[ { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Mrs. Pragati Varghese And Etc. vs Cyril George Varghese And Etc. on 6 May, 1997", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1997-05-06", "Judges": "Agarwal, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 112, Section 125, Section 13, Section 16, Section 17, Section 22, Section 3, Section 377, Section 488, Section 498, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Adultery; Desertion; Cruelty; Wife Specific", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Present suits arc filed by Christian wives for dissolution of their marriages under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). Each of them impugn the vires of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act which provides for the grounds on which a husband and wife can sue for dissolution of marriage. It is contended that the provisions are archaic and adversely discriminate wives as against husbands merely on ground of sex and are, therefore, violative of article 15 of the Constitution. It is further contended that the aforesaid provisions adversely discriminate them vis-a-vis wives belonging to other communities. They are, therefore, denied equality before law and hence the provisions are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also contended that the aforesaid provisions force them to continue to live with their husbands as wives even though they are subjected to cruelty or desertion. They are, therefore, deprived of their right to life and personal liberty thereby violating their dignity. The provisions, therefore, contravene Article 21 of the Constitution. 2. Plaintiffs have also impugned certain ancillary provisions of the Act namely Sections 17 and 20 of the Act which provide for a requirement of confirmation of decrees for dissolution of marriage or nullity of marriage, passed by District Judges, by the...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. Present suits arc filed by Christian wives for dissolution of their marriages under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). Each of them impugn the vires of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act which provides for the grounds on which a husband and wife can sue for dissolution of marriage. It is contended that the provisions are archaic and adversely discriminate wives as against husbands merely on ground of sex and are, therefore, violative of article 15 of the Constitution. It is further contended that the aforesaid provisions adversely discriminate them vis-a-vis wives belonging to other communities. They are, therefore, denied equality before law and hence the provisions are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also contended that the aforesaid provisions force them to continue to live with their husbands as wives even though they are subjected to cruelty or desertion. They are, therefore, deprived of their right to life and personal liberty thereby violating their dignity. The provisions, therefore, contravene Article 21 of the Constitution.", "Issues": "17. After independence, in 1955, the issue whether the statute of sovereign Republic could be made subordinate to the laws of a foreign power, was examined by the Madras High Court in the case of, \" George Swamidoss Joseph v. Miss . Harriet Sundari Edward', (FB). The Court held to the following effect: 11. .. ... Time has also come for a reappraisal and reconsideration of the other anachronistic incongruities fundamental and discriminatory in nature manifest not only in procedure but in substantial core provisions of such Act. The fact whether wife should be discriminated against in the matter of getting relief, only on the ground of sex, has been seriously called into question not only in the arena of family laws but in other spheres as well concerning avocation of life. The highest Court of the land has already raised and considered such questions in the backdrop of protection...", "Petitioner Argument": "41. In the light of our findings that the impugned provisions are violative of the provisions in Arts. 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India, normally the above provisions as a whole are liable to be declared as null and void in terms of Art. 13 of the Constitution of India. However, as contended by the petitioners, a declaration to that effect and striking down of the entire provisions will really go against the interest of the petitioners and other similarly situated Christian wives inasmuch as they are provisions providing grounds for dissolution however harsh and unreasonable they may be. To avoid such a result, the learned counsel for the petitioner as already indicated has prayed that the offending portions of the impugned provisions alone be declared severable and liable to be struck down as ultra vires leaving, the remaining portion as a valid provision allowing dissolution of marriage on grounds of adultery, desertion and cruelty. In this connection, strong reliance was placed on the decision in D. S. Nakara v. Union of India to contend that such...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "1. Present suits arc filed by Christian wives for dissolution of their marriages under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). Each of them impugn the vires of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act which provides for the grounds on which a husband and wife can sue for dissolution of marriage. It is contended that the provisions are archaic and adversely discriminate wives as against husbands merely on ground of sex and are, therefore, violative of article 15 of the Constitution. It is further contended that the aforesaid provisions adversely discriminate them vis-a-vis wives belonging to other communities. They are, therefore, denied equality before law and hence the provisions are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also contended that the aforesaid provisions force them to continue to live with their husbands as wives even though they are subjected to cruelty or desertion. They are, therefore, deprived of their right to life and personal liberty thereby violating their dignity. The provisions, therefore, contravene Article 21 of the Constitution. 2. Plaintiffs have also impugned certain ancillary provisions of the Act namely Sections 17 and 20 of the Act which provide for...", "Decision": "56. In the result, we hold that the indicaled portions of Section 10 of the Act are ultra vires Articles 14 , 15 and 21 of the Constitution and the same are accordingly struck down. We further find the provisions of Sections 16 , 17 and 20 of the Act are also arbitrary and unreasonable. We suggest that the legislature should intervene and carry out suitable amendments to 'the Act' at the earliest. We direct that a copy of this order may be forwarded forthwith to the Ministry of law and Justice for such action as they may deem fit to take.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1401518/ | AIR1997BOM349, 1997(4)BOMCR551, 1997BOMCR(CRI)~, (1997)3BOMLR333, II(1997)DMC407, 1997(3)MHLJ602", "Review": "Verified", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Anmol", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; adultery; desertion; cruelty; wife_specific", "Judgment Year": 1997, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1997BOM349, 1997(4)BOMCR551, 1997BOMCR(CRI)~, (1997)3BOMLR333, II(1997)DMC407, 1997(3)MHLJ602", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1401518", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1401518/", "Chunks Indexed": 33 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Ammini E.J. And Etc. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 February, 1995", "Case Number": "O. P. No. 5805 of 1988", "Judgment Date": "1995-02-24", "Judges": "Ramakrishnan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 112, Section 13, Section 13B, Section 18, Section 2, Section 22, Section 27, Section 28, Section 32, Section 32A, Section 488", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Adultery; Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The constitutional validity of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short \"the Act\") which regulated divorce among Christians in India for a century and a quarter is directly under challenge in the two Original Petitions at the instance of two Christian women on the ground that the provisions in Section 10 are violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to them and other similarly situated Christian women under Articles 14 , 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Mary Sonia Zachariah, petitioner in O. P. No. 5805 of 1988 is a Syrian Christian governed by the Act. At the time of filing the O, P. she was aged 36 and was working as an Asst. Warden at Corpus Christi School, Kottayam. She was married to one P,C. Zachariah on 6-1-1972 at Emmanual Mar-thoma Church, Pazhanni, Thrissur according to the customary rites and ceremonies of the church. A daughter, Elizabeth Zachariah alias Kittu was born out of the said wedlock on 16-9-1974. On the basis of Exts. P3 and P 4 letters the petitioner has specifically pleaded that her husband has taken an irreversible decision to live with an English lady whom he met while in Nairobi where he was employed from 1977 onwards, deserting the petitioner and her child once and for all. Petitioner has...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. Mary Sonia Zachariah, petitioner in O. P. No. 5805 of 1988 is a Syrian Christian governed by the Act. At the time of filing the O, P. she was aged 36 and was working as an Asst. Warden at Corpus Christi School, Kottayam. She was married to one P,C. Zachariah on 6-1-1972 at Emmanual Mar-thoma Church, Pazhanni, Thrissur according to the customary rites and ceremonies of the church. A daughter, Elizabeth Zachariah alias Kittu was born out of the said wedlock on 16-9-1974. On the basis of Exts. P3 and P 4 letters the petitioner has specifically pleaded that her husband has taken an irreversible decision to live with an English lady whom he met while in Nairobi where he was employed from 1977 onwards, deserting the petitioner and her child once and for all. Petitioner has specifically alleged that from 1978 onwards her husband has deserted her and has not cared to cohabit with her or to perform any of the marital obligations and to maintain her and her daughter. She has further alleged in the petition that she is not even aware of the whereabouts of her husband at present.", "Issues": "32. The further question to be considered is if this be the direct and envitable consequence of the law governing dissolution among Christians governed by the Act whether such a provision will be valid in the light of Arts. 14 and21 of the Constitution of India.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "33. The Supreme Court has in unmistakable terms declared in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , AIR 1978 SC 597 that the test or yardstick to be applied for determining whether a statute infringes a particular fundamental right is to see what exactly is the direct and inevitable consequence or effect of the impugned provision of law on the fundamental right alleged to have been violated. The test so laid down has by now to be treated as settled. Further in Maneka Gandhi 's case the Supreme Court has given an expansive interpretation to the expressions 'life' and 'personal liberty' used in Article 21 of the Constitution of India which has been described as 'heart of fundamental rights' in Unnikrishnan's case, AIR 1993 SC 2178. Thus it has been held that 'life' and 'personal liberty' will not only include physical security, but would comprehend those rights enumerated in Article 19 as well as others \"which would go to make a man's life meaningful, complete and worth living\". In Pathumma's case, AIR 1978 SC 771, the Supreme Court has stated thus : \"The attempt of the court should be to expand the reach and ambit of the fundamental rights rather...", "Decision": "The Original Petitions would stand allowed as indicated above.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1591531/ | AIR1995KER252, AIR 1995 KERALA 252, (1995) 1 KER LJ 624", "Review": "Verified", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Anmol", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; adultery; desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1995, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1995KER252, AIR 1995 KERALA 252, (1995) 1 KER LJ 624", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1591531", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1591531/", "Chunks Indexed": 23 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "P.E. Mathew vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 3 May, 1999", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1999-05-03", "Judges": "Ar. Lakshmanan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 0, Section 10, Section 17, Section 18, Section 20, Section 7, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. These two Original Petitions raise the same question with regard to the validity of Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which says that a decree for dissolution of marriage passed by a District Judge has to be confirmed by a three-Judge Bench of the High Court. According to the petitioners, this confirmation is required only for Christians and so it is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 13(1) , 14 , 15(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that since this section is to consistent with Part III of the Constitution, it violates Article 13(1) which says that all pre-Constitutional laws have to be consistent with Part III of the Constitution. The other grounds of attack are as under: (b) The Section is also violalive of Article 21 of the Constitution because even if the husband and wife are not interested in further approaching any Court after the decree by the District Judge, they have to wait minimum for another six months for confirmation, which further delays their right to have a new married life; and", "Fact/ Respondent": "(b) The Section is also violalive of Article 21 of the Constitution because even if the husband and wife are not interested in further approaching any Court after the decree by the District Judge, they have to wait minimum for another six months for confirmation, which further delays their right to have a new married life; and", "Issues": "Coming to Articles Hand 15(1) of the Constitution, the Bench has emphasized that both the Articles stress the equality before law. Article 14 confers the right upon every person whereas the right given under Article 15(1) is confined to the citizens of India. If there is any discrimination in law, then the law would not have an equal application to all persons, unless the discrimination can be justified on some reasonable basis or the distinction made has some reasonable relation to the subject of the legislation. Article 15(1) further emphasises the fact that any discrimination which is based only on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth can never be a reasonable discrimination. Referring to Article 44 , the Division Bench observed that the said Article recognises separate and distinctive personal laws because it lays down as a directive to be achieved that within a measurable...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "12. In view of the Supreme Court decision, we are of the opinion that personal laws do not fall within Article 13(1) of the Constitution and that they are not laws as defined in Article 13(1). As already noticed, the Full Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld the validity of Section 17 of the Act which was challenged before it. As held by the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Women Action Group case : (AIR 1997 SC 3614) (supra), this Court cannot adjudicate on such matters and the remedy does not also lie with the Courts. In view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the remedy lies with the Legislature. In the instant case, the subject matter of the Act falls under Entry 5 of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and every State Legislature, subject to the provi-sions of Article 254 of the Constitution, is competent to carry out amendments to the Act, if the local situation obtaining in the particular State necessitates such amendment. As pointed out by learned Central Government Standing Counsel, the provision has withstood the test of time and judicial scrutiny and so far no Court has declared Section...", "Decision": "14. We would, therefore, like to observe that the procedure prescribed by Section 17 of the Act requiring confirmation by the High Court of a decree for dissolution of a marriage made by the District Judge prolongs the agony of the affected parties even though none of the parties is desir-ous of preferring an appeal. In our opinion, there is no justification for continuation of this procedure especially when no such procedure is prescribed by other Acts dealing with dissolution of marriages, namely, Special Marriage Act, 1954 and Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . In our view, there is an urgent need for making suitable amendments in the Act. In this light, we direct the Government of Kerala to bring in an amendment on the lines of Uttar Pradesh amendment as we feel that such an amendment is necessary and expedient.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1353346/ | AIR1999KER345, AIR 1999 KERALA 345, ILR(KER) 1999 (2) KER 751, (1999) 1 KER LJ 824, (2000) 1 MARRILJ 246, (1999) 3 RECCIVR 463", "Review": "Verified", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Anmol", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity", "Judgment Year": 1999, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1999KER345, AIR 1999 KERALA 345, ILR(KER) 1999 (2) KER 751, (1999) 1 KER LJ 824, (2000) 1 MARRILJ 246, (1999) 3 RECCIVR 463", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1353346", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1353346/", "Chunks Indexed": 15 }, { "Court": "Gujarat High Court", "Case Title": "P.V. Josheph Christian vs Deenamma Josheph Christian on 30 October, 2002", "Case Number": "Suit No. 3 of 1997", "Judgment Date": "2002-10-30", "Judges": "J.N. Bhatt, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 14, Section 16, Section 17, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. A short, but interesting question which has been put in focus, for our consideration and adjudication in this reference, under Section 17 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (the Act) by the District Court, Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur Court, arising out of Civil Suit No. 3 of 1997 instituted for dissolution of marriage under Section 10 , on the ground of respondent-wife being guilty of adultery and passing of decree for dissolution of marriage is whether the factual profile and the evidence on record constitutes a legal launching pad for passing of decree for dissolution or not? 3. In this reference for confirmation of the decree for dissolution of marriage, arising out of a Civil Suit No. 3 of 1997 for decree under Section 10 by the original petitioner-plaintiff husband, on the ground of respondent-original defendant-wife, allegedly being guilty of adultery, the following aspects have emerged from the record incontrovertible.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. A short, but interesting question which has been put in focus, for our consideration and adjudication in this reference, under Section 17 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (the Act) by the District Court, Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur Court, arising out of Civil Suit No. 3 of 1997 instituted for dissolution of marriage under Section 10 , on the ground of respondent-wife being guilty of adultery and passing of decree for dissolution of marriage is whether the factual profile and the evidence on record constitutes a legal launching pad for passing of decree for dissolution or not?", "Issues": "(1) Whether the plea and relevant claim for dissolution of marriage by the husband suffers from the vice of collusion or not? (2) Whether parties are professing or belonged to Christian religion or not? (3) Whether the valid factum of marriage, including the rites and custom with which the marriage between the spouses has been solemnized as per the personal law of Christianity or not? (4) Whether there is sufficient proof of alleged adultery is established as alleged or as per law or not? It may be noted at this stage before we consider the viva-voce evidence on record, coupled with documentary-testimonial collection, that the marriages are made in heaven, they are enjoyed on the earth and they are dissolved in the Court. It has been noticed that the marital bliss with which initially spouses enjoyed started becoming vulnerable, gradually, on passing of more and more time of matrimony and...