MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Financial Control Over Wife Constitutes Cruelty Sufficient to Dissolve Marriage: MP High Court Upholds Divorce Decree

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant decision by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, the appeal of Pawan Kumar against the Family Court’s grant of divorce to his wife on the grounds of cruelty was dismissed. The Court found substantial evidence of physical and mental cruelty inflicted by the appellant on his wife, justifying the termination of the marital relationship.

The appeal was lodged under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against a Family Court decision from December 2022, which granted a divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The main legal issue revolved around whether the trial court erred in interpreting and applying the law on cruelty as grounds for divorce.

The marriage, solemnized in April 2002, deteriorated over allegations of misrepresentation and financial exploitation by the husband, Pawan Kumar, who claimed to be a Chartered Accountant without holding such a qualification. Following extensive testimony and documentation, including abusive incidents and financial control over the respondent wife who is a doctor by profession, the trial court found these acts constituted cruelty sufficient to dissolve the marriage.

The High Court meticulously reassessed the evidence and testimonies provided during the trial. It highlighted instances such as the husband’s misuse of the wife’s earnings, aggressive behavior, and manipulative control over her professional and personal life. The appellant's conduct was deemed harmful enough to create an apprehensive environment for the respondent, undermining any possibility of cohabitation.

Detailed evaluation of incidents reported by the wife, supported by witnesses, which pointed to consistent patterns of abusive and controlling behavior by the husband.

Acknowledgment of the wife’s efforts to reconcile and the husband’s consistent undermining of these efforts, further emphasizing the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

The High Court concluded that the evidence upheld the trial court’s findings of cruelty and that the marital relationship had irretrievably broken down, leaving no grounds to challenge the divorce decree. Thus, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the divorce granted to the wife.

Date of Decision: 8th April 2024.

Xxx vs. xxx

 

Latest Legal News