Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)

Munish Kakkar vs Nidhi Kakkar on 17 December, 2019

13. Under similar circumstances, this Court in R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha3, Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar4 and Neha Tyagi v. Lieutenant Colonel Deepak Tyagi5 has held that an irretrievable marriage is a marriage where husband and wife have been living separately for a 2 (2013) 5 SCC 226 3 (2019) 9 SCC 409 4 (2020) 14 SCC 657 5 (2022) 3 SCC 86 Page 9 of 17 considerable period and there is absolutely no chance of their living together again. In all the above cited three cases, this Court in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India has dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown as a ground, which otherwise does not exist under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 16 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007

17. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act. All the same, the context where it has been used, which is as a ground for dissolution of a marriage would show that it has to 7 Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Page 13 of 17 be seen as a ‘human conduct’ and ‘behavior” in a matrimonial relationship. While dealing in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra) this Court opined that cruelty can be physical as well as mental: ­ “46…If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. 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 on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 730 - D Bhandari - Full Document
1   2 Next