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "18. Before parting, we may note that the dissolution of marriage between the spouses in view of the amendments incorporated in Divorce Act, 1869 by virtue of the Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001 (LI of 2001) and the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 (XLIX of 2001) whereby the rigours to an extent is diluted by the amendment of Section 17 which came into force with effect from October 3, 2001. This amendment is made pursuant to the recommendations and suggestions made by the Law Commission of India in its 164th Report. Since the cause of action for the passing of decree for dissolution of marriage by the Competent District Judge, in Civil Suit No. 3 of 1997, has arisen prior to the date of introduction of the amended provisions, we have in course of our discussions considered the provisions of relevant Sections of the unamended act, and we may also, while parting, place it on record that out of the variety of various theories and philosophies of divorce, offence or guilt theory, is established without any shadow of doubt to our...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1196471/ | II(2004)DMC592, (2003)1GLR196", "Review": "Verified", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Anmol", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2002, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: II(2004)DMC592, (2003)1GLR196", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1196471", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1196471/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Pasumpon Gandhi vs Shirely Gandhi on 28 November, 2002", "Case Number": "F.C.O.P.No. 856/92", "Judgment Date": "2002-11-28", "Judges": "P. Sathasivam, J., K. Gnanaprakasam, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Family Courts Act, 1984", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 13, Section 19, Section 23", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Petitioner in F.C.O.P.No. 856 of 92 on the file of the Additional Principal Judge (Additional Family Court), Madras, dismissing his petition filed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 to dissolve the marriage performed between him and the first respondent herein, has filed the above appeal. He filed the said petition before the Family Court under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act to dissolve the marriage on the ground of adultery coupled with cruelty and desertion. It is contended before the Family Court that the marriage between him and the first respondent was solemnized on 25-01-1978 according to Christian rites. Thereafter they lived together till April, 1992. Alleging that the first respondent had committed adultery with the second respondent, he prayed for divorce. Before the Family Court, the petitioner-husband was examined as P.W.1 and marked documents Exs. A-1 to A-5. In spite of the fact that the first respondent herein, wife did not file counter statement and let in evidence disputing the claim of the husband, by the impugned order dated 8-3-199 3, the Additional Family Court dismissed the petition of the husband; hence the present appeal. Even in this appeal, in spite of service of notice immediately after the admission of the appeal in 1993 and also second notice at the time of final hearing, the...", "Fact/ Respondent": "Petitioner in F.C.O.P.No. 856 of 92 on the file of the Additional Principal Judge (Additional Family Court), Madras, dismissing his petition filed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 to dissolve the marriage performed between him and the first respondent herein, has filed the above appeal. He filed the said petition before the Family Court under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act to dissolve the marriage on the ground of adultery coupled with cruelty and desertion. It is contended before the Family Court that the marriage between him and the first respondent was solemnized on 25-01-1978 according to Christian rites. Thereafter they lived together till April, 1992. Alleging that the first respondent had committed adultery with the second respondent, he prayed for divorce. Before the Family Court, the petitioner-husband was examined as P.W.1 and marked documents Exs. A-1 to A-5. In spite of the fact that the first respondent herein, wife did not file counter statement and let in evidence disputing the claim of the husband, by the impugned order dated 8-3-199 3, the Additional Family Court dismissed the petition of the husband; hence the present appeal. Even in this appeal, in spite of service of notice...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "The case before the Supreme Court arose from Hindu Marriage Act and they referred to Section 23 of the Hindu marriage Act which governs the jurisdiction of the court to pass the decree in any proceeding under the Act. It does not require that the petitioner must prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. After referring to the language used therein, particularly \"if it is satisfied\", the Supreme Court has held that the word \"satisfied\" must mean \"satisfied on a preponderance of probabilities and not \"satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt\". In our case, similar provision is there in Section 12 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. Here again, on a petition being filed under Section 10 of the Act, the Court has to satisfy itself all aspects including absence of collusion, form of marriage, the adultery, condonation etc., and if the petitioner's case has not been proved, or is not satisfied that the alleged adultery has been committed, the Court has to dismiss the said petition under Section 13 . In the light of the conclusion of the Supreme Court in the decision referred to above , we are of the view that the interpretation relating to Section 23 of...", "Decision": "6. In the result, the order of the Family Court dated 8 -3-1993 made in F.C.O.P.No. 856/92, dismissing the said petition is set aside and we grant a decree for divorce to the appellant under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and in the circumstances of the case,", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1667509/", "Review": "Verified", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Anmol", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 2002, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1667509", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1667509/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "Abhishek Kerketta vs Shobha Kujur on 14 July, 2026", "Case Number": "2026:JHHC:20890-DB", "Judgment Date": "2026-07-14", "Judges": "Sujit Narayan Prasad, J., Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Family Courts Act, 1984", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 19, Section 2, Section 3, Section 32, Section 621", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The instant appeal has been filed under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 for challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on 03.07.2025 and decree signed on 14.07.2025 by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No. 246 of 2022 filed by the appellant-husband under Section 10(ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 for a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty, has been dismissed. 3. It has been stated that during the stay of respondent-wife in the house of appellant-husband, she caused a lot of intolerable mental pain and agony to the appellant, due to rude and ill behaviour of the wife towards the appellant as well towards other family members of the appellant. There is no child begotten out of their wedlock.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The instant appeal has been filed under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 for challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on 03.07.2025 and decree signed on 14.07.2025 by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No. 246 of 2022 filed by the appellant-husband under Section 10(ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 for a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty, has been dismissed.", "Issues": "I. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? II. Whether the appellant has valid cause of action for the suit? III. Whether the respondent wife has treated the appellant husband with cruelty? IV. Whether the respondent wife has deserted the appellant husband since 24.10.2015? V. Whether the appellant husband is taking advantage of his own wrong? VI. Whether the appellant is entitled to get the decree of divorce? VII. Whether the appellant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs? 41. The aforesaid issues were decided against the appellant-husband and in favour of respondent-wife and the suit was dismissed on contest. 42. The appellant-husband, being aggrieved with the judgment passed on 03.07.2025 and decree signed on 14.07.2025 by learned Additional Principal Judge, 13 Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi approached this Court by filing the instant appeal. Submission made on behalf of the appellant-husband 43. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband...", "Petitioner Argument": "63. Since the learned counsel for the appellant has raised the issue of perversity by contending that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court while answering issue no. (iii) i.e. issue of cruelty are perverse, therefore, before addressing the aforesaid seminal issue it would be apt to discuss herein the appropriate meaning of word \"perverse\". 64. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant on the issue of perversity needs to 36 refer herein the interpretation of the word \"perverse\" as has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence. 65. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr. , (2009) 10 SCC 206 while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice...", "Respondent Argument": "54. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, defending the impugned order, has submitted that appellant and respondent are legally married couple and she has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal right but the appellant does not want to keep her and has deserted her without any rhyme and reason. 55. It has further been submitted that the respondent is still ready to reside with the appellant-petitioner and the allegation levelled against her by the appellant-husband are false and fabricated as she never subjected him with cruelty rather it is the appellant-husband who has deserted her. 56. It has been submitted that still she wants to live with appellant and prayed to dismiss the suit filed by appellant. 57. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife on the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned judgment requires no interference by this Court. Analysis 58. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant- husband as also learned counsel for the respondent-wife and 16 perused the material available on record and the finding recorded in the impugned order. 59. This Court, before looking into...", "Factors to be Considered": "72. Learned Additional Principal Judge, taking into consideration the fact that since even otherwise there is no desertion on the part of respondent-wife as she has filed original suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Thus, although the husband appellant had filed petition under Section 10 (ix) and (x) of the Indian Divorce Act but no cogent evidence was led in this respect, as such the same was discarded by the learned family court. 73. It needs to refer herein that the word 'desertion' has been given in Section 3 (9) of the Divorce Act wherein it has been stated that the expression \"desertion\", implies an abandonment against the wish of the person charging it. 74. It is pertinent to note that the word 'desertion', as has been defined in Section 3 (9) of the Divorce Act, means abandonment against the wish of the person charging it and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly. 41 75. Further, it requires to refer herein that the word 'desertion' means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the willful...", "Decision": "123. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the learned family court, dismissing the suit for decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty under Section 10(ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act , requires no interference.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2641238/", "Review": "Verified", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 258)", "Reviewed By": "Anmol", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "2641238", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2641238/", "Chunks Indexed": 16 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Smt. Deepika Alizabeth Couto vs Gabriel Anthony Couto on 3 October, 1977", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1977-10-03", "Judges": "M.N. Shukla, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 16, Section 17, Section 4, Section 55, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This reference purporting to be one under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reveals a curious state of affairs. A petition was made under Section 10 of the Act by the petitioner Smt. Deepika Alizabeth Couto in the court of the District Judge, Gorakhpur. The allegations in the petition were that she .and her husband were married in the year 1965 according to the Christian rituals; that the respondent was a habitual drunkard who constantly beat the petitioner using filthy abuses and treated her with cruelty whenever she went to live with him at Jamshedpur. On account of this cruel treatment her physical and mental health was completely impaired and it was no longer safe for her to live with him. It appears that the respondent did not contest the petition in the court below. In support of these allegations, the petitioner examined herself. The learned District Judge passed an ex parte order dated Dec. 18, 1976 whereby he allowed the petition and a decree nisi was passed. Thereafter, the petitioner made the present application in this Court under Section 17 of the Act, praying that the decree nisi dated Dec. 18, 1976, passed by the District Judge, Gorakhpur, be confirmed. \"17. Confirmation of decree for dissolution by District Judge.-- Every...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This reference purporting to be one under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reveals a curious state of affairs. A petition was made under Section 10 of the Act by the petitioner Smt. Deepika Alizabeth Couto in the court of the District Judge, Gorakhpur. The allegations in the petition were that she .and her husband were married in the year 1965 according to the Christian rituals; that the respondent was a habitual drunkard who constantly beat the petitioner using filthy abuses and treated her with cruelty whenever she went to live with him at Jamshedpur. On account of this cruel treatment her physical and mental health was completely impaired and it was no longer safe for her to live with him. It appears that the respondent did not contest the petition in the court below. In support of these allegations, the petitioner examined herself. The learned District Judge passed an ex parte order dated Dec. 18, 1976 whereby he allowed the petition and a decree nisi was passed. Thereafter, the petitioner made the present application in this Court under Section 17 of the Act, praying that the decree nisi dated Dec....", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "6. An appeal under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, as amended by U. P Amendment of 1957, deleting the first proviso to the section, lies to this Court and consequently the court of the District Judge which passed the decree in the present case is under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution provides that a High Court shall have superintendence over all courts subject to its appellate jurisdiction. The primary object of this supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, according to the consensus of authorities, is that the courts over which the High Court has such superintendence must be kept within the bounds of law. Whenever such bounds are exceeded the High Court is competent in the exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution to pass an appropriate order. It is also settled by the authorities that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is wider than under Article 226. As observed by the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v Ahmad Ishaque (AIR 1955 SC 233) while in a certiorari under Article 226 the High Court can only annul the decision...", "Decision": "5. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that now at this stage and in view of some understanding reached between the parties, it would not be expedient to interfere with the order of the District Judge and so he did not press the reference made to this Court under Section 17 of the Act and prayed that the same be dismissed. Ordinarily we would have stayed our hands after this statement by the counsel for the petitioner that he did not wish to press the petition made by way of reference to this Court, but the facts in the instant case are somewhat extraordinary. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that the proceedings culminating in the ex parte decree of divorce passed under Section 10 of the Act were not only illegal but were entirely without jurisdiction. The decree is a nullity and, therefore, cannot be allowed to stand. We are satisfied that this is a fit case in which this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution for passing suitable orders. Article...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/893002/ | AIR1978ALL27, AIR 1978 ALLAHABAD 27, 1977 ALL WC 591 (1978) 4 ALL LR 7, (1978) 4 ALL LR 7", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1977, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1978ALL27, AIR 1978 ALLAHABAD 27, 1977 ALL WC 591 (1978) 4 ALL LR 7, (1978) 4 ALL LR 7", "Kanoon Doc ID": "893002", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/893002/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Dr. Dwaraka Bai vs Professor Nainan Mathews on 28 January, 1953", "Case Number": "No. 73 of 1947", "Judgment Date": "1953-01-28", "Judges": "Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 112, Section 35, Section 488", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a long-drawn-out petition, having a tangled history which must be set out briefly for the purpose of understanding the facts and issues involved. 2. The petition is by Dr. Dwaraka Bai, M.B.B.S.. an Indian Christian doctor of Guntur, now aged 43, for divorce against her husband Professor Nainan Mathews M.A., B.L., a retired Indian Christian Professor, now aged 60, and till recently 'a regular student of the United Theological College, Bangalore. The petitioner took her M.B.B.S. degree in Madras in 1935 and began practising at Guntur where her father also is a doctor. When she became nearly 36 years old, i.e., in the beginning of 1946, she felt an urgent desire to get married. She, therefore, wanted to find out a suitable man to marry. One Mrs. Joseph, a Syrian Christian doctor of Bapatla, in Guntur district, told her about the respondent, Nainan Mathews, and told her also that he was by age, education, culture, family and character eminently fitted to be her husband. So, a long paper correspondence began between Mrs. Joseph and the respondent and then between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner told the respondent in Ex. P. 27 dated 23-2-46 that she had acquired house, lands, and cash worth some Rs. 80,000 and had been an Honorary Magistrate. She finally became violent...