Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

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