Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme Court

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