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The petition is by Dr. Dwaraka Bai, M.B.B.S.. an Indian Christian doctor of Guntur, now aged 43, for divorce against her husband Professor Nainan Mathews M.A., B.L., a retired Indian Christian Professor, now aged 60, and till recently 'a regular student of the United Theological College, Bangalore. The petitioner took her M.B.B.S. degree in Madras in 1935 and began practising at Guntur where her father also is a doctor. When she became nearly 36 years old, i.e., in the beginning of 1946, she felt an urgent desire to get married. She, therefore, wanted to find out a suitable man to marry. One Mrs. Joseph, a Syrian Christian doctor of Bapatla, in Guntur district, told her about the respondent, Nainan Mathews, and told her also that he was by age, education, culture, family and character eminently fitted to be her husband. So, a long paper correspondence began between Mrs. Joseph and the respondent and then between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner told the respondent in Ex. P. 27 dated 23-2-46 that she had acquired house, lands, and cash worth some Rs. 80,000 and had been an Honorary Magistrate. She finally became violent in her passion for the respondent...", "Issues": "8. The following issues were framed: 1. Has the respondent deserted the petitioner for upwards of two years prior to the date of the petition? 2. Has the respondent been guilty of cruelty to the petitioner? 3. Has the respondent committed adultery as alleged in paragraph 15 of the petition? 4. Is the petition barred by 'res judicata? 5. To what reliefs, if any, are the parties entitled? 9. But, before the trial, the respondent suddenly withdrew his defence unconditionally. His counsel Mr. p. S. Ramachandra Ayyar, however continued to be on record but was merely watching the proceedings on the final day of hearing, 8th April 1952, without the least attempt to contest the case or disprove the facts alleged by the petitioner. The reasons for the sudden 'volte face' by the respondent were not clear to me even that day. I considered that either he was unable to...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "25. 'Issue 2'. The cruelty alleged, apart from the sodomy or attempt at sodomy, is attributing to the petitioner statements admitting her passion for intercourse with hefty men for immoral purposes and desire to get children by advocate Jeevarathnam, and her alleged improper behaviour with Dr. Imazuddin. I must say that I am not convinced about the truth of the allegations made by the respondent regarding these matters, though I am not prepared to say that they are entirely imaginary. I only hold that they are as unproved as the adultery alleged against him, though they have some kind of suspicion not amounting to proof, behind them. I cannot agree with Mr. Thyagarajan that making such statements of, Othello-like jealousy against a wife will amount to cruelty under Section 10 , Indian Divorce Act, though deliberate attribution of immorality to a wife with named persons will certainly, under many rulings of this Court and other Courts entitle the wife to resist a petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent. Cruelty under Section 10 , Indian Divorce Act, must be such cruelty as, without adultery would entitle her to a divorce 'a mensa et toro'. Our Divorce Law...", "Decision": "30. Lastly, I wish to say a few words about Mr. Thyagarajan's contention that, under Articles 13 to 15 of the Constitution of India. Section 10 , Indian Divorce Act, in so far as it requires a woman to prove not only adultery by her husband, but also desertion and cruelty, is null and void, as repugnant to the Law, as it amounts to an illegal discrimination against woman on the ground only of sex, and that I should hold that mere proof of adultery by the husband is enough for a woman to obtain a divorce, just as mere proof of adultery by the wife would be enough for a husband to get divorce from the wife. I cannot agree, though I do not want to give a final decision on the point, as it is unnecessary in this case, where I hold that neither adultery nor desertion nor cruelty has been proved, and that the petition for divorce, as well as judicial separation must be therefore dismissed. I may add, however, that I consider that Section 10 as...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/210422/ | AIR1953MAD792, AIR 1953 MADRAS 792", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1953, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1953MAD792, AIR 1953 MADRAS 792", "Kanoon Doc ID": "210422", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/210422/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "M.T. Carunya vs S. Joseph Chellappa on 15 September, 1995", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1995-09-15", "Judges": "Srinivasan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 22, Section 3, Section 32, Section 4, Section 488, Section 494, Section 497, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The wife is the petitioner. She has sought divorce on the ground that the husband is guilty of bigamy with adultery. The husband remained ex parte. The wife has given evidence deposing that the husband has married another woman. The learned District Judge, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the wife, granted a decree for divorce. The said decree has come up before us for confirmation. 2. The amicus curiae, appointed for the respondent, has raised a contention that there is no allegation in the original petition or proof in the evidence of any adultery on the part of the husband. According to him, the evidence makes out only bigamy and not bigamy with adultery. For this purpose, he places reliance on the definition of adultery in Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. Under that section, necessary ingredient is that the woman concerned is the wife of another man. According to learned Counsel, in this case, the husband is only having, if at all, intercourse with a woman, whom he has married and she not being the wife of another woman he is not guilty of adultery as defined by Indian Penal Code .", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The wife is the petitioner. She has sought divorce on the ground that the husband is guilty of bigamy with adultery. The husband remained ex parte. The wife has given evidence deposing that the husband has married another woman. The learned District Judge, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the wife, granted a decree for divorce. The said decree has come up before us for confirmation.", "Issues": "Bigamy was defined as the marriage of any person during the life of the former husband or wife, whether the second marriage shall have taken place within His Majesty's dominion or elsewhere. The learned Judge also referred to the following passage in Rattigan on his Law of Divorce in India at p.24, which read: 19. ...In Websters New English Dictionary, 1888, the following meaning is given; \"Violation of marriage bed; voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with one of the opposite sex, whether unmarried or married to another; (the former case being technically designated single, the latter double adultery) The same meaning is given in Fowler's Concise Oxford Dictionary: Voluntary sexual intercourse of married person with one of opposite sex married (double adultery) or not (single adultery).", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "11. Applying the above principles of law, we find that once it is approved beyond doubt that the husband has married another woman and is continuously living with her, the husband is guilty of bigamy with adultery. There is no evidence to the contra. Husband has not chosen to cross-examine the wife on her deposition. The view taken by the District Judge that the wife is entitled to a decree of divorce is fully justified and we are upholding the same. Hence, the decree passed by the District Judge is confirmed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1316952/ | (1996)1MLJ409", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 9, 104)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1995, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1996)1MLJ409", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1316952", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1316952/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "M.T. Carunya vs S. Joseph Chellappa on 15 September, 1995", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1995-09-15", "Judges": "Srinivasan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 22, Section 3, Section 32, Section 4, Section 488, Section 494, Section 497, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The wife is the petitioner. She has sought divorce on the ground on that the husband is guilty of bigamy with adultery. The husband remained ex parte. The wife has given evidence deposing that the husband has married another woman. The learned District Judge, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the wife, granted a decree for divorce. The said: decree has come up before us for confirmation. 2. The amicus curiae, appointed for the respondent, has raised a contention that there is no allegation in the original petition or proof in the evidence of any adultery on the part of the husband. According to him, the evidence makes out only bigamy and not bigamy with adultery. For this purpose, he places reliance on the definition of adultery in section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. Under that section, the necessary ingredient is that the woman concerned is the wife of another man. According to learned counsel, in this case, the husband is only having, if at all, intercourse with a woman whom he has married and she not being the wife of another woman, he is not guilty of adultery as defined by Indian Penal Code .", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The wife is the petitioner. She has sought divorce on the ground on that the husband is guilty of bigamy with adultery. The husband remained ex parte. The wife has given evidence deposing that the husband has married another woman. The learned District Judge, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the wife, granted a decree for divorce. The said: decree has come up before us for confirmation.", "Issues": "\"Bigamy was defined as the marriage of any person during the life of the former husband or wife, whether the second marriage shall have taken place within His Majesty's dominion or elsewhere\". The learned Judge also referred to the following passage in Rattigan on his Law of Divorce in India at p.24, which read: \"19.....In Websters New English Dictionary 1888, the following meaning is given; \"Violation of marriage bed; voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with one of the opposit sex, whether unmarried or married to another; (the former case being technically designated single, the latter double adultery)\". The same meaning is given in Foller's Concise Oxford Dictionary; 'Voluntary sexual intercourse of married person with one of opposite sex married (double adultery) or not (single adultery)'.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "12. Applying the above principles of law, we find that once it is approved beyond doubt that the husband had married another woman and is continuously living with her, the husband is guilty of bigamy with adultery. There is no evidence to the contra. Husband has not chosen to cross examine the wife on her deposition. The view taken by the District Judge that the wife is entitled to a decree of divorce is fully justified and we are upholding the same. Hence, the decree passed by the District Judge is confirmed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1858140/ | 1996(1)CTC573", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 8, 104)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1995, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1996(1)CTC573", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1858140", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1858140/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Saroj W/O Maical @ Babasaheb Patole vs Maical @ Babasaheb Sadanana Patole on 7 December, 1999", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1999-12-07", "Judges": "V.K. Barde, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Special Marriage Act, 1954", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion; Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is reference under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (For short, hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\"). The learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad, has passed the decree for dissolution of marriage under section 10 of the Act, in Petition A. 182/97. 2. The petitioner, Smt. Saroj, filed the petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of ill-treatment and desertion. She also contended that the respondent Maical @ Babasaheb was already married with a woman prior to his marriage with the petitioner and on that ground also, dissolution of marriage was prayed.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The petitioner, Smt. Saroj, filed the petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of ill-treatment and desertion. She also contended that the respondent Maical @ Babasaheb was already married with a woman prior to his marriage with the petitioner and on that ground also, dissolution of marriage was prayed.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "15. Hence, the reference is accepted. The decree for dissolution of marriage passed under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad, in Petition A-1 82/97, is confirmed. In the given circumstances,", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1562590/ | 2000(4)BOMCR532, 2000(2)MHLJ512", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion; adultery", "Judgment Year": 1999, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2000(4)BOMCR532, 2000(2)MHLJ512", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1562590", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1562590/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Punjab-Haryana High Court", "Case Title": "Anjali Michael vs Anthony Michael on 27 February, 2017", "Case Number": "No.41 of 2017", "Judgment Date": "2017-02-27", "Judges": "Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 24", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Applicant-wife, by way of instant transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ' CPC '), seeks transfer of a petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 ('the Act' for short) bearing case No.HMA/1022/2016 titled as Anthony Michael Vs. Anjali Michael filed by the respondent-husband from Karnal to SAS Nagar (Mohali). It has gone undisputed before this Court that the applicant-wife, along with her minor child, is living with her parents in Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali). Since the applicant-wife is not working, she is dependent on her parents. Respondent-husband is not paying any amount of maintenance either for the applicant-wife or for the minor child. Distance 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 06-03-2017 02:01:16 ::: TA No.41 of 2017 2 between Karnal and Mohali is more than 100 kilometers. Other litigations between the parties, at the instance of the applicant-wife, are also pending at Mohali.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Applicant-wife, by way of instant transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ' CPC '), seeks transfer of a petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 ('the Act' for short) bearing case No.HMA/1022/2016 titled as Anthony Michael Vs. Anjali Michael filed by the respondent-husband from Karnal to SAS Nagar (Mohali).", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "\"Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a strait-jacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by Courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to plaintiff or defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; interest of justice demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no...", "Decision": "[ RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK ] 27.02.2017 JUDGE vishnu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 7 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 06-03-2017 02:01:17 :::", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75771816/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2017, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "75771816", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75771816/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Mr. Anil Kumar Vasant Lokhande vs Mr. Purushottam Vinayak Sansare And ... on 12 January, 1993", "Case Number": "Appeal No. 473 of 1970", "Judgment Date": "1993-01-12", "Judges": "A.A. Halbe, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 17A, Section 3, Section 37, Section 4, Section 45, Section 5, Section 55, Section 56, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Procedural; Adultery; Desertion", "Outcome": "Partly_Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The important question which has been posed for determination in this appeal is whether the decree passed by the High Court in appeal, dissolving the marriage between the husband and wife, against the decree passed by the District Judge dismissing the claim for dissolution of marriage is decree nisi and is subject to Sections 16 and 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The question has become important in view of the clear ratio laid down by the Full Bench of the Rangoon High Court in the case of Rev. Po Tun v. Na Chit and Anr. AIR 1938 Rangoon 204, wherein the High Court clearly laid down that a decree for dissolution of marriage made by the High Court under the Indian Divorce Act , either in its appellate or in its original jurisdiction, shall be decree nisi and not a decree subject to confirmation by the High Court under Section 17 of the said Act. 2. In view of the extensive arguments advanced on behalf of the parties it has become necessary to reconsider this view and ascertain as to whether this view of the scheme of the said Act. Whereas the learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently argued that this view is patently erroneous and deserves to be dissented from, the learned advocate for the...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The important question which has been posed for determination in this appeal is whether the decree passed by the High Court in appeal, dissolving the marriage between the husband and wife, against the decree passed by the District Judge dismissing the claim for dissolution of marriage is decree nisi and is subject to Sections 16 and 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The question has become important in view of the clear ratio laid down by the Full Bench of the Rangoon High Court in the case of Rev. Po Tun v. Na Chit and Anr. AIR 1938 Rangoon 204, wherein the High Court clearly laid down that a decree for dissolution of marriage made by the High Court under the Indian Divorce Act , either in its appellate or in its original jurisdiction, shall be decree nisi and not a decree subject to confirmation by the High Court under Section 17 of the said Act.", "Issues": "2. In view of the extensive arguments advanced on behalf of the parties it has become necessary to reconsider this view and ascertain as to whether this view of the scheme of the said Act. Whereas the learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently argued that this view is patently erroneous and deserves to be dissented from, the learned advocate for the respondent has urged that this is the view of the Full Bench of the High Court and that the reasons in support of that view appear to be wholly legitimate and need not be deviated from and that the same view should be taken in this matter and accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed. Whether the omission is international or in advertent is no concern of the Court and a casus omissus cannot be supplied by Court of law. The omission can only be supplied by statute or...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "9. Now, taking the allegation that the will is not a valid will and that there are several circumstances which indicated that this was not the last legal will of deceased Virbala, I feel that no longer discussion is warranted. The learned trial Judge has discussed as to how the will is valid. The learned advocate for the appellant has contended that if one looks to the signature of the testator Virbala, it would be found that there are tremors in the signature of the testator and this should persuade the Court to hold that the will is not a properly executed valid will. