SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Marriage irretrievably broken-down, Divorce granted – P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Punjab and Haryana High Court observed (in Mahdeep Singh Vs Lovleen Kaur D.D 2nd May 2022 ) while referring the case of A Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur, 2005 (2) SCC 22 , breaking down of marriage is not one of statutory grounds on which Court can direct dissolution of marriage, but the Court with a view to do complete justice and shorten the agony of the parties engaged in long drawn legal battle, directed in those cases dissolution of marriage.

The appellant and respondent were married in Amritsar on 6.10.2011 according to Hindu customs. There was no dowry. After marrying, the couple lived together. This marriage produced no offspring. Since the beginning of the marriage, the respondent has been unkind to the appellant and his family.

The respondent said she was forced to marry the appellant after a few days. She picked petty conflicts. She used profanity. She intimidated the appellant and his family with a bogus criminal case. On 29.10.2012, she left her husband. On 14.12.2012, she filed a police report against the appellant and his family. After pressuring the appellant and his family, she collected Rs.1,25,000/- (Rs.70,000/- via cheque and Rs.55000/- in cash) and items she brought of her own volition. In a statement dated 16.01.2013, she retracted the complaint.

Respectable helped the couple decide to seek for mutual divorce. Later, she withdrew her consent for divorce, and the petition was rejected as withdrawn on 15.02.2013. Respondent now lives with her parents. He sought for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. But same was dismissed by the Family Court.

Aggrieved Husband/ Appellant approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2017 and the parties were referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of High Court. But the mediation has failed between the parties.

Hon’ble High Court observed that that the parties are staying separately for the last about 10 years and Court made several attempts to settle the dispute amicably between the parties but all in vain. Referred the case of Chandra Kala Trivedi vs. Dr. S.P. Trivedi, 1993 (4) SCC 232 wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court while considering a case where marriage was irretrievably broken down and held that in this case, the decree of divorce can be granted where both the parties have levelled such allegations against each other that the marriage appears to be practically dead, and the parties cannot live together.

High Court held that the couple's marriage has ended irretrievably, and they can't live together again. Not granting divorce would be terrible for both parties. It's also undisputed. Respondent filed a complaint against appellant, and appellant was discharged on 17.10.2018 (A-1). Divorce granted however appellant directed to make an F.D of Rs.6 lacs in the name of the respondent-wife.

D.D:- 02.05.2022

Maheep Singh Vs. Loveleen Kaur

Latest Legal News