Tripura High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Tripura High Court: The Division Bench of S. Talapatra and S.G. Chattopadhyay, JJ. dismissed an appeal which was filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the judgment by the Additional District Judge declining to grant the divorce and consequently dismissing the suit. It was observed that case did not reflect any such situation which can demand the dissolution of marriage between the petitioner [the appellant and the respondent].

Mr B. Debbarma, counsel appearing for the appellant contended that while returning the said finding, the Additional District Judge had appreciated the evidence perversely as he did not read the evidence properly. If the evidence was read properly, it would have been apparent that the appellant had established the incidence of cruelty that she suffered during her stay with the respondent. It was also submitted that appellant and the respondent were living separately since 14-04-2016 and as such, that constituted desertion as the marital tie had been irretrievably shattered.

Respondent resisting the plea had made categorical statement in his written statement that he intended to take back the appellant for reconstruction of the matrimonial life and had refused on the ground that she was tortured in the matrimonial home.

Mr S. Lodh, counsel appearing for the respondent had pointedly argued that even if the entire story of the appellant was believed, the suit was wholly based on one incidence of 14-04-2016. Even, that incident had been disbelieved by the Additional District Judge for the reason that there was no evidence relating to the attending circumstances.

The Court scrutinized the evidence and was of the view that there was no reliable evidence either for proving the cruelty or desertion. It was found by the Court that it was the appellant who was not ready to continue the marital life and she had left the matrimonial home by advancing a pretext. The Court believed that they were unable to approve this kind of matrimonial conduct or filing a suit for divorce on such coloured narrative.

The appeal was dismissed holding that if the parties were unable to live together, they have other remedies but as the grounds of cruelty and desertion have been left unproved plea of divorce cannot lie.[Smrita Singha v. Sankar Chakraborty, 2022 SCC OnLine Tri 154, decided on 24-03-2022]


Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: A Single judge bench comprising of Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. partly allowed a civil writ petition directing no parental interference in the marital life of petitioner.

The petitioner’s case is that she and her husband are adults and living together out of their own free will. The private respondents – family members of the petitioner’s husband – who did not approve of their marriage, were constantly harassing and threatening them and as such a serious danger was posed to their lives. It is in this factual background that the petitioner preferred the instant writ petition praying for a direction to the private respondents to not interfere in her married life and also for the protection of her and her husband’s life and liberty. In order to lend credence to their averments, the petitioner submitted a copy of her and her husband’s Aadhar cards as proof of their age along with a copy of online application submitted to register their marriage.

Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Gian Devi v Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi ,(1976) 3 SCC 234, the court observed that the law on the aforesaid factual matrix was no longer res integra and there were a catena of decisions holding that where a boy and a girl have attained the age of majority and are living together out of their own free will then nobody, not even their parents, has the authority to interfere with their liberty to live together.

The writ petition was disposed of holding that the petitioner was at liberty to live with her husband and that no person should be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living. In case any disturbance was caused in their peaceful living then the petitioners would have the liberty to approach the concerned police authority who shall provide immediate protection to them. Though no notice was issued to the private respondents, the court granted them liberty to file an application for recall of the present order in case the documents brought on record by the petitioner were forged or fabricated. [Shahin Bano v State of Uttar Pradesh,2018 SCC OnLine All 1346, decided on 20-09-2018]