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the respondent has contended that there is not a single suggestion to any of the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner that Virbala was not in a, fit mental condition to execute the will. Suggestions regarding tremors etc. would fall into insignificance if there is nothing on record to show that Virbala was not in a fit mental condition to execute the will. 10. I do find...", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "38. The appeal is partly allowed and it is hereby declared that the assets of the deceased Sumant Lokhande shall be excluded from the probate together with the Will of Virbala and the petitioner Purushottam Sansare shall be entitled only to the assets and effects of the deceased Virbala. In the circumstances, the", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/790723/ | (1994)96BOMLR373", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural; adultery; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1993, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1994)96BOMLR373", "Kanoon Doc ID": "790723", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/790723/", "Chunks Indexed": 16 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Adelaide Mande Tobias vs William Albert Tobias on 8 March, 1967", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1967-03-08", "Judges": "P.B. Mukharji, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 178, Section 3, Section 4, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a wife's petition for divorce on the ground of \"adultery coupled with desertion without reasonable excuse for 2 years or upwards\". 2. The wife Adelaide Mande Tobias states in the petition the following facts. She was married on May 15. 1935 to the Respondent William Albert Tobias at the Church of the Secred Heart of No. 3 Dha-ramtala Street, Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Marriage Certificate has been proved and marked as Ext. A in this suit. Both the wife and the husband are domiciled In India and are Roman Catholic Christians.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a wife's petition for divorce on the ground of \"adultery coupled with desertion without reasonable excuse for 2 years or upwards\".", "Issues": "18. On this solitary incident of the 6th January 1966 hangs the whole charge of adultery in this case. The only evidence on this point is that of Joseph Okeeffe, the private detective. He produced no diary of his detective work although he has one. See his answers to questions 16-17. The gist of his evidence is that in January 1966, presumably on the 6th day of January at about 7.30 in the evening, he followed in a taxi the respondent husband from his flat, who in another taxi drove up to Park Street in Calcutta, right on to Chowringhee and near Lloyds Branch of the National and Grindleys Bank. There he is supposed to have seen the husband talking with some common women of the town (Q. 20). His further evidence is that one of these women got into the cab and then the husband and the woman drove...", "Petitioner Argument": "12. I put this very same question to Mr. Dutt, the learned counsel for the petitioner and he said that the reason perhaps of seeking this divorce after so many years was that she did not want to have any more the stigma of being known as \"Mrs. so and so\" when the husband was charged with adultery. But that submission of Mr. Dutt did not impress me. First, because that was not the case made by the petitioner herself in her evidence. If she thought that there was a stigma attaching to the name of Mrs. Tobias and it was to get rid of that name that she wanted the divorce now after 26 years, then she could have said so in evidence. But this is exactly what she did not say; and secondly, because if the stigma was there then why carry the stigma for 26 years and not make an end of it much earlier. I have come to the conclusion that this is not the reason for this delay. 13. In this situation the Court wanted...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "\"I would issue a caveat about the standard of proof. I do not think that this Court is irrevocably committed to the view that a charge of adultery must be regarded as a criminal charge, to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. I can well understand the iudgp applying that standard because of what was said in Ginesi v. Ginesi, 1948 P. 179 = 1948-1 All ER 373 but I would like to point out several things in regard to that case. First, it was not fully argued, because counsel conceded that the standard of proof of adultery was the same as in a criminal case. Secondly, the decision of the House of Lords in Mordaunt v. Moncreiffe, (1874) 30 LT 649 was not cited. It was there decided that a suit for divorce for adultery is a civil and not a criminal matter and that the analogies and precedents of criminal law have no authority in the divorce courts. This strikes at the root of 1948 P. 179 which appears to have proceeded on the supported criminal or quasi-criminal character of adultery. Thirdly, no reference was made to the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, Section 178(2), as...", "Decision": "52. I, therefore, grant a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage as prayed by the petitioner wife in prayer (1) of the petition and I also order that the respondent husband shall pay the costs of these proceedings to the petitioner.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1516991/ | AIR1968CAL133, 71CWN605, AIR 1968 CALCUTTA 133", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1967, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1968CAL133, 71CWN605, AIR 1968 CALCUTTA 133", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1516991", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1516991/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Patna High Court", "Case Title": "Raphael Damacious vs Mrs. Teresa Raphael And Anr. on 8 September, 1989", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1989-09-08", "Judges": "N.P. Singh, J., U.P. Singh, J., B.N. Agrawal, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. A decree for dissolution of the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 has been forwarded to this Court by the District Judge, Dumka for confirmation in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. In appears that the applicant filed an application under Section 10 of the Act levelling a charge of adultery against his wife, respondent No. 1, and sought a decree for divorce on that ground. I, may be mentioned that Under section 10 any husband may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court, paying that his marriage may be dissolved on the ground that his wife has been guilty of adultery. The claim made on behalf of the applicant was contested by respondent no. 1 who refuted the allegation that she was guilty of adultery. The learned District Judge, on consideration of the materials on record, cams to the conclusion that the applicant has been able to prove that respondent No. 1 was freely mixing with respondent no. 2, Brother Birendra Prasad, and; on the basis of the materials, finding has been recorded in favour of the applicant.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. A decree for dissolution of the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 has been forwarded to this Court by the District Judge, Dumka for confirmation in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "10. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that it is not possible to confirm the decree for divorce passed by the District Judge, Dumka. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Judge, Dumka is set aside, the decree is not confirmed and the reference is discharge.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1815443/ | 1991(39)BLJR356, II(1991)DMC258", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1989, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1991(39)BLJR356, II(1991)DMC258", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1815443", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1815443/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Punjab-Haryana High Court", "Case Title": "Sonia Kuruvilla vs Simon Chaudhary on 3 November, 2017", "Case Number": "FAO No.1088 of 2016", "Judgment Date": "2017-11-03", "Judges": "Jaswant Singh, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Appellant-Wife-Sonia Kuruvilla has filed the present appeal aggrieved against the judgment dated 19/01/2016, whereby petition filed by respondent husband-Simon Chaudhary under Section 10 of the Divorce Act 1869, has been allowed and consequently, marriage dated 05/11/2012 between the parties was dissolved on account of subjecting the husband to severe mental cruelty by wife. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that the parties to the present 'Lis' are Christian by religion, doctors by profession and their marriage was solemnized on 05/11/2012 according to Christian rites and 1 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2017 01:55:49 ::: ceremonies at a Church of South India, Christ Church, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala). Thereafter, the parties started residing at their matrimonial home at House No. 823, Sector 2, Panchkula. The matrimonial home consisted of the parents and brother of the husband, wife and the husband himself. However, as per the petition filed for divorce, after a few days, the behaviour of wife started to change and she used to get recurrent attacks of insanity. Further, as per the allegations, wife wanted to reside separately from the joint household of husband and after a few months, husband allegedly accepted the demand of wife and shifted to a separate household in January 2013 at House No. 139-B, Sector 4, Panchkula. It is further alleged by the...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. Appellant-Wife-Sonia Kuruvilla has filed the present appeal aggrieved against the judgment dated 19/01/2016, whereby petition filed by respondent husband-Simon Chaudhary under Section 10 of the Divorce Act 1869, has been allowed and consequently, marriage dated 05/11/2012 between the parties was dissolved on account of subjecting the husband to severe mental cruelty by wife.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent- husband has argued that the Ld. trial court had rightly come to a conclusion that appellant-wife had committed cruelty upon the husband and therefore, the well reasoned findings returned by the trial court does not warrant any interference. He has however, argued that although it is not proved that any dowry articles were given, still, in case the court directs for an amicable settlement, he is ready to compensate to the extent of 17 lakhs (which includes alleged household articles given to the respondent-wife at the time of marriage to the tune of Rs. 14 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs spent by wife's family at the time of solemnizing marriage in Kerala). Thus, he has prayed that the present appeal may be dismissed. 7. I have heard Ld. counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book as well as the record with their able assistance very minutely and have come to a conclusion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.", "Factors to be Considered": "Before adverting to the controversy involved in the present 5 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2017 01:55:51 ::: FAO No.1088 of 2016(O&M) # 6# case, it would be apposite to reproduce extracted Section 10 (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 which is applicable to the present case: \" 10(x) the respondent has treated the petitioners with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent \" A bare perusal of the said section would show that in case, either of the party to the marriage has a \"reasonable apprehension\" in its mind that it would be harmful or injurious for him/her to reside with the spouse, then divorce can be granted to the aggrieved party. Meaning of the word \"reasonable apprehension\" would mean, to my mind, an apprehension which a rational or sensible human being, living an ordinary life could have. It has to be interpreted to mean the practical difficulties that a spouse may comprehend/face while living with the other spouse. As far as the words \"harmful or injurious\" are concerned, they may not be read as the...", "Decision": "( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE November 3rd, 2017 Vinay Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No 11 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2017 01:55:51 :::", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70995842/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2017, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "70995842", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70995842/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Punjab-Haryana High Court", "Case Title": "Nirmala vs Swaran Masih on 2 August, 2010", "Case Number": "Transfer Application No. 428 of 2009", "Judgment Date": "2010-08-02", "Judges": "Rajesh Bindal, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 32, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "RAJESH BINDAL J Prayer in the present application is for transfer of petition, titled as Swaran Masih Vs. Smt. Nirmala filed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, (for short 'the Act') by the respondent-husband from the Court of District Judge, Gurdaspur to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Mansa. \"Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a straitjacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by Courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to plaintiff or defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; interest of justice demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc....", "Fact/ Respondent": "RAJESH BINDAL J Prayer in the present application is for transfer of petition, titled as Swaran Masih Vs. Smt. Nirmala filed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, (for short 'the Act') by the respondent-husband from the Court of District Judge, Gurdaspur to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Mansa.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "\"Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a straitjacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by Courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to plaintiff or defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; interest of justice demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceedings. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no...", "Decision": "The application stands disposed of accordingly.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40589340/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2010, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "40589340", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40589340/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Maria Sera Pinto vs Milton Dias on 25 August, 2000", "Case Number": "Petition No. 4543 of 1999", "Judgment Date": "2000-08-25", "Judges": "for, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Family Courts Act, 1984", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 16, Section 17, Section 19, Section 20, Section 7, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Procedural; Adultery; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. These petitions have been placed before us at the direction of the Hon'ble Chief Justice for a decision as to whether the procedure contemplated under Section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 of confirmation of a decree nisi made by the High Court on its original side is still required in view of the coming into force of the Family Courts Act, 1984 . The present petitions are all petitions filed under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of the marriage on different grounds. In each of these petitions a decree nisi has been made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in exercise of the matrimonial Jurisdiction of this Court. These decree nisi are required to be confirmed by virtue of provisions in section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act. We are informed that there are about 200 other similar matters where decree nisi has already been made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in exercise of powers under section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. It is not necessary to discuss the facts giving rise to these petitions to decide the question referred to us. We shall refer to the facts of M. J. Petition No. 4543 of 1999 as a typical case. 2. In M. J. Petition...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. In M. J. Petition No. 4543 of 1999 the parties are both Christians who were married in accordance with Christian rites at the St. Anthony's Church. Vakola, Mumbai on 29th October, 1983. After marriage, the parties resided at Dahisar. There is one female issue out of the marriage. The petition was presented on 31st July, 1999 invoking section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act alleging adultery on the part of the respondent-husband. This petition was tried and a decree nisi was made on 10th March, 2000. This decree nisi is required to be confirmed under section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act within a period of six months therefrom.", "Issues": "9. The question that confronts us is : whether, in a situation like this, we must hold that the Full Bench has merely interpreted the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and that view taken by the Full Bench would be the law with effect from 1984 when the said Act came into force? Though our first instinct was to say so, on deeper reflection we are satisfied that taking such a view would cause great prejudice, inconvenience and injustice to the parties in the 200 petitions, which are almost over, by sending them to the Family Court for further trial and disposal in accordance with the Family Courts Act . Three considerations prompt us to take the view that the law laid down by the Full Bench in Romila 's case must be deemed to have been brought into prospectively. First, whether the view taken by the Full...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "1. These petitions have been placed before us at the direction of the Hon'ble Chief Justice for a decision as to whether the procedure contemplated under Section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 of confirmation of a decree nisi made by the High Court on its original side is still required in view of the coming into force of the Family Courts Act, 1984 . The present petitions are all petitions filed under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of the marriage on different grounds. In each of these petitions a decree nisi has been made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in exercise of the matrimonial Jurisdiction of this Court. These decree nisi are required to be confirmed by virtue of provisions in section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act. We are informed that there are about 200 other similar matters where decree nisi has already been made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in exercise of powers under section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. It is not necessary to discuss the facts giving rise to these petitions to decide the question referred to us. We shall refer...", "Decision": "11. Our attention is drawn by Ms. Agnes to the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Joseph Varghese Cheeran v. Smt. Rosy Kurian Kannaikai ,. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court was concerned there with a similar dilemma pursuant to the coming into force of the Family Court Act . A decree for dissolution of the marriage was rendered by the Family Court in exercise of its power under the Family Court Act . An appeal was carried there against under section 19 to the High Court of Karnataka. Simultaneously, the Family Court also made a reference for confirmation of the decrees granted under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. Considering the situation in its entirely, the Karnataka High Court was of a view that once the decree of dissolution of the marriage was made under the Family Court Act , it could only be further processed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the said Act and not in accordance with the procedure under the Indian Divorce Act . 1869- Consequently, the High Court look the...