Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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