Mere Unwanted Staring At A Woman's Chest In Office Does Not Constitute Voyeurism Under Section 354-C IPC: Bombay High Court State Cannot Justify Espionage FIR Based Solely On Custodial Disclosure Without Corroborative Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Mere Issuance Of Letter Of Intent Without Formal Work Order Does Not Create Concluded Contract Or Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Modify Terms Of Compromise Decree Merely Because Implementation Is Impracticable: Supreme Court Adjudicating Authority Only Needs To Check For 'Plausible' Pre-Existing Dispute Under Section 9 IBC, Not Its Success On Merits: Supreme Court Arguing Against Settled Law To Show Skill Wastes Court Time; Giving Up Such Arguments A Professional Virtue: Supreme Court Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC Is Computed From Date Of Filing Complaint, Not Date Of Cognizance: Supreme Court MSCS Act | Co-operative Society Can't Acquire Corporate Debtor Under IBC If Not In 'Same Line Of Business' As Per Its Bye-Laws: Supreme Court Multi-State Co-op Societies Can Only Invest In Entities With Substantially Similar Core Business Under Bye-Laws: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Usurp Governor's Statutory Discretion To Grant Extraordinary Pension Under 1981 Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Can Challenge Non-Appealable Interlocutory Orders In Final Appeal Under Section 105 CPC: Supreme Court Plaintiff Cannot File Fresh Suit For Title If Relief Was Omitted In Earlier Injunction Suit Arising From Same Dispute: Supreme Court Plaintiff's Failure To Enter Witness Box Draws Rebuttable Presumption, Not Fatal To Suit If Rebutted By Cogent Evidence: Supreme Court Sale Deeds Executed During Pendency Of Specific Performance Suit Hit By Doctrine Of Lis Pendens: Supreme Court EWS Certificates Must Relate To Correct Financial Year; Courts Should Not Routinely Interfere In Online Recruitment Rejections: Supreme Court Court Can Lift 'Veil Of Partnership' To Evict Tenants Using Reconstitution As Cloak For Unlawful Sub-Letting: Supreme Court State Cannot Fix Lower Dearness Relief Rate For Pensioners Than Dearness Allowance For Serving Employees: Supreme Court Prolonged Separation Indicates Matrimonial Bond Broken Beyond Repair: Supreme Court Upholds Divorce Over Wife's Cruelty Right To Contest Elections Distinct From Right To Vote, Co-Operative Societies Can Set Threshold Eligibility Conditions: Supreme Court Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Party Withholding Best Evidence, Has No Duty To Seek Production: Supreme Court Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme 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