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1968969/ | 2001(1)BOMCR585, (2001)1BOMLR56, I(2002)DMC554, 2000(4)MHLJ633", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural; adultery; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 2000, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2001(1)BOMCR585, (2001)1BOMLR56, I(2002)DMC554, 2000(4)MHLJ633", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1968969", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1968969/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "A. George Cornelius vs Elizabeth Dopti Samadanam on 4 August, 1969", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1969-08-04", "Judges": "K.S. Palaniswamy, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 16, Section 27, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This suit filed by the husband under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (IV of 1869) hereinafter referred to as the Act raises an important question about the scope of Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner married the respondent on 16th September, 1935. He has alleged that after the marriage they lived together for sometime when the respondent gave birth to three children, that all the three children are married, that in or about May, 1952 when the couple were living at Bhuvanagiri, the respondent deserted the petitioner against his will and without reasonable cause and went away, that the enquiries made by the petitioner about the respondent proved futile and that inasmuch as the respondent's whereabouts are not known from 1952, it should be presumed that she is dead. The petitioner prays that a decree for dissolution of the marriage, may, therefore, be granted. The respondent could not be served in person and service was effected by substituted service. 2. The question for consideration is whether upon the presumption which the petitioner wants to draw as regards the death of the respondent, dissolution of the marriage can be decreed under Section 10 of the Act. Section 10 , which provides for dissolution of marriage consists of two parts. The first part deals with a case...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This suit filed by the husband under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (IV of 1869) hereinafter referred to as the Act raises an important question about the scope of Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner married the respondent on 16th September, 1935. He has alleged that after the marriage they lived together for sometime when the respondent gave birth to three children, that all the three children are married, that in or about May, 1952 when the couple were living at Bhuvanagiri, the respondent deserted the petitioner against his will and without reasonable cause and went away, that the enquiries made by the petitioner about the respondent proved futile and that inasmuch as the respondent's whereabouts are not known from 1952, it should be presumed that she is dead. The petitioner prays that a decree for dissolution of the marriage, may, therefore, be granted. The respondent could not be served in person and service was effected by substituted service.", "Issues": "7. The position is no doubt anomalous. Whereas persons seeking relief under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , among other grounds the right to ask for divorce on the ground that the other party to the marriage is not heard of for seven years or more, and should be presumed to be dead, persons seeking divorce under the Act in question are not entitled to urge that ground for no obvious reason. It is for the Legislature to consider whether the Act should not be suitably amended so that the law may be uniform.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "5. The question, under these circumstances, is whether in enacting Section 7 of the Act the Indian Legislature intended that, though no express provision is made in the Act providing for a decree for dissolution on the ground that the husband or wife can be presumed to be dead, on the ground that he or she is not heard of for seven years and more, the principles of the English Matrimonial Causes Act, under which there is no doubt a provision for dissolution on the above ground, can be imported into Section 7 and a decree can be granted accordingly. Mr. Athanasius, appearing for the petitioner, conceded that he was unable to find any decided case in support of the position which he contends for. Section 7 , as its wording indicates, is merely a residuar section, intended to provide for any matter which, by inadvertance or otherwise is not expressly provided in the Act. But in interpreting the section the opening words \" subject to the provisions contained in this Act\" should not be ignored. Where there is express...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86845/ | (1970)2MLJ351, AIR 1970 MADRAS 240, (1970) 2 MADLJ351 1983 MADLW 63, 1983 MADLW 63", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 116); Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1969, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1970)2MLJ351, AIR 1970 MADRAS 240, (1970) 2 MADLJ351 1983 MADLW 63, 1983 MADLW 63", "Kanoon Doc ID": "86845", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86845/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "Paikas Khaka vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 20 January, 2003", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2003-01-20", "Judges": "Tapen Sen, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 4, Section 5, Section 66", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The petitioner, Paikas Khaka has filed this Writ Application for quashing the order dated 14.5.1993 issued by the respondent No. 2 (The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi) as contained at Annexure 10 communicating his approval of the petitioner's dismissal from the service. 2. According to the petitioner, the school is a Government aided school and it is run by the Managing Committee on funds of the Government.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The petitioner, Paikas Khaka has filed this Writ Application for quashing the order dated 14.5.1993 issued by the respondent No. 2 (The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi) as contained at Annexure 10 communicating his approval of the petitioner's dismissal from the service.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "3. The petitioner has stated that he is a member of the Scheduled Tribe and was appointed by the Secretary of the Saint Stephen's Boys' Middle School, Itki, Ranchi by letter dated 20.1.1986 as contained at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner joined on 20.3.1986. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner's appointment was provisionally approved by the respondent No. 2 (the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi) by his letter dated 28.8.1986 and payment of salary in the prescribed scale was made by the Government. The petitioner has stated that his appointment had also been confirmed by the Managing Committee by resolution dated 31.3.1987 (Annexure 3) with effect from 20.3.1986. 5. On 23.7.1992, the petitioner received a show-cause notice from the respondent No. 3 (the Chairman of the School) giving him 72 hours to file explanation in relation to the allegations contained therein. In the aforementioned show-cause notice, copy of which is contained at Annexure 4, the allegation against the petitioner was that although he had married one Ursulla Nag according to Christian rites on 1.6.1987, yet, while functioning as Head Master...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "20. For the reasons stated above, \"this Court holds that no illegality was committed by the respondents in taking action against the petitioner. Consequently, there is no merit in this Writ Application. The same is accordingly dismissed. There shall however be", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1611668/ | 2003(51)BLJR529, [2003(2)JCR336(JHR)]", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2003, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2003(51)BLJR529, [2003(2)JCR336(JHR)]", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1611668", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1611668/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Binu vs Sajan on 7 November, 2002", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2002-11-07", "Judges": "R. Rajendra Babu, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 15, Section 16, Section 18, Section 45", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree of Nullity Adjudicated", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The wife filed this Original Petition for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 2. The respondent filed a counter denying all the allegations levelled against him. But, he made a counter claim for a declaration that the marriage was null and void under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act on the ground of fraud. When the respondent sought to let in evidence for proving his allegation of fraud in obtaining his consent for the marriage, the petitioner objected contending that the respondent is not entitled to a decree declaring the marriage null and void in a proceedings initiated by the petitioner for dissolution of marriage under Section 10 of the Act. Accordingly, the above question has to be considered as a preliminary issue and the learned counsel for both sides were heard on the preliminary issue.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The wife filed this Original Petition for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (desertion) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "6. When the evidence was let in, regarding the counter claim put forward, it was objected to by the other side. When the counter claim made in the counter does not come within the ambit of Section 15 of the Act, evidence also cannot be let in to prove the same. The contention put forward by the respondent cannot be accepted and no evidence can be let in to substantiate the above contention put forward in the counter in the same proceedings.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103425/ | AIR2003KER93", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2002, "Relief Status": "nullity", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR2003KER93", "Kanoon Doc ID": "103425", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103425/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Orissa High Court", "Case Title": "Pradip Kumar Sahu vs Sobharani Samantaray on 30 August, 1983", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1983-08-30", "Judges": "Pathak, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion; Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree for Judicial Separation Granted", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a reference made by the learned District Judge, Sambalpur under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter called the 'Act') arising out of a petition purported to have been made under Section 10 of the Act. 2. The learned District Judge, on a perusal of the solitary evidence of the petitioner, has passed a decree nisi dissolving the marriage between the parties and hence this reference.", "Fact/ Respondent": "3. On a perusal of the petition filed by the husband, it is amply clear that the case is not covered by the ground available to the husband under Section 10 of the Act. According to the provision of\" Section 10 , the only ground on which the husband can apply for dissolution of the marriage is adultery committed by the wife. On a bare reading of the petition, we find that this is a case of cruelty which is not a ground available to the husband under Section 10 of the Act for making an application for dissolution of marriage.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "7. In the result, we are not in a position to confirm the decree of dissolution passed by the learned District Judge, However, we pass a decree on the facts as noticed above for judicial separation, P.K. Mohanti, J.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/351553/ | AIR1984ORI29, AIR 1984 ORISSA 29, (1983) 56 CUTLT 363, (1984) 1 DMC 381, (1984) MATLR 84", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion; adultery", "Judgment Year": 1983, "Relief Status": "judicial_separation", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1984ORI29, AIR 1984 ORISSA 29, (1983) 56 CUTLT 363, (1984) 1 DMC 381, (1984) MATLR 84", "Kanoon Doc ID": "351553", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/351553/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Joseph vs Mary on 21 July, 1999", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1999-07-21", "Judges": "AR. Lakshmanan, J., Atg., C.J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 16, Section 17, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Petitioner, who is the husband of the respondent Mary, filed the petition for divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act on the ground of adultery. According to the petitioner, the marriage between him and the respondent was solemnised on 17.6.1974 in accordance with their customary rites and that he and the respondent were residing together from the date of marriage and in that wedlock five children were born to them. It is stated that since his father was taking treatment in the hospital at Manipal, he stayed in the hospital to help his father and during that period one Johny Thottupurath aged 25 came to the house of the petitioner almost every night and had adulterous intercourse with the respondent. The eldest daughter of the petitioner is stated to be the eye-witness. The said Johny subsequently committed suicide. It is further averred that on 15.1.1988 the respondent left the matrimonial home without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner and she was moving from place to place with different persons. It is alleged that during 1992-93 she was residing with one Joseph Kizhakkekara, whose whereabouts are not known to anyone who ought to know it and that the respondent is leading a loose life. It is also stated that there is no collusion between the parties. 2....", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. Petitioner, who is the husband of the respondent Mary, filed the petition for divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act on the ground of adultery. According to the petitioner, the marriage between him and the respondent was solemnised on 17.6.1974 in accordance with their customary rites and that he and the respondent were residing together from the date of marriage and in that wedlock five children were born to them. It is stated that since his father was taking treatment in the hospital at Manipal, he stayed in the hospital to help his father and during that period one Johny Thottupurath aged 25 came to the house of the petitioner almost every night and had adulterous intercourse with the respondent. The eldest daughter of the petitioner is stated to be the eye-witness. The said Johny subsequently committed suicide. It is further averred that on 15.1.1988 the respondent left the matrimonial home without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner and she was moving from place to place with different persons. It is alleged that during 1992-93 she was residing with one Joseph Kizhakkekara, whose whereabouts are not known to anyone who ought to know it and that...", "Issues": "3. The Principal District Judge, Thalassery formulated the following points for consideration in the petition : \"(1) Whether the respondent committed adultery. (2) Whether petitioner has committed any act which disentitled him from claiming relief. (3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get decree of divorce. (4) Relief and cost.\"", "Petitioner Argument": "2. The respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations as baseless. It is submitted that she does not know any person by name Joseph Kizhakkekara. The allegation that the respondent is leading a loose life is also denied. It is averred that she was treated with cruelty by the petitioner and that the petitioner is having illicit relationship with a number of women. Hence the respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "5. Section 12 also provides that Courts should be satisfied of absence of collusion. The standard of proof required in divorce cases under the Act is that the Judge should be satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt as to the commission of the matrimonial offence. This is the clear requirement of Section 14 . 6. In Halsbury's Laws of England meaning of 'adultery' has been given as follows : \"For the purpose of relief in the matrimonial jurisdiction, adultery means consensual sexual intercourse during the subsistence of the marriage between one spouse and a person of the opposite sex not the other spouse.\" A Full Bench of the Orissa High Court in the decision reported in Madhusmitha Nayak v. Simadri Nayak , AIR 1997 Ori. 162, held in a similar case that the Judge of the Family Court did not at all apply his mind to the provisions of Section 10 of the Act and did not consider the case of the parties in the background of that section. The Full Bench held as follows : \"A Christian marriage can be dissolved only under the provisions of a statute of general application to such marriages. Grounds for dissolution of marriage enumerated...", "Decision": "12. We are of the opinion that in the case on hand the quantity and quality of the evidence on record does not justify the grant of a decree for divorce in favour of the petitioner. This apart, the mandatory requirement under Section 11 has also been given a go-bye. We, therefore, decline to confirm the decree granted by the District Judge and remit the matter to the District Court, Thalassery. The District Judge shall re-hear the case after observing the formalities under Section 11 of the Act and dispose of the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/527509/ | I(2000)DMC554", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1999, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: I(2000)DMC554", "Kanoon Doc ID": "527509", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/527509/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "G.Priya @ Braisie vs D.Balamurugan @ Moses on 23 September, 2020", "Case Number": "C.M.A.No.607 of 2015", "Judgment Date": "2020-09-23", "Judges": "T.Raja, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 125, Section 22, Section 4, Section 498, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Court-II, Kanchipuram, in I.D.O.P.No.15 of 2013, dated 19.09.2014, granting divorce on the ground of cruelty. http://www.judis.nic.in 1/18 C.M.A.No.607 of 2015 The appellant is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The marriage was solemnized between the appellant and the respondent on 09.04.2010 at A.G.Church, ECR Road, Pudupattinam, Kancheepuram District, as per Christian Rites and Customs. Out of the conjugal relationship, they were blessed with a female child on 12.01.2011 at J.S.P. Hospital, Chengalpattu. Thereafter, she went to her parental home with child and the respondent/husband also visited her every week. Whileso, on two occasions i.e. on 28.06.2011 and 15.07.2011, when he visited his wife, he was ill-treated, intimidated and deterred him not to visit again. His mother-in-law also prevented her daughter from talking to him. Even on the first birthday function of his child, he was not invited.", "Fact/ Respondent": "http://www.judis.nic.in 1/18 C.M.A.No.607 of 2015 The appellant is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The marriage was solemnized between the appellant and the respondent on 09.04.2010 at A.G.Church, ECR Road, Pudupattinam, Kancheepuram District, as per Christian Rites and Customs. Out of the conjugal relationship, they were blessed with a female child on 12.01.2011 at J.S.P. Hospital, Chengalpattu. Thereafter, she went to her parental home with child and the respondent/husband also visited her every week. Whileso, on two occasions i.e. on 28.06.2011 and 15.07.2011, when he visited his wife, he was ill-treated, intimidated and deterred him not to visit again. His mother-in-law also prevented her daughter from talking to him. Even on the first birthday function of his child, he was not invited.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Heard Mrs.Sumithra Chakkaravarthi, learned counsel for the appellant/wife, and Mr.G.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the respondent/husband, through Video Conferencing, due to COVID-19 pandemic. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Court-II, Kanchipuram, in I.D.O.P.No.15 of 2013, dated 19.09.2014, granting divorce on the ground of cruelty. 