Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)
Sukhendu Das vs Rita Mukherjee on 9 October, 2017 cites

Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007

7. The Respondent, who did not appear before the trial court after filing of written statement, did not respond to the request made by the High Court for personal appearance. In spite of service of Notice, the Respondent did not show any interest to appear in this Court also. This conduct of the Respondent by itself would indicate that she is not interested in living with the Appellant. Refusal to participate in 4 proceeding for divorce and forcing the appellant to stay in a dead marriage would itself constitute mental cruelty [Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh1]. The High Court observed that no attempt was made by either of the parties to be posted at the same place. Without entering into the disputed facts of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no likelihood of the Appellant and the Respondent living together and for all practical purposes there is an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 730 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Manish Goel vs Rohini Goel on 5 February, 2010

8. This court in a series of judgments has exercised its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution for dissolution of a marriage where the Court finds that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and has broken down irretrievably, even if the facts of the case do not provide a ground in law on which the divorce could be granted [Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel2].
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 390 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Rishikesh Sharma vs Saroj Sharma on 21 November, 2006

Admittedly, the Appellant and the Respondent have been living separately for more than 17 years and it will not be possible for the parties to live together and there is no purpose in compelling the parties to live together in 1 (2007) 4 SCC 511 [para101 (xiv)] 2 (2010) 4 SCC 393 [para 11] 5 matrimony [Rishikesh Sharma v. Saroj Sharma3]. The daughter of the Appellant and the Respondent is aged about 24 years and her custody is not in issue before us. In the peculiar facts of this case and in order to do complete justice between the parties, we allow the Appeal in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 72 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document
1