Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court Election Petition Must Be Presented By Petitioner In Person, Non-Compliance Renders It Liable To Summary Dismissal: Supreme Court Absence Of Recovery Or Evidence Of Stolen Property Precludes Conviction Under Section 394 IPC: 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