3. Short facts leading to the filing of this appeal are stated below:- http://www.judis.nic.in 1/18 C.M.A.No.607 of 2015 The appellant is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The marriage was solemnized between the appellant and the respondent on 09.04.2010 at A.G.Church, ECR Road, Pudupattinam, Kancheepuram District, as per Christian Rites and Customs. Out of the conjugal relationship, they were blessed with a female child on 12.01.2011 at J.S.P. Hospital, Chengalpattu. Thereafter, she went to her parental home with child and the respondent/husband also visited her every week. Whileso, on two occasions i.e. on 28.06.2011 and 15.07.2011, when he visited his wife, he was ill-treated, intimidated and deterred him not to visit again. His mother-in-law also prevented her daughter from talking to him. Even on...", "Factors to be Considered": "http://www.judis.nic.in 12/18 C.M.A.No.607 of 2015 “15. It cannot be in doubt that in an appropriate case the unsubstantiated allegation of dowry demand or such other allegation has been made and the husband and his family members are exposed to criminal litigation and ultimately if it is found that such allegation is unwarranted and without basis and if that act of the wife itself forms the basis for the husband to allege that mental cruelty has been inflicted on him, certainly, in such circumstance if a petition for dissolution of marriage is filed on that ground and evidence is tendered before the original court to allege mental cruelty it could well be appreciated for the purpose of dissolving the marriage on that ground. However, in the present facts as already indicated, the situation is not so. Though a criminal complaint had been lodged by the wife and husband has been acquitted in the said proceedings the basis on which the husband had approached the Trial Court is not of alleging mental cruelty in that regard but with regard to her intemperate behaviour regarding which both the courts below on appreciation of the evidence had arrived at the conclusion that the same...", "Decision": "18. In fine, for the reasons stated above, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. No Costs. M.P.No.1 of 2015 is closed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32240815/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2020, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "32240815", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32240815/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Gujarat High Court", "Case Title": "Lillykutty Mathew vs C.J. Simon on 20 April, 2000", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2000-04-20", "Judges": "M.S. Shah, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 18, Section 19, Section 2, Section 3, Section 4", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19; Constitutional Validity", "Outcome": "Decree of Nullity Adjudicated", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a petition filed by a Christian wife for a decree of nullity of marriage with the respondent, also a Christian, particularly on the ground that the consent of the petitioner for the marriage in question with the respondent was obtained by fraud. 2. The petitioner's case, as stated in the petition, is as under :-", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a petition filed by a Christian wife for a decree of nullity of marriage with the respondent, also a Christian, particularly on the ground that the consent of the petitioner for the marriage in question with the respondent was obtained by fraud.", "Issues": "6. The following issues have been raised for decision of this Court :- (i) Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition ? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of nullity of marriage on the ground that her consent for the marriage in question with the respondent was obtained by fraud ? (iii) Whether this Court can take a view different from the view taken by the Ecclesiastical Court that the petitioner's consent cannot be said to have been obtained by fraud ?", "Petitioner Argument": "2.6 The petitioner has stated that if the petitioner had the knowledge about the real state of affairs of the respondent, she would not have given her consent for the marriage. The petitioner had given the consent for the marriage particularly with a reference to the purported quality of the respondent which he claimed to have, but the respondent deliberately concealed several significant factors and made representations to the petitioner in order to obtain her consent for the marriage. The representations made by the respondent and the broker regarding the employment, financial status and educational qualifications were all false and were made with an intent to defraud the petitioner. Thus, the consent of the petitioner for the marriage was obtained by fraud and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get a decree declaring her marriage with the respondent as null and void. 2.7 In the petition, the petitioner had initially stated that with a view to see that the behaviour of the respondent changes, the petitioner brought the respondent to Ahmedabad and petitioner and the respondent lived at Azad Society,...", "Respondent Argument": "3. The respondent has filed counter affidavit denying the petitioner's case and stating that the respondent had done his B.A. in Economics and the respondent was employed as a representative with Agro Chemicals and was receiving Rs.1500/- from the said employment. The respondent has asserted that the respondent was a degree holder and had a reasonable job, temporarily, at the time of marriage and that his financial stability was also sound, that he never informed anybody that he was the owner of 3 acres of land and a house; the 3 acres of land and a house was the property belonging to the respondent's father. The marriage was an arranged marriage and there were sufficient enquiries from both the families before the marriage as the two families are situated within a distance of 8 kms. The financial status of both the families was equal at the time of marriage and since the respondent had a reasonably good job, temporarily, at the time of marriage, the respondent's financial stability was also sound. The petitioner was a Typist and she did not...", "Factors to be Considered": "Constitutional Doctrine: Gender equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21; severance of discriminatory conditions requiring Christian wives to prove adultery coupled with cruelty/desertion (Ammini E.J. / Pragati Varghese).", "Decision": "(a) in a State, the High Court for that State; (b) to (ee) ... ... ... ... and in the case of any petition under this Act, \"High Court\" means the High Court for the area where the husband and wife reside or last resided together. (2) \"District Judge\" means a Judge of a principal civil court of original jurisdiction however designated; (3) \"District Court\" means, in the case of any petition under this Act, the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction, or of whose jurisdiction under this Act, the husband and wife reside or last resided together; \"Court\" (4) \"Court\" means the High Court or the District Court, as the case may be: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 4. Matrimonial jurisdiction of High Courts to be exercised subject to Act - Exception.- The jurisdiction now exercised by the High Courts in respect of divorce a mensa et toro, and in all other causes, suits and matters matrimonial, shall be exercised by such Courts and by the District Courts subject to the provisions...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/906675/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19; constitutional_validity", "Judgment Year": 2000, "Relief Status": "nullity", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "906675", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/906675/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Josekuriyan Pullialiekal vs. Sofi Jose Kaithottungal on 6 October, 2006", "Case Number": "MAT.APPEAL.NO. 155 OF 2007", "Judgment Date": "2006-10-06", "Judges": "K.Harilal, J., A.M.Babu, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unsound Mind; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "According to the appellant, his marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 17.2.1992 as per the customary rites and practices prevailing in Christian community and two children are born out of the said wedlock. Immediately a few days after the marriage, the appellant came to note that the respondent is a person with abnormal character and behaviour. She did not have normal attitude and feeling of a newly wedded woman. She was very rude and rustic from the very beginning and from the next day of the marriage itself she picked up quarrels with the appellant and his family members. She never had any love and affection towards the appellant or his family members. The appellant found difficulty to adjust with the behaviour of the respondent but he tolerated her cruel behaviour to maintain the marital life. When she came to know that she is suffering from some kind of mental ailments, she was taken to mental hospitals. When the mental condition of the respondent became worse, on 22.1.1992 he took the respondent to medical college hospital, Pariyaram and she was admitted there and Mat.Appeal.No. 155 of 2007 ::3:: treated as an inpatient. Thereafter, she was taken to Kasthurba hospital, Manipal where she was admitted on 23.2.1998 and got discharged on 28.2.1998. After about six months, she was again taken...", "Fact/ Respondent": "Appellant is the husband of the respondent. He filed O.P.387/2003 before the family court, Kannur, seeking a decree for dissolution of marriage under Sec.10(iii) and (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 . The respondent resisted the said application and both parties adduced evidence to prove their rival contentions. After considering the evidence on record, the family court dismissed the petition on a finding that the appellant miserably failed to prove that the respondent has been incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. This appeal has been filed challenging the said findings whereby the family court dismissed the original petition.", "Issues": "April,2002, as she was not residing with the appellant after 2002. The point to be considered is, whether the appellant has succeeded to prove that the respondent was incurably of unsound mind for a period from 06.10.2004 to 06.10.2006 i.e, two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition? 9. It has come out in pleadings and evidence in Exts.X1 and X2 that when her behaviour got aggravated at first, she was taken to hospital on 28.02.2002. Ext.X1 as well as Ext.X2 and Ext.A1 series of documents would prove that the respondent had some kind of mental ailment from 1998 and she was treated up to 31.05.2004. Ext.X1 is the photostat copy of the case records of the respondent from S.H. Hospital, Paynkulam. As per Ext.X1, the treatment starts from 30.11.1998 and ends on 31.07.2002. 10. None of the entries would show any kind of treatment during the period from...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "cruelly towards the appellant in front of the children or relatives and friends. She has not picked up quarrel always as alleged by the appellant. The appellant had never shown any love or affection towards the respondent. The allegation that the respondent had mental ailment even before the marriage is false. She was not suspicious of the appellant, as alleged by him. She never accused the appellant any immoral relations with any other woman. The allegation that the respondent had psychiatric complaint and she was mentally ill and treated in different hospitals before the marriage is not correct. She is fit both physically and mentally. Thus, the respondent denied all the allegations levelled against her as grounds for getting the marriage dissolved. 4. Both parties adduced evidence. The appellant was examined as AW.1 and two other witnesses were examined as AW.2 and AW.3. AW.2 is an independent witness and AW.3 is the Doctor, who treated the respondent for the alleged mental illness. Exts.A1 to A4(c) and X1 to X2 were marked from the part Mat.Appeal.No. 155 of 2007 ::7:: of...", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear.", "Decision": "15. As we have held above, the incurable nature of the unsound mind and the continuity of 2 years with such an unsound mind, immediately proceeding the presentation of the petition are indispensable to get a decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 10 (1) (iii) of the Divorce Act 1869. In the instant case it has come out in evidence that the respondent Mat.Appeal.No. 155 of 2007 ::15::", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94103353/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unsound Mind", "All Grounds": "unsound_mind; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2006, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "94103353", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94103353/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Lavina Martin vs Sam Bosco Martin on 5 May, 2017", "Case Number": "FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.183 OF 2008", "Judgment Date": "2017-05-05", "Judges": "Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "The Appellant wife has by this application challenged the Court, Mumbai allowed the Petition under section 10(x) and 10(ix) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 filed by the Respondent-husband and dissolved the marriage solemnised between them. The marriage between the Appellant-wife and the Megha 1/21 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:15 ::: Megha fca_183_2008.doc Respondent-husband was solemnised on 2.1.1988 at St. Joseph Church, Umarkhadi, Mumbai as per Christian Rules and rituals. On 19.6.1989, a son was born in the wedlock. On 12 th October, 2006 the Respondent -husband filed a petition under section 10(x) and 10(ix) of the Divorce Act, 1869 for a decree of divorce.", "Fact/ Respondent": "The Appellant wife has by this application challenged the Court, Mumbai allowed the Petition under section 10(x) and 10(ix) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 filed by the Respondent-husband and dissolved the marriage solemnised between them.", "Issues": "27. The aforesaid evidence reveals that in the month of April- 1992 the Appellant-wife had gone to Kenya for about 15 days to see her brother. The mere fact that the Appellant-wife had visited her brother at Kenya with or without consent of the Respondent - husband, or that upon her return she had started residing at her parental house would not per say amount to desertion or final separation as alleged by the Respondent-husband. The moot question is whether the Appellant-wife had no intention of resuming cohabitation. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the evidence of Appellant-wife indicates that she had made attempts to join matrimonial house and that the Respondent-husband had not allowed her to resume cohabitation. The contention of the Appellant-wife is fortified by the fact that the Respondent-husband had issued a legal notice immediately after her return from Kenya. In the said legal...", "Petitioner Argument": "11. Mr. Mulla, the learned counsel for the Appellant-wife has assailed the judgment on the following grounds. a) The learned Judge has blindly accepted the allegations levelled against the Appellant-wife and discarded the case of the Appellant-wife without any cogent reason. b) The inference drawn by the learned Judge on the basis of the writing at Exhibit-16 that the Appellant-wife was avoiding physical relations with the Respondent-husband is totally erroneous. c) The learned Judge has failed to consider that the marriage was consummated and a child was born in the wedlock. Therefore, the finding that the Appellant-wife was frigid and psychologically impotent are totally contrary to the evidence on record. d) The learned Judge erred in holding that the Appellant- wife had subjected the Respondent-husband to cruelty. e) The learned Judge discarded the evidence of the Appellant-wife that she was forced to leave the matrimonial-home and that the efforts to resume co- Megha 6/21 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:15 ::: Megha fca_183_2008.doc habitation were frustrated by the Respondent-husband. f) The findings on cruelty and...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "was made in the majority judgment to the earlier decision in Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhawati (2) in which all the English decisions as also the statement contained in authorita- tive text books were considered. After referring to the two es- sential conditions, namely, the factum of physical separation and the animus deserendi which meant the intention to bring the cohabitation permanently to an end as also two elements Megha 15/21 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:15 ::: Megha fca_183_2008.doc so far as the deserted spouse was concerned i.e. (1) the absence of consent and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the inten- tion aforesaid, it was observed while examining how desertion might come to an end \"In the first place,, there must be con- duct on the part of the deserted spouse which affords just and reasonable cause for the deserting spouse not to seek reconcili- ation and which absolves her from her continuing obligation to return to the matrimonial home. In this one has to have re- gard to the conduct of the deserted spouse. But there is one other matter which...", "Decision": "31. Under the circumstances and in view of discussion (supra) the Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 17 th July, 2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Application No.192 of 2009 stands dismissed as not maintainable.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/309082/ | AIR 2017 BOMBAY 156, 2017 (4) ABR 221", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 379)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 2017, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR 2017 BOMBAY 156, 2017 (4) ABR 221", "Kanoon Doc ID": "309082", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/309082/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Mrs. Esther Kiron vs Franklin Promod Kiron on 7 May, 1982", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1982-05-07", "Judges": "Amitabha Dutta, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 3, Section 45", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a Reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act for confirmation of the decree nisi passed ex parte by the learned District Judge, Burdwan for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner Mrs. Esther Kiron and respondent Mr. Franklin Promod Kiron in this Divorce Suit. 2. The petitioner-wife pleaded for a decree for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act alleging in the petition that she was married to the respondent according to Christian rites on 18-2-74 at the Baptist Church at Chitaldanga, P. O. Rupnarayanpur, P. S. Salanpur, District Burdwan within the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, Burdwan. She further stated that after marriage the petitioner went to live with her husband at Gumia, District Giridih (Bihar) where they lived together till 14-6-75. Soon after her marriage the petitioner came to learn that the respondent had illicit connection with one Nili William of Chelidanga of Asansol and when the petitioner tried to prevent the respondent from having such illicit relationship the respondent began to torture the petitioner for which she had to leave the place of her husband on 15-6-75. Since then she has been living with her father at Chitaldanga. According to the petition, the respondent deserted the petitioner by his conduct by living adulterous life...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a Reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act for confirmation of the decree nisi passed ex parte by the learned District Judge, Burdwan for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner Mrs. Esther Kiron and respondent Mr. Franklin Promod Kiron in this Divorce Suit.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "2. The petitioner-wife pleaded for a decree for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act alleging in the petition that she was married to the respondent according to Christian rites on 18-2-74 at the Baptist Church at Chitaldanga, P. O. Rupnarayanpur, P. S. Salanpur, District Burdwan within the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, Burdwan. She further stated that after marriage the petitioner went to live with her husband at Gumia, District Giridih (Bihar) where they lived together till 14-6-75. Soon after her marriage the petitioner came to learn that the respondent had illicit connection with one Nili William of Chelidanga of Asansol and when the petitioner tried to prevent the respondent from having such illicit relationship the respondent began to torture the petitioner for which she had to leave the place of her husband on 15-6-75. Since then she has been living with her father at Chitaldanga. According to the petition, the respondent deserted the petitioner by his conduct by living adulterous life with the said woman for which the petitioner...