Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
K. Srinivas vs K. Sunita on 19 November, 2014
Taking support from the law laid down by the Apex Court in
K. Srinivas Vs. K. Sunita (supra), we are of the opinion that
filing of criminal complaint for offence under Section 498-A of IPC
by the respondent wife, whereby the appellant-husband and his
parents were acquitted, amounts to cruelty for the purpose of
(18 of 19)
[CMA-3990/2009]
dissolution of marriage. Filing of false complaint by the wife is
sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty.
Suman Singh vs Sanjay Singh on 8 March, 2017
In Suman Singh Vs. Sanjay Singh (supra), respondent-
husband filed a petition seeking divorce on some isolated incidents
alleged to have occurred 8-10 years prior to filing of date of
petition. Hon'ble the Apex Court held that incidents alleged to
have occurred 8-10 years prior to the petition cannot furnish a
subsisting cause of action to seek divorce after 10 years or so of
occurrence of such incidents. The incidents alleged should be of
(16 of 19)
[CMA-3990/2009]
recurring nature or continuing one and they should be in near
proximity with filing of petition. It is also held that few isolated
incidents of long past and that too found to have been condoned
due to compromising behavior of parties, cannot constitute an act
of cruelty within meaning of Section 13 (1) (ia) of Act.
Section 125 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Family Courts Act, 1984 [Entire Act]
Alka Dadhich (Smt.) vs Ajay Dadhich on 30 April, 2007
In Smt. Alka Dadhich Vs. Ajay Dadhich (supra), the
husband alleged that the wife misbehaved with the parents of the
husband. She used to wander bare-headed in front of the parents
and sit in open verandah, only in petticoat-blouse. She used to
talk to her in-laws in filthy language and used to defy directions of
husband, and gave threatening to implicate the husband and
entire family in false cases, and to commit suicide after jumping
from roof of the house. The wife also lodged a criminal case
(15 of 19)
[CMA-3990/2009]
against the husband and his family members on the allegation of
demand of dowry. Coordinate Bench of this Court was satisfied on
the material on record that the relationship between the parties
had deteriorated to such an extent, due to conduct of the wife that
it would be impossible for them to live together without mental
agony, torture or distress and dismissed the appeal filed by the
wife.
Smt. Rukmani Devi vs Badri Narayan on 16 July, 2001
In Smt. Rukmani Devi Vs. Badri Narayan (supra), the
learned Family Court granted the decree of divorce in favour of the
husband-respondent on the ground of cruelty, which was assailed
by the appellant/wife before the High Court. A criminal case under
Section 498-A and 406 of IPC was registered against the husband
and his relations on the basis of report of the wife. After
investigation, charge-sheet was filed but the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, New Delhi discharged the accused persons on the
ground that Court's at Delhi has no jurisdiction. The wife did not
pursue criminal actions further. Coordinate Bench of this Court
observed that the wife-appellant does not want to live with the
husband and an attempt was made by the learned Family Court to
pursuade the parties to live together, but the wife-appellant did
not agree to reside with the husband respondent. In such
circumstances, the Coordinate Bench did not see any illegality in
the findings arrived at by the learned Family Court and dismissed
the appeal filed by the wife.
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Rakesh Sharma And Ors. vs Surbhi Sharma on 6 November, 2001
In Rakesh Sharma Vs. Surbhi Sharma (supra), the
husband was seeking divorce on ground of desertion and cruelty
of wife. Wife filed the petition for judicial separation. Learned trial
Court allowed the husband's petition and passed a decree of
judicial separation instead of decree of divorce. The fact of wife
residing with parents was not disputed. No reason for desertion
was established in evidence adduced by the wife, and there was
no reliable evidence of cruelty or adultery or demand of dowry on
part of the husband. Wife made no attempt to return to
matrimonial home and the learned trial Court itself held that there
was no chance of re-union. Coordinate Bench of this Court
substituted the decree of judicial separation, by decree of divorce.
1