Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court

Marriage is a Chariot with Wheels of Adjustment and Understanding; Refusal to Move Together Doesn’t Merit Divorce – Delhi HC Dismisses Matrimonial Appeal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court today dismissed an appeal in a matrimonial case, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 298/2023, filed by Gaurav Gulati against Gita Pravin. The appellant challenged the lower court’s dismissal of his divorce petition based on allegations of cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Court primarily focused on two legal points: the allegations of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) and desertion under Section 13(1)(ib).

The appellant, Gaurav Gulati, and the respondent, Gita Pravin, were married on April 16, 1994. Gulati claimed that Pravin had displayed cruel behavior shortly after the marriage and had deserted him since May 1995. However, Pravin contested these claims, stating she had been a dutiful wife but was forced to live separately due to circumstances beyond her control.

The Court observed that the incidents cited by the appellant were part of normal marital adjustments and did not constitute legal cruelty. “None of these allegations as claimed by the appellant were substantiated… they were incidents of normal wear and tear and minor initial adjustments,” the judgement noted.

Regarding the desertion claim, the Court found substantial evidence of the respondent’s continuous efforts for reconciliation, contrary to the appellant’s claim. The Court highlighted, “The entire evidence… proves that the appellant at every point of time resisted the reconciliatory efforts made by the respondent.” The Court also noted that the appellant failed to establish any intention by the respondent to end cohabitation permanently.

The High Court, upholding the lower court’s decision, dismissed the appeal. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Suresh Kumar Kait observed, “To grant a Divorce in the present case would be to add a premium to the recalcitrant and unreasonable conduct of the appellant.”

Date of Decision: March 01, 2024

XXX VERSU. XXXX

Latest Legal News