Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

High Court Rules: Irretrievable Breakdown Must Be Proven Under Hindu Marriage Act, Dissolves Marriage

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court delivered a significant ruling, emphasizing that the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage must be proven under the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage. The court’s decision came in response to a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 13.10.2017, which granted a divorce in H.M.O.P.No.780 of 2014.

The judgment, delivered on 22.12.2023, highlighted the importance of establishing the grounds for divorce, specifically cruelty and desertion, as per the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court noted that the appellant, who was the wife in this case, had counterclaimed for restitution of conjugal rights, contesting her husband’s plea for divorce.

One of the key legal points in the court’s observation was the need for proper substantiation of claims. The judgment stated, “The husband, having come to the Court seeking the relief of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, has to plead the alleged act of cruelty of the wife committed upon him and thereafter prove the same in the manner as established by law.”

The court further highlighted that in this particular case, the allegations of cruelty made by the husband were not proven in the manner known to law. Additionally, the court found that the husband’s own actions, including his failure to provide financial support and excluding the wife and children from railway service benefits, contributed to the non-resumption of marital relations.

Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the decree of dissolution of marriage. The judgment serves as a reminder that the grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act must be substantiated, and the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be invoked without proper evidence and due process.

Date of Decision: 22.12.2023

xxx vs xxx   

 

Similar News