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 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

Latest Legal News