Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
A S vs S N S on 7 January, 2016 cites

Shyam Sunder Kohli vs Sushma Kohli @ Satya Devi on 1 October, 2004

The judgment in Shyam Sunder Kohli (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the Trial Court and First Appellate Court had given concurrent findings that no cruelty or desertion was established. The evidence in the said case rather indicated that the respondent-wife was forced out of the matrimonial home. The Court further observed that a party who is at fault and has not allowed the marriage to work, cannot claim that the marriage should be dissolved. In the present case, the facts are to the contrary, as already discussed above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 66 - S N Variava - Full Document

Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli on 21 March, 2006

In Naveen Kohli (supra), the Supreme Court observed that cruelty is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. It may be mental or physical. It may be intentional or unintentional. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse. The test is to determine whether it cause reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful and injurious to live with the other - ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may be cases where the conduct complained is bad enough and per se unlawful and illegal. In such cases, the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse may not be enquired into or considered, and cruelty would be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 493 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Parveen Mehta vs Inderjit Mehta on 11 July, 2002

Similarly, in Praveen Mehta (supra) and Samar Ghosh (supra), the Supreme Court observed mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) can broadly be defined as 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. It should be of such nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 291 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007

Similarly, in Praveen Mehta (supra) and Samar Ghosh (supra), the Supreme Court observed mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) can broadly be defined as 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. It should be of such nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 730 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah vs Prabhawati on 19 October, 1956

In Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah (supra) and P. Indira Devi (supra), the Courts have held that two essential conditions must exist for desertion. Firstly, the factum of physical separation and secondly, the animus deserendi. It is evident from the record that no such circumstances existed that compelled the appellant to leave her matrimonial home without the consent of the respondent. The intention of the appellant to leave the company of the respondent is also clearly established. She left the matrimonial home on 12.09.1999 - when the respondent was not even in India, and did not return to the matrimonial home even after he returned on 02.10.1999. She never returned to the matrimonial home even by the time the petition was filed by the respondent on 03.01.2005. If her testimony is MAT.APP. 54/2009 Page 9 of 15 to be believed - that the nephew of the respondent threw her out of her matrimonial home, nothing prevented her from returning to her matrimonial home after the respondent returned from Manchester on 02.10.1999. The contradictions in statements of the appellant create a serious doubt, and her defence cannot be believed. Therefore, the desertion had continued for over two years when the petition was preferred by the respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 62 - B P Sinha - Full Document

P. Indira Devi vs Kumaran on 6 August, 1981

In Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah (supra) and P. Indira Devi (supra), the Courts have held that two essential conditions must exist for desertion. Firstly, the factum of physical separation and secondly, the animus deserendi. It is evident from the record that no such circumstances existed that compelled the appellant to leave her matrimonial home without the consent of the respondent. The intention of the appellant to leave the company of the respondent is also clearly established. She left the matrimonial home on 12.09.1999 - when the respondent was not even in India, and did not return to the matrimonial home even after he returned on 02.10.1999. She never returned to the matrimonial home even by the time the petition was filed by the respondent on 03.01.2005. If her testimony is MAT.APP. 54/2009 Page 9 of 15 to be believed - that the nephew of the respondent threw her out of her matrimonial home, nothing prevented her from returning to her matrimonial home after the respondent returned from Manchester on 02.10.1999. The contradictions in statements of the appellant create a serious doubt, and her defence cannot be believed. Therefore, the desertion had continued for over two years when the petition was preferred by the respondent.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sri Swapan Kr. Ghosh, 79, Shambhu Babu ... vs Smt. Anjali Ghosh, 37/C, Monilal Saha ... on 24 August, 2012

The state of things may, be termed for short the home - Lane v Lane ((1952) 1 All ER 223). Therefore, a Court must look for the existence of two elements to find desertion: first, the factum of physical separation and second, the animus deserendi, that is the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end. These two elements must be present on the part of the deserting spouse and there must be absence of consent as well as absence of conduct reasonably causing the deserting spouse to form his intention to bring cohabitation to an end. Desertion commences from the time the factum of separation and the animus deserendi coincide in point of time. This may be simultaneous or may be at different points of time."
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1