Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.28 seconds)
Alka Dubey vs Parmod Nath Choubey on 25 April, 2025 cites

Joydeep Majumdar vs Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar on 26 February, 2021

33. It is, thus, evident that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment passed in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (supra) has been pleased to lay down that while judging whether the conduct is cruel or not, what has to be seen is whether that conduct, which is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make one live with the other. The conduct may take the form of abusive or humiliating treatment, causing mental pain and anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The conduct complained of must be "grave" and "weighty" and trivial irritations and normal wear and tear of marriage would not constitute mental cruelty as a ground for divorce.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 37 - H Roy - Full Document

V. Bhagat vs Mrs. D. Bhagat on 20 August, 1991

In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337, the wife alleged in her written statement that her husband was suffering from "mental problems and paranoid disorder". The wife‟s lawyer also levelled allegations of "lunacy" and "insanity" against the husband and his family 10 F.A. No. 203 of 2023 2025:JHHC:12445-DB while he was conducting a cross-examination. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to constitute "cruelty".
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 229 - Full Document

Vijay Kumar Ramachandra Bhate vs Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate on 16 April, 2003

In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate, (2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon‟ble Apex Court has observed by taking into consideration the allegations levelled by the husband in his written statement that his wife was "unchaste" and had indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and that his wife was having an extramarital affair. These allegations, given the context of an educated Indian woman, were held to constitute "cruelty" itself.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 96 - D Raju - Full Document

Debananda Tamuli vs Smti Kakumoni Kataky on 15 February, 2022

41. Recently also, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Debananda Tamuli vs. Kakumoni Kataky, (2022) 5 SCC 459 has considered the definition of 'desertion' on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena, AIR 1964 SC 40 which has been consistently followed in several decisions of this Court. The law consistently laid down by this Court is that desertion means the intentional abandonment of one spouse by the other without the consent of the other and without a reasonable cause. The deserted spouse must prove 13 F.A. No. 203 of 2023 2025:JHHC:12445-DB that there is a factum of separation and there is an intention on the part of deserting spouse to bring the cohabitation to a permanent end. In other words, there should be animus deserendi on the part of the deserting spouse. There must be an absence of consent on the part of the deserted spouse and the conduct of the deserted spouse should not give a reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to leave the matrimonial home. The view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court has been incorporated in the Explanation added to sub-section (1) of Section 13 by Act 68 of 1976. The said Explanation reads thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 31 - A Oka - Full Document

Lachman Utamchand Kiriplani vs Meena Alias Mota on 14 August, 1963

41. Recently also, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Debananda Tamuli vs. Kakumoni Kataky, (2022) 5 SCC 459 has considered the definition of 'desertion' on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena, AIR 1964 SC 40 which has been consistently followed in several decisions of this Court. The law consistently laid down by this Court is that desertion means the intentional abandonment of one spouse by the other without the consent of the other and without a reasonable cause. The deserted spouse must prove 13 F.A. No. 203 of 2023 2025:JHHC:12445-DB that there is a factum of separation and there is an intention on the part of deserting spouse to bring the cohabitation to a permanent end. In other words, there should be animus deserendi on the part of the deserting spouse. There must be an absence of consent on the part of the deserted spouse and the conduct of the deserted spouse should not give a reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to leave the matrimonial home. The view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court has been incorporated in the Explanation added to sub-section (1) of Section 13 by Act 68 of 1976. The said Explanation reads thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 215 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

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

46. The word 'perverse' has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence. 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 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
1   2 Next