Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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