Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.22 seconds)

Savitri Pandey vs Prem Chandra Pandey on 8 January, 2002

[21] In the given context, ostensibly the respondent wife abandoned her husband on 04.08.2005 along with their daughter and according to the appellant husband she did not come back to her matrimonial home thereafter. Whether divorce can be granted for such conduct of the respondent wife has to be decided in the peculiar factual context of this case. Before we do so, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Savitri Pandey Vs. Prem Chandra Pandey reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73 where the Apex Court dealt with the concept of desertion in the context of divorce and held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 291 - R P Sethi - Full Document

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

17. The marriage between the parties cannot be dissolved only on the averments made by one of the parties that as the marriage between them has broken down, no useful purpose would be served to keep it alive. The legislature, in its wisdom, despite observation of this Court has not thought it proper to provide for dissolution of the marriage on such averments. There may be cases where, on facts, it is found that as the marriage has become dead on account of contributory acts of commission and omission of the parties, no useful purpose would be served by keeping such marriage alive. The sanctity of marriage cannot be left at the whims of one of the annoying spouses. This Court in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat held that irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is not a ground by itself to dissolve it.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 298 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Jones Lang Lasalle Meghraj Building ... vs Jones Lang Lasalle Building Operations ... on 28 September, 2016

"15. The defendant's further case that she had been turned out of the house by the husband under duress cannot be accepted because it is not corroborated either by circumstances or by direct testimony. Neither her father nor her cousin say a word about her speaking to them on her arrival at Jalgaon that she had been turned out of her husband's home. If her case that she had been forcibly turned out of her marital home by the husband had been made out, certainly the husband would have been guilty of "constructive desertion", because the test is not who left the matrimonial home first. (See Lang v. Lang [1955] A. C. 402, 417. If one spouse by his words and conduct compel the other spouse to leave the marital home, the former would be guilty of desertion, though it is the latter who has physically separated from the other Page 12 of 17 and has been made to leave the marital home. It should be noted that the wife did not cross-petition for divorce or for any other relief. Hence it is no more necessary for us to go into that question. It is enough to point out that we are not prepared to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of the defendant that she had been compelled to leave her marital home by the threats of the plaintiff."
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 14 - S Mridul - Full Document

Sanat Kumar Agarwal vs Smt. Nandini Agarwal on 24 January, 1990

appearing in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been interpreted in various judicial pronouncements. It is held that the essence of desertion is animus deserendi or the intention on the part of the offending spouse to bring cohabitation permanently to an end without reasonable cause against the consent or wish of the other spouse. About how to arrive at the conclusion as to whether one spouse has been deserted by the other within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act, the Apex Court in Sanat Kumar Agarwal Vs. Nandini Agarwal reported in (1990) 1 SCC 475 has viewed that the question of desertion is a matter of inference which has to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case and observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 35 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document
1   2 Next