Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Collector’s Appointment of Ex-Serviceman as Lambardar: Preference for Service to the State Valid Tax to Be Computed at 100% Under DTVSV Act, Rejects Inclusion of Belated Grounds in Disputed Tax: Bombay High Court Petitioner’s Father Did Not Fall Within Definition of Enemy – Kerala High Court Quashes Land Classification Under Enemy Property Act Calcutta High Court Upholds Cancellation of LPG Distributor LOI for Violating Guidelines Recording 'Reasons to Believe' is a Mandatory Safeguard, Not a Mere Formality Under PMLA: P&H High Court Illegality Is Incurable, Unauthorized Constructions Cannot Be Regularized: Bombay High Court Kerala High Court Quashes Tribunal’s Order Granting Retrospective UGC Benefits to Librarians Without Required Qualifications Order XLI Rule 27 CPC | No Evidence Can Be Admitted Beyond Pleadings, And Additional Evidence Cannot Be Allowed Merely To Fill Lacunae: Jharkhand High Court Quashing | Mere Heated Exchanges Over Loan Repayment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Supreme Court Prisoner Transfers Must Prioritize Security and Prevent Gang Violence: Supreme Court Restores Intra-State Transfer Order Jurisdiction Under Section 100 CPC Is Conditional Upon Framing Substantial Questions of Law: Supreme Court Panchayat Election | Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Bar on Judicial Review During Election Process Encroachment Allegation Requires Concrete Evidence, Not Mere Surmises: Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea for Disqualification of Sarpanch Order Denying Permission for Peaceful Protest Rally Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Prolonged Custody Alone Cannot Justify Bail In Cases Involving Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Body Shaming and Sexually Colored Remarks Are Unacceptable In A Civilized Society: Kerala High Court No Mandatory Injunction Where Failure to Prove Ownership and Possession: Punjab and Haryana High Court Supreme Court Dismisses Article 32 Petition Seeking Declaration of Bombay High Court Judgment as Illegal Specific Relief Act | Power to Extend Time Under Section 28 Is Discretionary and Must Be Exercised Prudently: Supreme Court

High Court Reverses Family Court’s Divorce Decree: Restitution of Conjugal Rights Granted, Respondent Directed to Join the Company of the Appellant

05 September 2024 6:07 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment dated November 3, 2023, the High Court set aside a previous ruling by the Family Court which granted a divorce decree on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The High Court’s decision came after a detailed examination of the evidence presented, which they found insufficient to support the allegations made by the respondent husband.

The bench, comprising Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman and Hon’ble Smt. Justice K. Sujana, emphasized the significance of family and the conjugal rights of the parties involved. The court observed, “The marriage between the parties has become unworkable, and the proper and logical step forward is to formalize such deep schism of hearts by dissolution of their marriage to enable each of them to start afresh in life.” However, upon scrutiny, the justices found that these assertions were not supported by solid evidence and that the Family Court’s conclusions were based on assumptions rather than facts.

During the trial, the appellant wife’s readiness to join her husband in the USA and her forced resignation from her job after the marriage were points that the Family Court had overlooked. The High Court took a different stance, recognizing the wife’s willingness to reconcile as a crucial factor in the case.

The High Court also criticized the procedural conduct of the respondent’s father, who was a judicial officer, for the manner in which the divorce petition was filed. The court’s decision underscored the importance of adhering to judicial propriety and fairness in legal proceedings.

The High Court’s ruling has directed the respondent husband to join the company of the appellant wife within one month from the receipt of the court order, thus granting the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

Legal experts note that this judgment has reiterated the legal system’s commitment to uphold the sanctity of marriage and the importance of providing substantial evidence when claiming grievances such as cruelty and desertion.

Representing the appellant wife, Mr. Kowturu Pavan Kumar expressed satisfaction with the High Court’s decision, stating that justice had been served. On the other hand, Mr. Vedula Srinivas, representing the respondent husband, has yet to make a public comment on the outcome.

This ruling is expected to have significant implications for Family Law jurisprudence and serves as a precedent for future cases involving marital disputes.

Date of Decision: 03.11.2023

 K_Anurupa_Hyd_ VS K_Rama_Krishna

Similar News