Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court Government Cannot Withhold Retirement Without Formal Rejection Before Notice Period Expires: Delhi High Court Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Serious Allegations, Unless Justified by Law: Kerala High Court When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuing Notices to a Non-Existent Entity is a Substantive Illegality, Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notices Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Penalty Proceedings Must Be Initiated and Concluded Within The Prescribed Timeline Under Section 275(1)(C): Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT Order" Landlord Entitled to Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, and Damages for Unauthorized Occupation: Madras High Court Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products Stigmatic Dismissal Without Inquiry Violates Fair Process, Rules High Court in Employment Case Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court Charge-Sheet Is Not a Punishment, Courts Should Not Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Against Departmental Inquiry Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Identifiable Property or Evidence of Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Fairness Demands Compensation Under the 2013 Act; Bureaucratic Delays Cannot Defeat Justice: Supreme Court Competition Commission Must Issue Notice to Both Parties in a Combination Approval: Supreme Court Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession Hyper-Technical Approach Must Be Avoided in Pre-Trial Amendments: Punjab & Haryana High Court FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court Enforcing The Terms Of  Agreement Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Contempt Order Against Power Company Officers Consent of a minor is immaterial under law: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Man Accused of Enticing Minor Sister-in-Law and Dowry Harassment False Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Amount to Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court: Compensation Must Ensure Financial Stability—Not Be Subject to Arbitrary Reductions: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Reduction of Motor Accident Compensation by High Court

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

Similar News