Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High 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