Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

High Court Grants Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty - Allegations of Serious Nature Proven.

04 September 2024 10:02 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking ruling, the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, has granted a divorce decree to Smt. Pradnya, emphasizing that "allegations of cruelty referred supra are of serious in nature and consistent." The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S G Pandit and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil, sets a significant precedent for cases involving marital cruelty.

The case, titled Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 103166 of 2022, centered around the allegations made by Smt. Pradnya against her husband. The appellant-wife alleged that after their marriage in July 2017, Shri Shivakumar Hiremath began subjecting her to mental and physical cruelty. According to the judgment, the respondent-husband would "come to the house at late hours by consuming alcohol, quarrel with the appellant every day" and engage in abusive behavior.

The court documents reveal distressing details of the alleged mistreatment. The appellant-wife stated that her husband "put cloth in the mouth of the appellant, pulled her hair and insisted for bringing dowry" and "insisted for forceful sex every day." The respondent also expressed dissatisfaction upon learning about her pregnancy, stating he was "worrying whether the appellant would give birth to male or female child" and emphasizing that she should give birth to a male child only.

Despite her ill health during pregnancy, the appellant-wife claimed that neither the respondent nor his family members provided any assistance with household work. After the birth of their female child, the respondent allegedly refused to take responsibility and demanded that the child be left at the in-laws' house. These incidents, coupled with continuous mental harassment and cruelty, led the appellant-wife to seek dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty.

The court, after careful scrutiny of the pleadings and evidence, concluded that the allegations of cruelty were "specific assertions of cruelty referred supra" and were not properly disputed or contradicted by the respondent-husband. The court cited legal precedents to emphasize that when a party fails to cross-examine witnesses or adduce evidence, the statements of witnesses are considered true.

Setting aside the earlier judgment of the family court, the High Court granted a decree of divorce, stating, "the appellant has proved the grounds of cruelty to dissolve the marriage." The judgment highlighted the seriousness of the allegations and the consistent nature of the cruelty from the beginning of the marriage until the appellant-wife started living with her parents.

This landmark judgment showcases the court's commitment to protecting individuals facing cruelty within a marital relationship and will have far-reaching implications for future divorce cases involving similar circumstances.

Date of Decision: June 30, 2023                 

SMT. PRADNYA VS . ABHIJIT WAINGANKAR

Latest Legal News