Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme 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