A constant demand for money from her was the source of an apprehension that something would be done to her either physically or mentally. It was held by the Apex Court that the demand for dowry being prohibited under law, it by itself amounted to cruelty entitling her to get a decree for dissolution of marriage. The fact is, however, totally different from the one in our hand, which is total aversion on the part of the appellant wife to live with her husband. The ground of cruelty as advanced by the respondent husband is her reluctance to cohabitation and desertion for a long period. It is true that cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, if not admitted, requires to be proved on the preponderance of probabilities as in civil cases and not beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. The word "cruelty" has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. The cruelty may be menial or physical, intentional or unintentional.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 320 - K J Shetty - Full Document

S.Hanumantha Rao vs S.Ramani on 31 March, 1999

In S. Hanumantha Rao v. S. Ramani (supra), the question of mental cruelty was under consideration of the Apex Court as the question of cruelty is bound to vary from case to case depending on social strata to which the parties belong. In the above noted case, throwing the Mangalsutra by the wife respondent at her husband was pleaded to be an act of cruelty, which was, however, negatived.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 55 - V N Khare - Full Document

Chetan Dass Appellant vs Kamla Devi Respondent on 17 April, 2001

In Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi (supra), the question was irretrievable breakdown of marriage due to series of activities, which are incompatible in a marital life. The illegitimate relationship between the husband and a third party was one of the grounds for breakdown of the marriage. In the case on our hand, no third party was present at any stage of the short lived conjugal relation, which suffered from mal-adjustment, both physical and mental, as has been projected in the pleadings of the rival parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 125 - B Kumar - Full Document

V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993

In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (supra), the meaning and proof of cruelty was under focus in the given facts and circumstances of that case. It was held by the Apex Court that mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act 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. The relevant observation of the Apex Court appearing in para 16 of the judgment is quoted below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 298 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Union Of India & Others vs M/S. G.T.C. Industries Limited on 27 March, 2003

15. The question whether refusal to comply with a direction of the Court to the wife for medical examination invites an adverse inference against her came under examination in Sharda v. Dharmpal . It was held that such direction to undergo medical examination is not violative of right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and refusal to comply with such direction is bound to give rise to an adverse inference against the party, who disobeyed the direction. As we have noticed above, the learned Trial Court directed the appellant wife herein to undergo a medical examination in view of the pleadings of the respondent husband that their marriage did not consummate as there had been no cohabitation due to complete physical incompetence of the appellant wife. It has been put on record by the learned Trial Court that she disobeyed the direction of the Court and, therefore, invited the adverse presumption that she was not physically competent to cohabitation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 224 - Full Document

Savitri Pandey vs Prem Chandra Pandey on 8 January, 2002

In Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey , the wife claimed divorce on ground of desertion. It was held that the wife cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own wrong after marriage. Desertion has been held to mean the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other's consent and without reasonable cause. When certain act amounts to desertion, has been discussed in paras 7 and 10 of the above judgment, the relevant part of which is quoted below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 291 - R P Sethi - Full Document
1   2 Next