'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

Husband's 'Fault in Not Allowing Wife to Reside with Him' – Divorce Petition Dismissed – Chhattisgarh High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, in a landmark judgment, dismissed a divorce appeal filed by the appellant, Mr. Ravishankar Shrivas, against his wife, Smt. Sarita Sen. The Court observed that the husband was at 'fault in not allowing his wife to reside with him,' thereby ruling in favor of the wife.

On 25th September 2023, Hon'ble Shri Goutam Bhaduri & Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ delivered a judgment that has set a precedent on what constitutes valid grounds for divorce in marital disputes. The appellant/husband had initially filed for divorce on the basis of cruelty and desertion, a plea which had been dismissed by the Judge, Family Court, Janjgir on 28th June 2019. Unhappy with the decision, Mr. Shrivas approached the High Court.

The judges highlighted that Mr. Shrivas himself had 'refused to allow his wife to reside with him at the place of his posting,' and had provided no reasonable justification for doing so. The Court cited the counseling proceedings from 13th October 2010, where Mrs. Sen had expressed a desire to reside with her husband, but the appellant himself did not agree for the same.

"Admittedly, the appellant/husband himself refused to allow his wife to reside with him at the place of his posting and he has not stated any reason therefor," observed the Court. In light of these facts, the Court found that the appellant had failed to prove that he was treated with cruelty, and that the ground of desertion was also not proved.

Quoting from the Supreme Court's illustrative instances for mental cruelty in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, the judges found none of the conditions met in the case at hand.

The Court hence dismissed the divorce appeal, adding that "mere assertion in the plaint that the wife is residing separately since December 2009, for any sufficient cause, is not found to be proved."

This judgment serves as a crucial reminder that both parties in a marriage have obligations and responsibilities, and one cannot easily lay blame on the other without self-examination. Legal experts predict that the ruling will influence future cases on marital disputes, particularly those involving claims of cruelty and desertion.

Date of Decision: 25.09.2023

Ravishankar Shrivas  vs Smt. Sarita Sen                

 

Latest Legal News