Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded From Compassionate Appointment Solely On The Ground Of Marriage: Chhattisgarh High Court Allahabad HC Condemns Lawyers Seeking Adjournments To Attend District Courts Inherent Powers Under Section 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked For Restoration Of Possession When Statutory Remedy Of Restitution Exists: Calcutta High Court Invoke Preventive Detention Laws Against Sand Mining Kingpins: Supreme Court Directs ED Probe To Protect Chambal Sanctuary Res Judicata Bars Pendente Lite Purchaser From Re-Agitating Impleadment Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC If Rejected Under Order I Rule 10: Supreme Court Consumer Complaints Can Continue Against Promoters & Co-Developers Even If Corporate Debtor Is Under IBC Moratorium: Supreme Court IBC Moratorium Protects Only Corporate Debtor, Does Not Bar Consumer Complaints Against Promoters & Directors: Supreme Court Vehicle Registration Certificate Relevant But Not Conclusive For Deciding Interim Custody Under Section 451 CrPC: Supreme Court Lawyer Has No Unqualified Right To Continuous Presence During Entire Interrogation Under Section 38 BNSS: Supreme Court Mandating Continuous Videography Of Accused During Transit Is Unworkable, May Lead To Unfounded Allegations: Supreme Court Centre Introduces FCRA Amendment Bill 2026: Proposes Vesting Of Defunct NGO Assets In 'Designated Authority', Mandates Prior Nod For Probe Written Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Not Mandatory For Arrests Prior To SC's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Judgment: Orissa High Court Passing Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Without Verifying Status Of WhatsApp Or Email Notice Violates Natural Justice: Madhya Pradesh High Court Training ChatGPT On Copyrighted News Is 'Fair Dealing', Does Not Amount To Infringement: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enjoin OpenAI Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rethinking Access to Justice: Proposing a Client-Choice Bar-Integrated Model as a Viable Alternative to the LADC System Delhi Police Grants Permission To Advocates To Protest At Jantar Mantar On August 7 Over LADC Concerns Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

High Court Rules Cruelty Sufficient for Divorce, Sets Aside Restitution of Conjugal Rights Decree"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Cruelty Alone Warrants Divorce, Says High Court, Setting Aside Family Court's Dismissal of Divorce Petition and Restitution Decree.

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has overturned a Family Court decision, granting a divorce to Dr. Bijoy Kundu on grounds of cruelty by his wife, Smt. Piu Kundu. The judgment, delivered by Justices Rajan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla, emphasized that cruelty alone is a sufficient ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, even in the absence of desertion. The court also set aside the Family Court's decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the wife.

Dr. Bijoy Kundu and Smt. Piu Kundu were married on November 27, 1986, and had two sons. Dr. Kundu filed for divorce in 2012, citing cruelty and desertion by his wife. He alleged that Smt. Kundu mistreated him, including locking him in a toilet, verbally abusing his parents, and refusing to cohabit with him since 2003. Concurrently, Smt. Kundu filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court dismissed Dr. Kundu's divorce suit while decreeing Smt. Kundu's suit for restitution of conjugal rights, despite finding that cruelty had been proven.

Credibility of Medical Evidence: The High Court underscored that the Family Court's finding of cruelty was unchallenged and should have warranted a divorce. "Cruelty alone is sufficient ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act," the court noted.

Witness Testimonies: The court observed that the Family Court's findings on cruelty were supported by evidence, including admissions by Smt. Kundu in cross-examination and documentary evidence. The Family Court had detailed instances of cruelty, including false allegations of infidelity and locking Dr. Kundu in a toilet.

The High Court clarified that each ground for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act is independent. "The grounds for divorce under Section 13(1) are mutually exclusive and disjunctive. Proving cruelty alone suffices for granting a divorce," the court stated. It was erroneous for the Family Court to dismiss the divorce petition simply because desertion was not proven.

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: The High Court also noted the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, citing over a decade of separation and failed reconciliation attempts. "The marriage is beyond repair, with no meaningful relationship remaining between the parties," the court observed.

Liberty to Seek Alimony: The court granted Smt. Kundu the liberty to seek permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act in separate proceedings, as there was no existing prayer or evidence for alimony in the current appeals.

Justice Om Prakash Shukla remarked, "Cruelty proven against a spouse is a valid and sufficient ground for dissolution of marriage, and such a finding should preclude any decree for restitution of conjugal rights."

The High Court's ruling underscores the judiciary's stance that cruelty is an independent and sufficient ground for divorce under Indian marriage laws. By setting aside the Family Court's decree for restitution of conjugal rights and granting the divorce, the judgment reinforces the principle that a spouse cannot be compelled to cohabit in circumstances of proven cruelty. This decision is likely to influence future cases by clarifying the legal standards for divorce on grounds of cruelty.

 

Date of Decision: 27th May 2024

Dr. Bijoy Kundu vs. Smt. Piu Kundu

Latest Legal News