Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: Bombay High Court

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