Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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