Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.25 seconds)Section 9 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Manju Sharma on 27 February, 2009
47. Argument of the counsel for respondent-husband, that this Court does not have any jurisdiction to grant decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage under Section 13 has no force, as the appellant had filed petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and the Apex Court while dealing in case of Vishnu Datt Sharma (supra) and Darshan Gupta (supra) had held that irretrievable break down of marriage is not a ground under Section 13, but the Apex Court in case of Samar Ghosh (supra) and Naveen Kohli (supra) while dealing with the similar situation in which divorce was sought on the ground of mental cruelty. The Court went further and held that where one of the parties, who was subjected to mental cruelty and the marriage cannot be sustained any more having been broken down, came up with the concept of irretrievable break down of marriage. In the present case also the appellant, who has been subjected to mental cruelty by the respondent-husband is also entitled for a decree of divorce as her marriage has completely broken down and no chance of survival remains.
Sm. Pancho vs Ram Prasad on 31 August, 1955
In Sm. Pancho v. Ram Prasad, Roy, J. while dealing with the Hindu Married Women's Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act (19 of 1946) expounded the concept of 'legal cruelty' and observed thus:
V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993
28. Further the Apex Court in case of V. Bhagat (supra) held as under :-
Dr. N.G. Dastane vs Mrs. S. Dastane on 19 March, 1975
20. Further the Apex Court in case of Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326 Para 30 has observed as under :-
Savitri Pandey vs Prem Chandra Pandey on 8 January, 2002
46. It is not in dispute that both the parties are living separately for the last nine years and despite the efforts of the Trial Court as well as this Court reconciliation failed. Thus, as the appellant has been subjected to mental cruelty, which is one of the ground for divorce under Section 13 as well as keeping in mind the fact that the marriage between the parties has broken down. No useful purpose would be served to keep it alive, as observed by the Apex Court in case of Savitri Pandey (supra) "the sanctity of marriage cannot be lived at the whims one of the annoying spouses".
A. Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur on 2 December, 2004
In A. Jayachandra Vs. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22 in Paragraph nos.10, 12 and 13, the Apex Court held as under :-
Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli on 21 March, 2006
47. Argument of the counsel for respondent-husband, that this Court does not have any jurisdiction to grant decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage under Section 13 has no force, as the appellant had filed petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and the Apex Court while dealing in case of Vishnu Datt Sharma (supra) and Darshan Gupta (supra) had held that irretrievable break down of marriage is not a ground under Section 13, but the Apex Court in case of Samar Ghosh (supra) and Naveen Kohli (supra) while dealing with the similar situation in which divorce was sought on the ground of mental cruelty. The Court went further and held that where one of the parties, who was subjected to mental cruelty and the marriage cannot be sustained any more having been broken down, came up with the concept of irretrievable break down of marriage. In the present case also the appellant, who has been subjected to mental cruelty by the respondent-husband is also entitled for a decree of divorce as her marriage has completely broken down and no chance of survival remains.