IBC Moratorium Under Part III Does Not Shield Directors From Personal Criminal Liability In Cheque Bounce Cases U/S 138 NI: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act Is Predominantly Criminal; IBC Moratorium Stays Recovery Of Compensation But Not Prosecution: Supreme Court Refers To 3-Judge Bench Bus Driver Not Negligent If Vehicle Moved Based On Conductor's Whistle; Not Expected To Look Back For Alighting Passengers: Supreme Court Compassionate Assistance Received By Widow Cannot Be Deducted To Negate Compensation Payable To Dependent Mother Ineligible For Such Benefit: Supreme Court Section 37 Jurisdiction Is A Narrowing Pyramid; Courts Should Not Reopen Settled Jurisdictional Issues: Supreme Court Arbitration Award Passed Without Court Leave During Pendency Of Suit Is Unenforceable Under 1940 Act: Supreme Court Notice In Mutation Proceedings Constitutes Constructive Notice Of Probate; Revocation Plea Barred By Limitation: Supreme Court Breach Of Position Limits Is A Regulatory Infraction, Not Automatic Market Fraud; Supreme Court Sets Aside Reliance RPL Disgorgement Order Mere Breach Of Position Limits Not 'Fraud' Under PFUTP Regulations Unless Manipulation Or Inducement Is Proven: Supreme Court SC Awards ₹11 Lakh Compensation To Convict For 24-Day Delay In Release; Says State Must 'Obey First, Appeal Later' Compensation For Village Fazalwas Land Acquisition No Longer Res Integra; Supreme Court Dismisses Enhancement Claim Citing Previous Precedent Uncommunicated Adverse Remarks Cannot Form Basis To Terminate Probationer; Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Employer Cannot Use 'Unsatisfactory Performance' As Guise To Bypass Disciplinary Inquiry For Misconduct: Supreme Court Statutory Body Cannot Act As Both Investigator And Judge; Adjudicatory Process Must Be Neutrally Conducted: Supreme Court Removal Of Mathadhipati Vitiated If Relied-Upon Documents Not Supplied; Service By Affixation On Seized Premises Is A Legal Absurdity: Supreme Court Serving Notice By Affixing It To Door Of Premises Already Seized By State Is A Legal Absurdity: Supreme Court Initiating Criminal Case After Final Settlement Of Loan Account Is An Abuse Of Process; Sanctity Of OTS Must Be Protected: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Under Sections 420 & 471 IPC Cannot Continue After Bank Loan Settlement Approved By DRT: Supreme Court RTE Act: Use Of 'Teacher' In Section 23 Shows Intent To Make TET Mandatory For In-Service Staff, Not Retrospective: Supreme Court Service Of Teachers Cannot Come At Cost Of Educational Future Of Children: Supreme Court Extends TET Deadline To 2028 Right To Know Biological Father Prevails Over Right To Privacy; DNA Test Can Be Ordered To Resolve Paternity: Supreme Court DNA | Child’s Right To Identity & Closure Outweighs Putative Father’s Right To Privacy In Paternity Disputes: Supreme Court Approver’s Testimony Doesn’t Require Corroboration Of Every Material Circumstance; Rule Of Prudence Requires Only Connecting Link To Accused: Supreme Court Conspirator Liable For All 'Reasonably Foreseeable' Crimes Committed By Others In Furtherance Of Conspiracy: Supreme Court Rent Enhancement Orders Under UP Rent Act Must Apply Retrospectively From Date Of Filing Application: Supreme Court High Court Can’t Enhance Rent Under Article 227 Based On Mere Statements Without Evidence; Power To Be Exercised Sparingly: Supreme Court Parrot Testimony | Verbatim Repetition Of Allegations In Child's Statement Indicates Tutoring; POCSO Complaint Filed As 'Counter-Blast' Liable To Be Quashed: Supreme Court Matrimonial Disputes Often Witness Vague POCSO Allegations To Settle Personal Scores: Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Husband & In-Laws

Continuous Desertion without Reasonable Cause Justifies Divorce: Supreme Court Dissolves 25-Year-Old Marriage

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court Orders ₹30 Lakh Lump Sum Alimony to Respondent

The Supreme Court of India has dissolved a 25-year-old marriage on the grounds of desertion, overturning a previous High Court decision. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasized the continuous desertion by the respondent despite the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The judgment also includes a provision for a ₹30 lakh lump sum alimony to the respondent as a full and final settlement of maintenance claims.

The appellant-husband and respondent-wife were married on March 25, 1999, and have been separated since 2008. They have two adult children. The matrimonial discord began in 2006, leading to multiple litigations. The appellant filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in 2008, which was granted in 2013. Despite the decree, the respondent did not resume cohabitation, prompting the appellant to file for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion in 2013. The Family Court granted the divorce in 2016, but the High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside this decree in 2019.

The Supreme Court noted that the respondent failed to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Barnala, on May 15, 2013. The High Court had affirmed this decree on February 19, 2015, finding the respondent had left the appellant without reasonable cause.

The Supreme Court found that the respondent continuously deserted the appellant since December 2006. Despite the decree for restitution, there was no effort from the respondent to resume cohabitation. The court highlighted that desertion for a continuous period of not less than two years preceding the presentation of the petition is a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The court emphasized that the respondent's failure to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights for over a year validated the appellant’s claim for divorce on the ground of desertion. "The decree for restitution of conjugal rights was confirmed on 19th February 2015, and admittedly, the respondent did not resume cohabitation thereafter," the court noted.

Justice Abhay S. Oka remarked, "The desertion of the appellant at least from 2008 till the date of filing the divorce petition in 2013 continued without any reasonable cause. Therefore, a decree for divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) ought to have been passed."

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of compliance with judicial decrees in matrimonial disputes. By dissolving the marriage on the grounds of desertion and ordering a substantial lump sum alimony, the court has provided a clear precedent for future cases involving prolonged desertion and non-compliance with restitution decrees. This judgment not only resolves a long-standing dispute but also highlights the judiciary's role in addressing the breakdown of marital relationships.

 

Date of Decision: July 8, 2024

X vs. Y

Latest Legal News