Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

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

 

Similar News