Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“If the girl is not a major and has eloped with a person and expresses fear of life if her custody is given back to her parents, then the Court shall send her to appropriate shelter home where her interest could be best taken care of till she becomes a major.”
Madras High Court said that the wife was always ready and willing to live with the husband along with two children. It is the husband, who is running away from the matrimonial home without discharging his duty and responsibility as a husband.
Madras High Court held that the period of treatment the wife has taken from the parental home cannot be termed as desertion.
“It is evident that the fight inter se the parties was not on any justifiable grounds, but was a war between the egos prompted by the desire to wreak vengeance against the spouse.”
Corporate Laws — Company Law — Winding up and Liquidation — Overriding preferential payments: Dues towards customs duty i.e. government dues falling
“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.
Given the expansive amplitude of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, the exercise of power must be legitimate, and clamours for caution, mindful of the danger that arises from adopting an individualistic approach as to the exercise of the Constitutional power, observed the Supreme Court