Accused Loses Right To Default Bail By Acquiescence If Extension Orders Are Challenged Only After Chargesheet Filing: Supreme Court AP High Court Orders Release Of Vehicle Seized For Mineral Transport Violations Upon Payment Of Penalty, Says Rules Don't Mandate Indefinite Detention Short Time Gap Between 'Last Seen' And Death Clinches Murder Conviction Against Fired Driver: Allahabad High Court Court Must Restore Possession To Dispossessed Party If Ex-Parte Decree Is Set Aside Even If Property Descriptions Differ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Management Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay If It Failed To Maintain Service Records: Calcutta High Court Long Possession Alone Does Not Establish Tenancy; Burden Of Proof Lies On Person Claiming Status Of Tenant: Bombay High Court Consent Of Minor Immaterial: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction But Acquits Man Of Kidnapping Charges Notional Income Of Minor In Motor Accident Claims Must Be Based On Minimum Wages Of Skilled Workmen: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹56.8 Lakhs Revenue Records Serve Only Fiscal Purpose, Cannot Be Treated As Proof Of Title To Property: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Grant 'Deemed Extension' Of Time For Deposit In Specific Performance Decree: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Becomes Inexecutable If Balance Sale Consideration Not Deposited Within Stipulated Time: Supreme Court Supreme Court Protects MSMEs From Closure Over Missing Environmental Clearance If Pollution Boards Were Unaware Of Requirement Industrial Units Operating With Valid PCB Consents Can't Be Closed Merely For Technical Want Of Prior Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Punishment On Charge Not Framed In Show Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Doctor's Penalty To Censure Plea Of Acquiescence Cannot Defeat Lawful Title Claim When Encroachment Is Established: Madras High Court Board Of Revenue Can't Quash Unchallenged Orders While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Penetration To Any Extent Sufficient For Offence Under POCSO Act; Intact Hymen No Bar For Conviction: Meghalaya High Court Expeditious Conclusion Of Summary Force Court Trial Not Arbitrary If Procedure Followed; ITBPF Act Self-Contained: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Doesn't Bar Appeal Filed Prior To Withdrawal Of Earlier Defective Appeal Against Same Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Appointment Of Receiver Is An 'Extreme Remedy', Cannot Be Ordered Lightly Especially After Decades Of Inaction: 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