138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

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