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1641037/ | AIR1983CAL56, AIR 1983 CALCUTTA 56, 1983 (1) DMC 262 1983 MATLR 205, 1983 MATLR 205", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 1982, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1983CAL56, AIR 1983 CALCUTTA 56, 1983 (1) DMC 262 1983 MATLR 205, 1983 MATLR 205", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1641037", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1641037/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "George Joseph vs Alphonsa Alias Lovely Mathew And Anr. on 15 October, 1998", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1998-10-15", "Judges": "Usha, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 176, Section 18, Section 19, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19; Unsound Mind; Adultery; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This appeal is at the instance of a Christian husband whose prayer for a decree of nullity of his marriage with the 1 st respondent has failed. The appellant contended that the 1st respondent was a lunatic at the time of the marriage and therefore he is entitled to a decree for nullity of his marriage under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 read with Section 19 . He had also alleged fraud on the part of the respondent in obtaining his consent for the marriage. The petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge holding that the petitioner husband has failed to prove that the 1st respondent was a lunatic at the time of the marriage. The allegation of fraud was also found against him. Aggrieved by the above judgment of the learned single Judge the petitioner husband has filed this appeal. 2. The marriage between the petitioner and the 1 st respondent was solemnised on 4-9-1995 at St. Thomas Forane Church, Thomapuram as per the rites and ceremonies prevailing in the Syrian Catholic Community. It is alleged in the petition that on the very first day of the marriage itself there was abnormal behaviour on the part of the 1st respondent. At the time of marriage ceremony she was over talkative and was laughing continuously....", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This appeal is at the instance of a Christian husband whose prayer for a decree of nullity of his marriage with the 1 st respondent has failed. The appellant contended that the 1st respondent was a lunatic at the time of the marriage and therefore he is entitled to a decree for nullity of his marriage under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 read with Section 19 . He had also alleged fraud on the part of the respondent in obtaining his consent for the marriage. The petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge holding that the petitioner husband has failed to prove that the 1st respondent was a lunatic at the time of the marriage. The allegation of fraud was also found against him. Aggrieved by the above judgment of the learned single Judge the petitioner husband has filed this appeal.", "Issues": "13. We will now consider the medical evidence in this case given by PWs 3 and 4, two doctors. PW 4 Dr. K. Sivaramakrishnan have a Master degree in Psychiatry. He was working in Ashirwad Hospital, Kannur. He stated in his chief examination that he was treated the 1st respondent for mental illness. Ext X 3 is the records of treatment. The 1 st respondent was brought to PW 4 by her husband and her father on 17- 1(J-1995. At the time of admission she was reported to have sleeping disturbances, howling occasionally, absent mindedness irrelevant talking and suspicious ideas. Ext. A 1 is the discharge certificates, and Ext. A 2 is the prescription given to the 1st respondent. After discharge from the hospital the 1st respondent was brought to him on 25-10-1995, 18-11 -1995 and 18-12-1995 by her father. As per the records the treatment continued up to 18-1-1996....", "Petitioner Argument": "2. The marriage between the petitioner and the 1 st respondent was solemnised on 4-9-1995 at St. Thomas Forane Church, Thomapuram as per the rites and ceremonies prevailing in the Syrian Catholic Community. It is alleged in the petition that on the very first day of the marriage itself there was abnormal behaviour on the part of the 1st respondent. At the time of marriage ceremony she was over talkative and was laughing continuously. On the first night after the marriage which they spent at the parental home of the 1st respondent, it is alleged by the petitioner, the 1st respondent refused to have sex with him for the reason that she was having her menstrual period and therefore not doing well. It seems that she was afraid of something in the night. On 5-9-1995 the parties returned to the petitioner's house but they immediately went back to the 1st respondent's parental home, as the 1 st respondent expressed fear of something. She said that she has not feeling well and has forgotten to take medicine from her house. She...", "Respondent Argument": "5. Even though the petitioner has impleaded the 2nd respondent to represent the 1 st respondent as guardian, no order is seen sought or passed for appointing the 2nd respondent as guardian of the 1 st respondent, on the other hand, a counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent herself on behalf of both the respondents and she has been examined as RW1 before the learned single Judge in support of the contentions taken by her in the written statement. The 1 st respondent has denied all the allegations made against her. According to her, the marriage between the petitioner and herself was consummated on the 1st day of the marriage itself and it was incorrect to contend that she refused to have sexual intercourse on that night. They returned to the house of the petitioner on 5-9-1995 and it is not correct to say that she immediately went back to her parental home. She stayed for seven days in petitioner's house. She denied the allegations regarding taking medicine etc. According to her, she did not show any...", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "18. There may be cases where one of the spouses becomes incurably unsound in mind which would have been sufficient forgetting a decree for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act or other enactments. But as far as the Christians in Kerala are concerned they are still governed by the provisions of the Divorce Act, 1869 . Therefore, even in such cases of incurable mental illness of a spouse after the marriage no decree for dissolution of the marriage could be obtained. This anomaly can be cured only at the instance of the Legislature by bringing in appropriate amendments, to the Statute.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1194173/ | AIR1999KER25, II(1999)DMC238, AIR 1999 KERALA 25, (1999) ILR(KER) 1 KER 567, (1998) 2 KER LT 1036, (1999) 1 CIVLJ 786, (1999) 2 MARRILJ 346, (1999) MATLR 187, (1999) 1 RECCIVR 412, (1999) 2 DMC 238, (1999) 2 HINDULR 460", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19; unsound_mind; adultery; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1998, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1999KER25, II(1999)DMC238, AIR 1999 KERALA 25, (1999) ILR(KER) 1 KER 567, (1998) 2 KER LT 1036, (1999) 1 CIVLJ 786, (1999) 2 MARRILJ 346, (1999) MATLR 187, (1999) 1 RECCIVR 412, (1999) 2 DMC 238, (1999) 2 HINDULR 460", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1194173", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1194173/", "Chunks Indexed": 13 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Alfred Wilkinson vs Grace Emily Wilkinson on 4 April, 1923", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1923-04-04", "Judges": "Norman Macleod, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 112, Section 130, Section 131, Section 16, Section 17, Section 2, Section 21, Section 22, Section 27, Section 3, Section 31, Section 35, Section 36, Section 362, Section 4, Section 45, Section 5, Section 7, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty; Constitutional Validity", "Outcome": "Decree for Judicial Separation Granted", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act IV of 1869 to the High Court of Bombay for the confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage in a suit filed in the Court of the District Judge of Poona by the petitioner Alfred Wilkinson against his wife Norah Wilkinson as the respondent and a Captain D' Arcy as co-respondent. 2. The petitioner alleged that he was married to the respondent on August 8, 1914, at Poona. That he resided in Poona till 1317 and in Bombay until 1920 when he went to England with his wife and two children. That he returned on March 18, 1921, and resided at Poona. From May 1, he was employed in Bombay while his wife remained at Poona and they last resided together at Poona. In Poona the respondent became familiar with the co-respondent and on various occasions committed adultery with him. On August 22, the respondent came to Bombay to the petitioner and on the 23rd left him to go away with the co-respondent who left her that night at the Apollo Hotel. On September 1, the respondent wrote to him that she was going away altogether. The petition was filed on September 7. The respondent denied that she had committed adultery on various occasions at Poona....", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act IV of 1869 to the High Court of Bombay for the confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage in a suit filed in the Court of the District Judge of Poona by the petitioner Alfred Wilkinson against his wife Norah Wilkinson as the respondent and a Captain D' Arcy as co-respondent.", "Issues": "1. Whether plaintiff proves adultery between respondents 1 and 2? 2. If plaintiff proves adultery, has he condoned it by his subsequent conduct? 3. Although no issues were raised with regard to the domicil of the petitioner or the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the petition, it appears that the question of jurisdiction was argued on the basis that the parties were domiciled in England. The learned Judge said: The jurisdiction depends on the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 , and so long as that Act is in force, this Court cannot decline jurisdiction. Moreover the Courts in India are not subject to the Probate Division of the High Court of Justice in England. As apparently divorces granted in India between parties of non-Indian domiciles are not recognised in England, now, the present position of the law is anomalous but that is a matter for the Legislature and not...", "Petitioner Argument": "104. The point of jurisdiction may be shortly stated. It is contended that the petitioner has an English domicil. The domicil of the wife is the domicil of the husband, and in the case of persons not domiciled in India it is contended that the Indian Courts have no jurisdiction to give a decree for dissolution of marriage.", "Respondent Argument": "2. The petitioner alleged that he was married to the respondent on August 8, 1914, at Poona. That he resided in Poona till 1317 and in Bombay until 1920 when he went to England with his wife and two children. That he returned on March 18, 1921, and resided at Poona. From May 1, he was employed in Bombay while his wife remained at Poona and they last resided together at Poona. In Poona the respondent became familiar with the co-respondent and on various occasions committed adultery with him. On August 22, the respondent came to Bombay to the petitioner and on the 23rd left him to go away with the co-respondent who left her that night at the Apollo Hotel. On September 1, the respondent wrote to him that she was going away altogether. The petition was filed on September 7. The respondent denied that she had committed adultery on various occasions at Poona. She alleged that on August 23 the petitioner turned her out of the house when the co-respondent gave her a helping hand and found a...", "Factors to be Considered": "53. My conclusion then is that the main principles of divorce jurisdiction in England having now been well established and brought to our express attention, we ought in India to follow those main principles, having regard to Clause 7 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 , and no longer to claim jurisdiction to dissolve the marriages of persons not domiciled in India. This casts no reflection either on the Indian Legislature or on the past decisions of the High Courts of this country. On the contrary the construction of the Act which I would adopt shews that the Indian Legislature dealt with a very difficult question in a most skilful manner for by its flexibility it enabled all Courts both in India and in England to act on the same principles, despite the passage of time and the change of circumstances. And as regards our High Courts, their past decisions can well be justified by Clause 7. The Act obliges them to follow the principles of the English Courts. That they have done. But if, as is the case, the principles of the English Courts as laid down from time to time in those Courts have altered in a vital...", "Decision": "The District Court of Poona had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for dissolution of marriage.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/983780/ | (1923)25BOMLR945, AIR 1923 BOMBAY 321", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty; constitutional_validity", "Judgment Year": 1923, "Relief Status": "judicial_separation", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1923)25BOMLR945, AIR 1923 BOMBAY 321", "Kanoon Doc ID": "983780", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/983780/", "Chunks Indexed": 45 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "M.P. Mary vs V. Varghese on 29 September, 2008", "Case Number": "No. 11 of 2003", "Judgment Date": "2008-09-29", "Judges": "R.Basant, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 124, Section 125, Section 127, Section 22, Section 26, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty; Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree for Judicial Separation Granted", "Fact/ Petitioner": "What is the effect and consequences of a decree for judicial separation under Sec.22 of the Indian Divorce Act (for short `the Act') ? What impact, does such a decree have on the subsequent claim of a wife for maintenance under Sec.125 Cr.P.C.? These questions arise for consideration in this RP(FC). 2. On basic facts, it appears that there is no dispute. The petitioner and the respondent are spouses. Their marriage took place on 2/9/1979. A child was born in the wed-lock. That child has already attained majority. The spouses started separate residence from 15/7/1980. The husband filed an application for divorce on the ground of cruelty. That was dismissed. Later, he filed an application for decree of judicial separation. That was also rejected. He renewed his prayer for a decree for judicial separation and the same was allowed later by order there was a direction that the respondent/ husband must pay an amount of Rs.750/- each per mensem to the wife and their R.P.F.C.No.11 of 2003 2 minor daughter. An appeal was preferred and by judgment maintenance to the wife was set aside as agreed. But it was observed that \"it was agreed between the parties that the disposal of the appeal will not prejudice the right of the respondent/wife to claim maintenance separately under Sec.125 Cr.P.C.\"", "Fact/ Respondent": "What is the effect and consequences of a decree for judicial separation under Sec.22 of the Indian Divorce Act (for short `the Act') ? What impact, does such a decree have on the subsequent claim of a wife for maintenance under Sec.125 Cr.P.C.? These questions arise for consideration in this RP(FC).", "Issues": "b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the...", "Petitioner Argument": "6. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on various grounds. It is contended that the securing of a decree for judicial separate reveals that the husband was not interested in cohabitation. Such a husband cannot later on turn round and advance a contention that the wife is residing separately without just or sufficient cause. The decree for judicial separation is itself sufficient cause. The absence of any offer to maintain her convincingly justifies the separate residence. Ext.P3 confirms the husband's remarriage R.P.F.C.No.11 of 2003 4 and birth of a child in such subsequent marriage. It is, in these circumstances, contended that even accepting all the contentions, the claimant/wife is entitled for maintenance. 28. It is contended that the wife by her anterior conduct has sufficiently shown that she has no sufficient reason or just ground to reside separately. That is at an anterior point of time. He has not made any offer to maintain her on condition that she lives with him in response to the claim for maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. She has not refused...", "Respondent Argument": "7. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that it having already been concluded by a decree of a competent civil court that the wife is guilty of the matrimonial misconduct of desertion and the husband having already secured a decree for judicial separation, the wife is not entitled to claim maintenance under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. 8. I have considered all the relevant contentions. The records have been perused by me. I shall now proceed to advert to the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the rival contestants. 9. First of all, there is an attempt to contend that the parties had agreed that an application under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. would be maintainable. This is evident from the judgment dated 3.4.97 in M.F.A.No.697/96, it is contended. A copy of the same has been marked as Ext.P2 and I have already extracted the relevant statements in para-2 of the said judgment. I am unable to agree that the said agreement would in any way advance the case of either contestant. What is agreed, to extract the words...", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "ii) The impugned order is set aside;", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/829453/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty; adultery", "Judgment Year": 2008, "Relief Status": "judicial_separation", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "829453", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/829453/", "Chunks Indexed": 19 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Balbir Singh vs Shanti Devi on 6 January, 1970", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1970-01-06", "Judges": "V.S. Deshpande, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 100, Section 13, Section 157, Section 18, Section 21, Section 22, Section 23, Section 25, Section 32, Section 33, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "(1) This appeal is by the husband Balbir Singh (hereinafter called the husband) whose petition for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) against his wife respondent Shanti Devi (hereinafter called the wife) was dismissed by the trial Court. (2) The husband was at first married to the elder sister of the wife and has a daughter from her. The elder sister died on 8-12-1954 after which the parties were married on 16-2-1955. A daughter was born of this marriage on 1-12-1956.", "Fact/ Respondent": "(1) This appeal is by the husband Balbir Singh (hereinafter called the husband) whose petition for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) against his wife respondent Shanti Devi (hereinafter called the wife) was dismissed by the trial Court.", "Issues": "(13) It is in the light of the above legal position that the pleadings and the evidence on record have to be scrutinised to find out whether such \"reasonable excuse\" is wanting to justify the withdrawal of the wife from the society of the husband in the present case. The burden of proving the want of such reasonable excuse is of course on the husband who was the petitioner and who is now the appellant. The burden is however a negative one and can be discharged by the husband if he shows that his conduct has been completely free from blame and that he has not done any act which would justify the wife in withdrawing from his society. (14) The petition by the husband was, therefore, not expected to state anything, more than that the wife had withdrawn from the society of the husband without reasonable excuse. The wife...