“The spouse having reasonable capacity of earning but chooses to remain unemployed without indicating sincere efforts to gain employment, should not be permitted to saddle other party with one sided responsibility of meeting out expenses.”
“Considering the undisputed status of wife’s residency in Australia, the provisions of Section 19 of the Act would not come to her rescue.”
The impugned order held that the fathers of the parties were real brothers and so, the marriage between the parties fell within the meaning of sub-clause (f) of Section 3 of Hindu Marriage Act, which defines the terms of degrees of prohibited relationships.
“Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not meant to create an Army of idle people waiting for a dole to be awarded by the other spouse.”
Supreme Court said that while acting as counsel or advocates or in their capacity as advocates, the advocates cannot undertake or volunteer to solemnize marriages. However, in their capacity as friends or relatives of the intending spouses, their role as witnesses cannot be ruled out.
“What is cruelty for a woman, may not be cruelty for a man, and hence, a more elastic and broad approach is required when a wife seeks divorce.”
“Scrupulous adherence to Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 can curtail litigation like the present one, which aside from clogging the litigation also keeps the parties embroiled in litigation with a false hope of some relief.”
“False allegations of illicit relationship are the ultimate kind of cruelty as it reflects a complete breakdown of trust and faith amongst the spouses without which no matrimonial relationship can survive.”
“Developing any disease during the continuation of marriage is not within the control of any spouse. In such a situation, the other spouse has a marital duty to co-operate and bear with it and help the other spouse.”
When the husband had left the matrimonial home and he is residing away and there is an allegation of second marriage on the husband, the wife cannot be blamed for not taking steps to restore the conjugal rights
Noting the husband’s interest in watching videos by Sisters of Brahmakumari, which eventually led to non-consummation of his marriage, the Court was of the view that this situation does not fall under the scheme of S. 498-A, IPC.
This ruling is significant in the light of the judgment dated 01-05-2023, wherein the Constitution Bench had held that the Supreme Court has the power to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India.
The right of privacy claimed by the husband vis-à-vis the prayer of the wife to seek assistance of the Court for production of records to substantiate her charge of adultery levelled against the husband in her petition seeking divorce was the question before the Delhi High Court.
Supreme Court observed that in cases where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitation, then continuation of such a ‘marriage' would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other.
Delhi High Court observed that an ex parte decree of divorce also it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again if no appeal is filed against such decree within the period of limitation.
The Supreme Court also held that the mandatory waiting period of 6 months for divorce by mutual consent can be dispensed subject to requirements and conditions laid down in previous Supreme Court judgments.
Petitioner contended that they were entitled to the Fundamental Right to marry which was entrenched in the Constitution which includes the choice of a marital partner. Neither the State nor Society could intrude into the domain of individual right to pursue a way of life which were central to their identity and autonomy.
Keeping regard with the trend of rising prices and the basic needs getting costlier, the Punjab and Haryana High Court said that maintenance awarded by the Trial Court could not be said to be on a higher side.
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Sunita Agarwal and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ. dismissed and appeal on the admission stage itself