Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.86 seconds)K. Srinivas Rao vs D.A. Deepa on 22 February, 2013
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in (2013) 5 SCC 226 : K. Srinivas Rao
v. D.A. Deepa (relied on by the Petitioner) while enumerating the
illustrative cases where inference of mental cruelty can be drawn as
detailed in Samar Ghosh's case (supra) remarked as herein below;
Chetan Dass Appellant vs Kamla Devi Respondent on 17 April, 2001
5. Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi : (2001) 4 SCC 250 ,
Vinita Saxena vs Pankaj Pandit on 10 September, 2004
7. Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit : AIR 2005 Delhi 243
Shobha Rani vs Madhukar Reddi on 12 November, 1987
In Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi (1988) 1 SCC 105, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held thus;
V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993
22. Later in time in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat : (1994) 1 SCC 337, it
was held that
"Mental cruelty means 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, must be of
such a nature that the parties could not reasonably be
expected to live together.
A. Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur on 2 December, 2004
In the case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur : (2005) 2 SCC 22 ,
the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows;
Dr. N.G. Dastane vs Mrs. S. Dastane on 19 March, 1975
36. No assumption on molestation can be made by the Court
without proof, the standard of proof in such matters ofcourse being
based on a "preponderance of probability". At this juncture, the ruling
in Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane : AIR 1975 SC 1534 can usefully
15
Mat App. No. 04 of 2014
Dr. Supratim Datta vs. Moutushi Sen
be referred to, wherein it was held that "The normal rule which governs
civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established if it is proved
by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the
Evidence Act, Sec.3, a fact is said to be proved when the Court either
believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man
ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the
supposition that it exists.
Wright vs Wright on 7 April, 1930
Reference was also made to
an Australian case of Wright v. Wright (1948)77 CLR 191 : 22 Aus LJ
534, wherein the view taken was that the civil and not a criminal
standard of persuasion applies to matrimonial causes, including issues
of adultery. In the matter at hand, a scrutiny of the evidence reflects
that it is bereft of any substance with regard to the allegation of
molestation, thereby not even living up to the standard of
"preponderance of probability".
Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli on 21 March, 2006
In the backdrop of the insistence of the Respondent to live with
the Petitioner despite allegations made by her against him, we may
refer to the decision in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558,
where the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with a divorce matter in
which both the appellant and the respondent had been living apart for
more than ten years but the wife was not prepared to have a decree for
divorce of mutual consent, observed as follows:-