Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.24 seconds)
Lalit Kumar Mehta vs Sanjeeta on 12 July, 2018 cites

Madhavi Ramesh Dudani vs Ramesh K. Dudani on 13 March, 2000

98. In a judgment dated October 21, 2016 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 36/2014 Sandhya Kumari vs. Manish Kumar the Delhi High Court had noted that though irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce, but in the judgments reported as 2006 (2) Mh.L.J.307 Madhvi Ramesh Dudani vs. Ramesh K.Dudani, 2007 (4) KHC 807 Shrikumar V.Unnithan vs.Manju K.Nair, (1994) 1 SCC 337 V.Bhagat vs. D.Bhagat and (2006) 4 SCC 558 Navin Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli the concept of cruelty has been blended by the Courts with irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The ratio of law which emerges from said decisions is that where there is evidence that the husband and wife indulge in mutual bickering, leading to remonstration and therefrom to the stage where they target each other mentally, insistence by one to retain the matrimonial bond would be a relevant factor to decide on the issue of cruelty, for the reason the obvious intention of said spouse would be to continue (32 of 32) [CMA-204/2002] with the marriage not to enjoy the bliss thereof but to torment and traumatize the other.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli on 21 March, 2006

98. In a judgment dated October 21, 2016 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 36/2014 Sandhya Kumari vs. Manish Kumar the Delhi High Court had noted that though irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce, but in the judgments reported as 2006 (2) Mh.L.J.307 Madhvi Ramesh Dudani vs. Ramesh K.Dudani, 2007 (4) KHC 807 Shrikumar V.Unnithan vs.Manju K.Nair, (1994) 1 SCC 337 V.Bhagat vs. D.Bhagat and (2006) 4 SCC 558 Navin Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli the concept of cruelty has been blended by the Courts with irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The ratio of law which emerges from said decisions is that where there is evidence that the husband and wife indulge in mutual bickering, leading to remonstration and therefrom to the stage where they target each other mentally, insistence by one to retain the matrimonial bond would be a relevant factor to decide on the issue of cruelty, for the reason the obvious intention of said spouse would be to continue (32 of 32) [CMA-204/2002] with the marriage not to enjoy the bliss thereof but to torment and traumatize the other.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 493 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Sandhya Kumari vs Manish Kumar on 17 May, 2018

98. In a judgment dated October 21, 2016 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 36/2014 Sandhya Kumari vs. Manish Kumar the Delhi High Court had noted that though irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce, but in the judgments reported as 2006 (2) Mh.L.J.307 Madhvi Ramesh Dudani vs. Ramesh K.Dudani, 2007 (4) KHC 807 Shrikumar V.Unnithan vs.Manju K.Nair, (1994) 1 SCC 337 V.Bhagat vs. D.Bhagat and (2006) 4 SCC 558 Navin Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli the concept of cruelty has been blended by the Courts with irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The ratio of law which emerges from said decisions is that where there is evidence that the husband and wife indulge in mutual bickering, leading to remonstration and therefrom to the stage where they target each other mentally, insistence by one to retain the matrimonial bond would be a relevant factor to decide on the issue of cruelty, for the reason the obvious intention of said spouse would be to continue (32 of 32) [CMA-204/2002] with the marriage not to enjoy the bliss thereof but to torment and traumatize the other.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1