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

False Dowry Complaint Alone Does Not Constitute Cruelty’ in Divorce: Madras High Court ‘”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Madras High Court dismisses husband’s appeal, emphasizing lack of evidence in claims of cruelty and desertion under Section 55 of The Divorce Act, 1869.

The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal by a husband seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The judgment, delivered by Justices R. Subramanian and R. Sakthivel, affirms the lower court’s decision, stressing the necessity for concrete evidence to substantiate claims of marital cruelty and desertion.

In Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 710 of 2014, A. Raja @ Moses Rajan (Appellant/Petitioner) challenged the dismissal of his divorce petition by the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu. Filed in IDOP No. 165 of 2003, the petition cited cruelty and desertion by his wife, R. Santhosham (Respondent). The appellant alleged that his wife lodged a false dowry complaint and refused to live with him, constituting cruelty and desertion.

Allegations of Cruelty: The appellant argued that the respondent’s dowry complaint constituted cruelty. However, the court found no evidence to support this allegation. “The petitioner has neither produced the copy of the complaint nor taken steps to send for the complaint from All Women Police Station,” the judgment noted. Furthermore, the court observed that the respondent’s complaint aimed at reconciliation rather than prosecution, thus filing the complaint did not amount to cruelty.

Evidence of Desertion: The appellant also claimed that the respondent deserted him by refusing to live with him. The court found insufficient evidence to support this claim, highlighting the respondent’s efforts to reconcile and live with the appellant. “The evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 would show that the respondent has tried to reconcile and live with the petitioner, however, the petitioner did not accept the respondent for reasons best known to him,” the court observed.

The judgment underscored the principles governing cruelty and desertion in matrimonial disputes. It reiterated that allegations of cruelty must be substantiated with significant evidence. “In the absence of proof that the respondent filed a false dowry demand complaint, the act of filing a complaint for reconciliation cannot be deemed cruelty,” the court stated. Regarding desertion, the court emphasized the need to establish ‘animus deserendi’ (intention to desert), which the appellant failed to prove.

Justice R. Sakthivel remarked, “The petitioner miserably failed to establish ‘animus deserendi’ of the respondent. In view of the evidence of the respondent, the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent caused cruelty to him and that she alone deserted him.”The dismissal of the appeal by the Madras High Court highlights the judiciary’s demand for robust evidence in matrimonial disputes. This judgment reinforces the necessity for concrete proof in claims of cruelty and desertion, setting a significant precedent for future cases under The Divorce Act, 1869.

Date of Decision: April 30, 2024

Raja @ Moses Rajan vs. R. Santhosham

Similar News