Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

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

 

Similar News