Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.43 seconds)
Smt. Bipasha Bhowal vs Sri Biplab Bhowal on 15 May, 2014 cites

A. Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur on 2 December, 2004

Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2005 SC 534 (Jayachandra vs. Anil Kaur) has further observed that to constitute cruelty "conduct complained of should be grave and weighty so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than ordinary wear and tear of married life. The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 315 - A Pasayat - Full Document

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

Hon'ble Apex Court in decision reported in (1994)1 SCC 337 (V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat) held that the cruelty must be of such nature that the parties cannot be expected to live together. Merely because there are allegation and counter allegation, a decree of divorce cannot follow. There must be really some extraordinary features to warrant grant of divorce on the basis of pleading and other admitted materials.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 298 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007

Learned counsel for the husband has also cited a decision reported in (2007)4 SCC 511 (Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh). In the said case, the wife did not bother to enquire about the health of her husband when her husband had heart problem and had to undergo bypass surgery. The facts and circumstances of that case are quite distinguishable from the present case. The wife attended brain tumor operation at Chennai. She attended tongue cancer operation at Bell Vue nursing home at Calcutta. She, however, could not attend tongue cancer operation at Mumbai as per her husband's advice for looking after tender aged son of eight months. The said decision has no application in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 730 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate vs Neela Vijaykumar Bhate on 4 October, 2000

Decision cited by learned counsel for the husband in Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate reported in AIR 2003 SC 2462 has no application in the present case. In the said case an application for amendment was made seeking deletion of accusation made in the written statement. In the present case, there is no application for amendment for deletion of the accusation of husband. On the other hand, amended written statement was filed by wife after getting information from Prasun Sen that the wife of Prasun Sen had intimate relationship with the husband (Biplab) in the said case. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in the aforesaid case that amendment carried out subsequently does not absolve the husband from being held liable for having treated the wife with cruelty by making earlier such injurious reproaches and statements. Hon'ble Court further held that if the taunts and complaints and reproaches are of ordinary nature only, the Courts had to consider whether those are so serious or injurious as to make the spouse charged with them. In the present case, the materials on record do not reveal any intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of what the wife was alleged to have done so as to constitute matrimonial cruelty.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 109 - R P Desai - Full Document

K. Srinivas Rao vs D.A. Deepa on 22 February, 2013

Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in AIR 2013 SC 2176 (K. Srinivas Rao vs. D. A. Deepa) referred to the principle of judging the mental cruelty in matrimonial life in the decision reported in (2007)4 SCC 511 (Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh). Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision set out some illustrative references to draw any inference of the mental cruelty. One of such reference is : "The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty." Therefore, Hon'ble Apex Court put emphasis upon the totality of matrimonial life of the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 677 - Full Document

Suman Kapur vs Sudhir Kapur on 7 November, 2008

It is settled law that mens rea has no role to play to constitute cruelty as per number of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court including Sovarani vs. Madhukar Reddy reported in AIR 1980 SC 121 as well as Suman Kapur vs Sudhir Kapur reported in (2009)1 SCC 422. The husband is under moral and legal obligation to establish the detail particulars of acts and behaviour of wife manifest to constitute the ingredients of matrimonial cruelty. It has been held therein that "the absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be regarded is cruelty. Mens rea is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has not been any deliberate or wilful ill- treatment."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 71 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli on 21 March, 2006

Similarly, the decision cited by learned counsel for the husband in Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli reported in (2006)4 SCC 558 has no application in the present case. In the said case, the wife filed number of cases including criminal complaint against the husband and made every effort to harass and torture the husband and even got him arrested and put him behind the bars and in the said case specific instances were given by the husband. The wife sent notice for breaking the nucleus of HUF, expressly stating that the family nucleus had been broken with immediate effect and asking for partition of all the properties and assets of HUF and stating that her share should be given to her. The wife also issued public notice on the newspaper with a view to lower the prestige of her husband. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the said case are not applicable in the present one.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 493 - D Bhandari - Full Document
1