Husband’s conviction for murder constitutes mental cruelty; wife entitled to divorce: MP High Court
“No wife can live in the matrimonial relationship with the person who is so short-tampered and impulsive turned criminal.”
“No wife can live in the matrimonial relationship with the person who is so short-tampered and impulsive turned criminal.”
MP High Court asserted that while physical cruelty ceased after leaving the matrimonial house, the psychological impact of separation and the trauma induced by dowry demands persisted.
Making derogatory complaints against spouse demonstrate lack of mutual respect and goodwill, which is crucial for a healthy marriage and merely by stating that such complaints are made after parties had separated, in no manner absolves a spouse from the guilt of committing cruelty on the receiving end.
The Family Judge has erred in analyzing the life of the parties by taking a myopic view and by considering each incident as an independent window, when in fact it is the journey of the parties through their matrimonial life, which is determinative of their compatibility, progressiveness, and growth.
A wife’s withdrawal from matrimonial relationship unilaterally without any reason thereby depriving husband of conjugal bliss, since October 2013 till date, can only be inferred as an act of cruelty.
Howsoever abysmal the differences maybe between the spouses, but in no realm can the act of the aggrieved spouse of igniting animosity and hostility in the minor child in an attempt to use the child as a weapon to get even with their spouse, could be justifiable.
Kerala High Court explained that “Cruelty consists of acts which are dangerous to life, limb or health. Cruelty may be physical or mental.”
Justice Ritu Bahri took oath of office as the 13th Chief Justice of Uttaranchal High Court on 04-02-2024.
“Pressurizing spouse to fulfil distant and whimsical dreams clearly not within his financial reach may create a sense of persistent dissatisfaction which would be sufficient mental strain to drain the contentment and tranquillity out of any married life.”
“Alleging character assassination and to say that the husband shall be removed from service and further filing of domestic violence while alleging that the husband is in adultery, fornication, are serious allegations touching the character of respective persons.”
The wife’s intentional decision to leave the mater uncontested shows her desire that court should pass decree of divorce even at the cost of holding her guilty of matrimonial offence as she knows that no harm could be caused to her even if she is held to have treated the husband with cruelty because she has already obtained sufficient favourable orders from the Federal Circuit and Family Court in Australia.
“The child has not only been totally alienated, but has also been used as a weapon against the father. Nothing can be more painful for a parent to see the child drifting away and being totally against the father.”
“Their marriage had a rocky start and unfortunately, differences and the mistrust which got generated in the beginning did not let their relationship flourish further.”
“The concept of maintenance grant was to ensure that the wife and the children of the husband were not left in a state of destitution after the divorce .”
“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.”
Allahabad High Court said that the Court below has adopted a hyper technical approach and passed the dismissal of the husband’s divorce petition
Kerala High Court: While adjudicating a divorce case, the Division Bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque and Sophy Thomas*, JJ., raised
Kerala High Court: In a divorce case, Anil K. Narendran and C. S. Sudha, JJ., held that constant and repeated taunts by
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of V. M. Velumani and S. Sounthar, JJ. granted divorce as sought by the appellant-husband on
Punjab & Haryana High Court: While deciding an appeal arising from a divorce petition, the bench of Ritu Bahri, J. and Meenakshi