138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

Patna High Court Upholds Family Court’s Decision: Inability to bear child is not a ground for divorce

04 September 2024 10:45 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling, the High Court of Judicature at Patna upheld the decision of the Family Court, Muzaffarpur, dismissing a petition for divorce filed by Sonu Kumar against his wife, Rina Devi. The appellant had sought the dissolution of his marriage on the grounds of cruelty, alleging improper behavior, refusal to cohabit, and making unreasonable demands.

However, the High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar, carefully examined the evidence presented and concluded that the appellant failed to prove specific allegations of cruelty. In particular, the allegation of refusal to cohabit was not considered reliable, as the wife was in touch with the appellant even after returning to her parental home.

“The refusal of cohabitation does not hold ground,” the court emphasized, noting that the appellant did not take any legal steps for restitution of conjugal rights, which would have been an appropriate remedy in such circumstances.

Furthermore, the court observed that the appellant’s motive for seeking a divorce was to remarry and have children with another woman, as he had learned about his wife’s health issues that might affect her ability to bear children. However, the inability to bear children was deemed not a valid ground for dissolving the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.

“Such possibility of inability to bear a child may be part of the marital life of anybody and parties to a marriage may resort to other means for having a child, such as adoption,” the court emphasized.

The High Court’s decision highlights the importance of understanding the grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act and reiterates that motive alone cannot be a basis for seeking divorce.

Date of Decision: 19-07-2023

Sonu Kumar vs Rina Devi

Latest Legal News