Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

Epilepsy is Not a Ground for Divorce: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reaffirms in Dismissal of Appeal

01 November 2024 1:06 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


High Court upholds Family Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of substantial evidence in claims of cruelty and desertion.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Sunil Kumar seeking the dissolution of his marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The court upheld the judgment of the Family Court, which had dismissed Kumar’s petition, emphasizing that the respondent’s medical condition and behavior did not meet the legal criteria for divorce.
Sunil Kumar married Anjana Devi on November 28, 2004. Kumar filed a petition for annulment and dissolution of the marriage under Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but it was dismissed by the District Judge, Hamirpur, on May 10, 2010. He withdrew his subsequent appeal in 2017, reserving the right to pursue other legal remedies. On February 15, 2018, Kumar filed another petition seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, which was dismissed by the Family Court on December 30, 2023.
The High Court highlighted the lack of medical evidence to support Kumar’s claim that Devi’s epilepsy constituted grounds for divorce. The court noted, “Epilepsy is not an incurable disease or a mental disorder that warrants the dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”
Kumar alleged that Devi had a habit of smoking, drinking, and consuming drugs, and that she left the matrimonial home in 2006. However, the Family Court found no evidence to support these claims. The High Court concurred, stating, “There is no evidence to suggest that the respondent engaged in smoking, drinking, or drug use.”
The Family Court had observed that Kumar admitted to not seeing his daughter since her birth and failing to provide medical evidence of Devi’s epilepsy. The High Court reinforced this finding, emphasizing the appellant’s failure to substantiate his claims with credible evidence.
The High Court reiterated the principles laid out in Harish @ Roshan Karnewar vs. Leelavati @ Reena Karnewar, stating that epilepsy is not a basis for divorce. The judgment also noted that Devi had not deserted Kumar and that she was willing to reconcile and live with him. The court observed, “The plea of irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be a ground for dissolution of marriage.”
Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao remarked, “The condition of ‘epilepsy’ does not constitute an incurable disease or mental disorder as grounds for divorce. The appellant’s claims of cruelty and desertion lack credible evidence and appear to be an attempt to advantage his own wrong.”

The High Court’s decision to dismiss the appeal reinforces the judiciary’s stance on maintaining stringent standards for granting divorce. By affirming the Family Court’s findings, the judgment underscores the necessity of substantial evidence in cases of alleged cruelty and desertion. This ruling is expected to have significant implications for future matrimonial disputes, particularly those involving medical conditions and unproven allegations of misconduct.

Date of Decision: July 16, 2024
Sunil Kumar vs. Anjana Devi

 

Latest Legal News