Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)
Biswajit Mahapatra Aged About 38 Years ... vs Anita Karmakar Wife Of Biswajit ... on 14 October, 2025 cites

Arulvelu & Anr vs State Rep By Public Prosecutor & Anr on 7 October, 2009

45. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206 while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm 18 2025:JHHC:31727-DB in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 440 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Parry'S (Calcutta) Employee'S Union vs Parry And Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 23 December, 1964

But thereafter the petitioner and his family started demanding Rs. 5 lakhs as dowry and for which respondent was subjected to cruelty and her parents was compelled to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh but thereafter also she was continuously pressurized to give remaining 4 lakhs and cruelty upon her continued. And she even had to be admitted in hospital and due to torture and assault she even suffered miscarriage. And she was taken to her parental home with misleading statements and thereafter the petitioner never brought her back to his house. And due to the torture she was compelled to file C/1 Case no. 1391/19 and on the basis of which Sonari P.S Case No. 110/19 was registered against the petitioner and others. And why a married woman will file a criminal case against her husband without any rhyme or reason. And she even sent request letter to her husband requesting not to demand dowry and to take her and keep her properly with dignity but inspite of that the respondent was not taken by the petitioner to his house. And she even had to complain to D.G.P Jharkhand against her husband. Further the petitioner in his evidence has not stated a single incident or date when the respondent became aggressive and misbehaved with him and his family and how she became cruel to him. And making general 28 2025:JHHC:31727-DB assertions and allegations that the respondent Anita Karmkar misbehaved with the petitioner and extended cruelty to him will not attract cruelty in any way. Rather the respondent had to file a criminal case against the petitioner and she also had to complain before the police chief of the state speaks a different story. So from the above made discussion of the evidence, it clearly appears that the petitioner has failed to bring any evidence to show any overt act on the part of the respondent which caused mental and physical cruelty to him. The petitioner has failed to bring any specific instance when the respondent was cruel towards him mentally or physically and simply by making assertion and allegation of causing cruelty without stating any date or particular instance would not attract cruelty. So the petitioner has failed to show any overt act on the part of the respondent towards him which would attract cruelty as envisaged U/s 13(1)(ia) and as defined and interpreted by the Hon'ble Court in the above referred cases. So in view of the above discussed evidence, facts & circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner has not been able to establish that he suffered cruelty at the hands of the respondent and the acts complained against the respondent would not constitute cruelty rather the respondent was compelled to file criminal case for torturing her by the petitioner. And why a wife would file a criminal case against her husband without there being any substance. Further from the above made discussions of the evidence on the record it appears that the petitioner in his evidence has stated that respondent has deserted him for last more than two years but he has not stated any specific date that since when respondent deserted him. And although it is an admitted fact that the petitioner and respondent are staying separately but the respondent has denied his allegation that she has deserted him. And further the respondent and her sister has given evidence that respondent sent a letter on 06.01.2019 to her husband/petitioner requesting him to keep her with proper respect and dignity but he did not respond to the said letter, which clearly shows that it is the petitioner who is not willing to keep marital ties with the respondent. And if it had been the intention of the respondent to desert the petitioner she would not have sent a letter to the petitioner showing her willingness to stay with him. And the testimony of the respondent and her sister remained trustworthy, intact and inspires confidence as their cross-examination by the petitioner side could not yield anything in the favour of the petitioner. And further the petitioner has not brought anything to show that he is willing to resume marital ties with him and if he had the intention to continue marital ties with the respondent he 29 2025:JHHC:31727-DB would have come up with a case U/s 9 of the H.M.Act instead of this divorce case. So the petitioner has also not succeeded in establishing that his respondent wife deserted him for more than two years. And the above discussed evidence shows that it is the petitioner who is staying separately from the respondent and it is the intention of the respondent to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi) as he neither took any efforts for settlement and taking his wife to her matrimonial home and to his society rather he filed this divorce case to get rid of his wife. And it appears that it is constructive desertion on his part. So the petitioner has also not succeeded in satisfying the ingredients of desertion.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

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

47. The "cruelty" has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastana, (1975) 2 SCC 326 wherein it has been laid down that the Court has to enquire, as to whether, the conduct charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in the mind of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 555 - Full Document
1   2 Next