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

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