Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Appeal for Dissolution of Marriage on Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, recently delivered a judgment dismissing an appeal (FAO No. 437 of 2010) seeking the dissolution of a marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The case was heard by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya.

In the appeal, the husband, Nain Sukh, had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking the dissolution of his marriage with the respondent, Seema Devi. However, the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, had dismissed the petition.

The court observed that the allegations of cruelty made by the husband were vague and general, lacking specific instances to support the claim. Furthermore, the court noted that the husband had failed to comply with the rules requiring allegations of cruelty to be specified with sufficient particularity.

The burden of proof was on the petitioner, the husband, to establish the allegations of cruelty. However, the evidence presented by the husband and his witnesses was deemed insufficient by the court. On the other hand, the court found that the wife had a justifiable ground to live separately, as she alleged that the husband had married another woman and had children from that relationship. This allegation was supported by unchallenged evidence.

Additionally, the court held that the ground of desertion was not proved as it had not been specifically pleaded and the necessary jurisdictional facts were missing from the petition.

Based on these findings, the High Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that there was no merit in the husband's case.

Decided on : 02.06.2023

Nain Sukh vs Seema Devi 

Latest Legal News