Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Unfounded Allegations of Premarital Relations And Abortion Not Sufficient For Divorce: Andhra Pradesh High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking decision, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has established a significant legal precedent by ruling that unfounded allegations of premarital relations and abortion are not sufficient grounds for divorce. This landmark judgment was delivered in a divorce case that involved allegations of cruelty and desertion brought by the appellant (husband) and a counterclaim for restitution of conjugal rights by the respondent (wife).

The court's pivotal observation reads, "Allegations of cruelty stemming from the wife's purported confession of premarital relations and abortion—Burden of proof rests with the appellant to substantiate cruelty—Failure to provide substantial evidence of the alleged confession or abortion—Absence of corroborating evidence for the appellant's claims."

At the heart of the case were the appellant's allegations that his wife had admitted to engaging in premarital relations and undergoing an abortion before their marriage. He sought a divorce on the grounds of cruelty, citing these allegations. However, the court determined that the appellant had not been able to validate these claims with concrete evidence or independent corroboration.

The judgment also underscored the wife's willingness to reconcile and rejoin her husband, underscoring her commitment to the marriage. Additionally, the court noted that the appellant had abandoned the respondent without reasonable cause, further strengthening her case for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

This verdict emphasizes the importance of providing substantial proof and corroborating evidence in divorce cases predicated on allegations of cruelty. As demonstrated in this instance, unfounded accusations do not meet the threshold for divorce under Indian law.

The judgment cited specific legal provisions within the Hindu Marriage Act, including Section 12 (null and void marriages) and Section 13(1)(ia) (grounds for divorce). It also referenced Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which deals with the restitution of conjugal rights.

Date of Decision: 19 September 2023

BODDU JAYA KRISHNA vs BODDU NAGA PRAVEENA 

Latest Legal News