Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay 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

Similar News