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "(26) In the result, as the appellant husband has succeeded on both the grounds mentioned above, the appeal is allowed, the decree of the trial Court is set aside and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is passed in favor of the appellant husband and against the respondent wife. J make", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1387227/ | ILR1970DELHI21", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1970, "Relief Status": "restitution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: ILR1970DELHI21", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1387227", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1387227/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Gauhati High Court", "Case Title": "Lal Changmunga vs Lianpari on 7 January, 1988", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1988-01-07", "Judges": "Saikia, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 112, Section 17, Section 3", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for confirmation of decree nisi dated 16-7-87 passed by the District Judge, Cachar at Silchar under Section 10 of the Act. The petitioner sued for dissolution of the marriage between him and the respondent. Both of them are Mizos by birth and Christians by religion. 2. Examining himself, the petitioner deposed that he married respondent Lianpari on 12th April, 1979 at Silchar according to Christian rites at Silchar Christian Mission. In that wedlock a son was born to them in September, 1980. However, thereafter \"non-adjustment and misunderstanding\" developed between them. He was required to go to Shillong for training and during his absence the respondent ''developed intimacy\" with one of his friends and a child was born in February, 1981, and that she was living separately and so he wanted divorce. He also stated that the respondent sent affidavit alleging divorce. It appears from the records that the respondent sent a letter dt. 27-1-87 to the Court authenticated by a Gazetted Officer stating that she left the petitioner due to certain grievances against him in April, 1981 causing temporary separation after they had two children together and she having been pregnant at that time their third child was born while she was with her parents. During...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for confirmation of decree nisi dated 16-7-87 passed by the District Judge, Cachar at Silchar under Section 10 of the Act. The petitioner sued for dissolution of the marriage between him and the respondent. Both of them are Mizos by birth and Christians by religion.", "Issues": "5. We have carefully perused the petition for divorce and the evidence on record The petitioner spoke about misunderstanding and non-adjustment between him and the respondent and that he doubted and denied the paternity of the child born after the respondent separated from him. The date of separation, according to the respondent, is 19th May, 1981 in which case the date of birth (January, 1982) of the child would be well within the period of gestation, which the respondent stated in her evidence. The statement that the respondent refused to live with the petitioner has also been denied by the respondent saying that no customary go between was sent inviting her back home. Of course the fact that the respondent has been living separately for the last six years has not been denied. The petitioner has not expressly alleged adultery of the respondent with any one. What he alleged was...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "7. Adultery has not been defined in the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 , 'Incestuous adultery', as defined in Section 3(6) , \"means adultery committed by a husband with a woman with whom, if his wife were dead, he could not lawfully contract marriage by reason of her being within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity (Whether natural or legal) or affinity\". Adultery may be generally defined as voluntary sexual intercourse after solemnisation of marriage with any person other than his or her spouse. It is a voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with a person other than the offender's husband or wife. It means consensus sexual intercourse with one of the opposite sex, while marriage subsists. In Orford v. Orford, (1921) 47 OLR 15 (Canada) it has been observed: \"The essence of adultery consists in the voluntary surrender to another person of the productive power or faculties of the guilty person and any submission of these powers to the service or enjoyment of any person other than husband or the wife comes within the definition of 'adultery'.\" Adultery means willing sexual intercourse, as distinguished fromrape, with one of the opposite sex, while marriage subsists. Rape is not adultery as a...", "Decision": "1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for confirmation of decree nisi dated 16-7-87 passed by the District Judge, Cachar at Silchar under Section 10 of the Act. The petitioner sued for dissolution of the marriage between him and the respondent. Both of them are Mizos by birth and Christians by religion. 2. Examining himself, the petitioner deposed that he married respondent Lianpari on 12th April, 1979 at Silchar according to Christian rites at Silchar Christian Mission. In that wedlock a son was born to them in September, 1980. However, thereafter \"non-adjustment and misunderstanding\" developed between them. He was required to go to Shillong for training and during his absence the respondent ''developed intimacy\" with one of his friends and a child was born in February, 1981, and that she was living separately and so he wanted divorce. He also stated that the respondent sent affidavit alleging divorce. It appears from the records that the respondent sent a letter dt. 27-1-87 to the Court authenticated by a Gazetted Officer stating that she left...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/823353/ | AIR 1988 GAUHATI 53, (1988) 24 REPORTS 358, (1988) 1 DMC 433, (1988) 2 HINDULR 77", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1988, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR 1988 GAUHATI 53, (1988) 24 REPORTS 358, (1988) 1 DMC 433, (1988) 2 HINDULR 77", "Kanoon Doc ID": "823353", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/823353/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "Bhalerian Tirkey vs Lily Grase Minz on 29 March, 2010", "Case Number": "F.A. No. 183 of 2009", "Judgment Date": "2010-03-29", "Judges": "M. Y. Eqbal, J., Pradeep Kumar, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 22", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Matrimonial Title Suit No.206 of 2008 whereby he has allowed the suit filed by the respondent-wife for a decree of divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act and dissolved the marriage between the parties. The respondent-wife filed the aforementioned suit for a decree of divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. Both the appellant and the respondent are Christians and their marriage was solemnized on 30.12.1986 at Catholic Church and out of the wedlock, one female child was born in the year 1991 and one male child was born in 1996. The respondent's case was that the appellant was initially employed in Railway but subsequently after qualifying Bihar Public Service Examination, posted as District Superintendent of Education at Ramgarh. The respondent-wife alleged that the appellant occasionally visited the place of the respondent and after taking liquor, used to abuse and torture the respondent. He was also having affairs with another lady and threatened her to kill if she interferes with the affairs of the appellant. The respondent's further case was that she was living separately since November, 2005 and in spite of several attempts of reconciliation, the appellant refused to keep her with him.", "Fact/ Respondent": "passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Matrimonial Title Suit No.206 of 2008 whereby he has allowed the suit filed by the respondent-wife for a decree of divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act and dissolved the marriage between the parties.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "6. The petitioner has been able to prove cruelty on the part of the respondent as well as withdrawal of respondent from the society of petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce for the aforesaid reasons. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner is hereby allowed. The marriage between the parties held on 30.12.1986 is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce. Office is directed to prepare decree.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/815655/ | (2010) 2 JCR 564 (JHA), AIR 2010 JHARKHAND 112, 2010 (2) AIR JHAR R 517, 2010 A I H C 3486, (2010) 89 ALLINDCAS 744 (JHA)", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2010, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (2010) 2 JCR 564 (JHA), AIR 2010 JHARKHAND 112, 2010 (2) AIR JHAR R 517, 2010 A I H C 3486, (2010) 89 ALLINDCAS 744 (JHA)", "Kanoon Doc ID": "815655", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/815655/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Punjab-Haryana High Court", "Case Title": "Jaspal vs Thaplass Mohan Singh on 5 September, 2023", "Case Number": "2023:PHHC:116473", "Judgment Date": "2023-09-05", "Judges": "Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 125, Section 24", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, pending before the Family Court, Abohar to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Ludhiana. \"9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. 10. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so", "Fact/ Respondent": "Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, pending before the Family Court, Abohar to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Ludhiana.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, considering the fact that issuance of notice to the respondent has the consequences of staying further proceedings before the trial Court, otherwise the petitioner- wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and in view of the fact that in case notice of motion is issued, even the respondent/husband has to bear the litigation expenses and in also in view of the judgments rendered in Sumita Singh 's case, Rajani Kishor Pardeshi's case as well as N.C.V. Aishwarya 's case (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, with the following directions:-", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "05.09.2023 (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) Waseem Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:116473 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 18-09-2023 12:39:34 :::", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149180892/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2023, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "149180892", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149180892/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Arokia Raj Morais vs Mabia Bibia Rani Morais And Ors. on 24 March, 2006", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2006-03-24", "Judges": "M. Thanikachalam, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a suit filed by the husband to dissolve the marriage between himself and the first respondent on the ground of adultery, under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869, hereinafter called 'the Act'. 2. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnised on 3.5.1995 in accordance with the Christian Rites and Customs, at St. Andrews Church, Madras-600 112. After the marriage, both were living happily in the matrimonial home. At the time of the marriage, the first respondent was working as a teacher and obtaining permission from the petitioner, she continued to work as a teacher even after the marriage also.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a suit filed by the husband to dissolve the marriage between himself and the first respondent on the ground of adultery, under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869, hereinafter called 'the Act'.", "Issues": "7. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed on 10.4.2002 for decision: (1) Whether the respondent is guilty of adultery ? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a Decree of divorce on the ground of adultery ? 8. The third respondent by name Pasupathyrajan though arrayed as adulterer, subsequently, he was given up and therefore, it is needless to go into the allegations levelled in the petition connecting the first respondent and the third respondent. Issues 1 & 2: 9. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner and the first respondent belong to Christianity, that their marriage was solemnised according to Christian Rites and Customs on 3.5.1995, that thereafter, they were living as husband and wife for some tine very happily, that the first respondent also gave birth to a male child on 18.2.1996 (though paternity is disputed) and that within two years, the happy married life...", "Petitioner Argument": "11. In this case, by going through the entire petition, I am unable to find any specific instances of adultery said to have been committed by the first respondent, except the bald allegations levelled, that too more or less prior to the marriage, not subsequent to the marriage giving specific dates with specific instances. In para-6 of the petition, the conduct of the first respondent narrated appears to be prior to the marriage i.e. during her school days, which will not come to the aid of the husband to snap the matrimonial relationship. In para-7 of the petition, though it is stated that respondents 1 & 2 applied leave, left the school, etc., no other details are given, where they had been to, where they have stayed, etc. Similarly in paragraph-8 also, the details given are regarding the conduct of the first respondent at Villupuram during her school days and no instance is specifically stated that after the marriage also, the alleged illegal activities or immoral activities of the first respondent continued with the other respondents. In paragraph-10, some anonymous...", "Respondent Argument": "18. The specific case of the petitioner that the first respondent continued her adulterous life with the second respondent must be incorrect, which could be seen from Ex.P-3. The first respondent has stated in Ex.P-3 that the second respondent left to Singapore. It is not the case of the petitioner, that the first respondent had any sexual activities with any other person apart from the second and third respondents. There is no mention in Ex.P-5, that the second respondent is the father of the male child. If at all, Ex.P-5 may lead to the conclusion that the petitioner is not the father, but that does not mean, the second respondent must be the father of the child. This being the position, it may not be safe to come to the conclusion that the child born to the first respondent on 18.2.1996 is not the child of the petitioner. Assuming that the first respondent had illegal activities with some other person than the second and the third respondents resulting the birth of a male child, then that person also should have...", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "In the result, the petition is dismissed, but under the facts and circumstances of the case, ordering the parties to bear their respective costs.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/442538/ | II(2007)DMC209, [2006(4)JCR90(MAD)], (2006)2MLJ537", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 2006, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: II(2007)DMC209, [2006(4)JCR90(MAD)], (2006)2MLJ537", "Kanoon Doc ID": "442538", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/442538/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Dennis Lall vs Smt. Amita Lall on 3 March, 1997", "Case Number": "First Appeal No. 432 of 1996", "Judgment Date": "1997-03-03", "Judges": "G.P. Mathur, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 17A, Section 20, Section 22, Section 26", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. Dennis Lal filed a petition under Section 22 of Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against his wife Smt. Amita Lall, which was registered as suit No. 270 of 1994, praying that a decree of judicial separation be passed on the ground of adultery and cruelty. The Judge, Family Court, Jhansi passed a decree for judicial separation on 21-5-96 but directed that the same shall be effective after confirmation by the High Court and accordingly made a reference to this Court which has been registered as First Appeal No. 432 of 1996. 3. Smt. Anita Rohini Shirin Newton filed a petition under Section 10 of the Act against her husband Ivan Alphonsus Michael Lewis, which was registered as Suit No. 321 of 1993, praying that her marriage with her husband be dissolved by a decree of divorce. The Judge, Family Court, passed a decree for divorce on 29-8-95 but directed that the same shall be effective after confirmation by the High Court in accordance with Section 17 of the Act and accordingly made a reference to this Court which has been registered as First Appeal No. 433 of 1996.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. Dennis Lal filed a petition under Section 22 of Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against his wife Smt. Amita Lall, which was registered as suit No. 270 of 1994, praying that a decree of judicial separation be passed on the ground of adultery and cruelty. The Judge, Family Court, Jhansi passed a decree for judicial separation on 21-5-96 but directed that the same shall be effective after confirmation by the High Court and accordingly made a reference to this Court which has been registered as First Appeal No. 432 of 1996.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "6. In view of the U. P. Amendment, a decree for dissolution of marriage made by a District Judge does not require confirmation by the High Court and is effective by itself. Therefore the reference made by the Judge, Family Court for confirmation of decree for dissolution of marriage passed by him in suit No. 321 of 1993 is incompetent.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1660230/ | AIR1998ALL12, II(1997)DMC119, AIR 1998 ALLAHABAD 12, 1998 A I H C 676", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 1997, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1998ALL12, II(1997)DMC119, AIR 1998 ALLAHABAD 12, 1998 A I H C 676", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1660230", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1660230/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Mrs. Dawn Henderson vs D. Henderson on 11 February, 1969", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1969-02-11", "Judges": "M. Anantanarayanan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 22", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree for Judicial Separation Granted", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a reference under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, by the learned District Judge of Tiruchirapalli, for confirmation of the decree nisi dissolving the marriage between the parties under Section 17 of the same Act. 2. The petitioner is the wife, and she has put forward, as the ground for dissolution of the marriage, the Clause of Section 10 which refers to \"adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce a mensa et thoro.\" In the body of the petition, the petitioner states that the respondent, her husband, married her, according to Christian rites, at St. Joseph's Church Golden Rock, Tiruchirapalli on 27-5-1961. But soon after the marriage, the respondent behaved to her with great cruelty, and brought drunken young men to the house and attempted to constrain or induce the petitioner to submit to the indecent overtures of those men. He also beat her and starved her, and in brief, attempted to compel her to lead a life of prostitution. Because she resented this and resisted the attempts with all might, the respondent forced her to leave the house in September 1961, and she has since been living with her parents. In paragraph 10 the petitioner also states that the respondent was leading an adulterous immoral life, visiting...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The petitioner is the wife, and she has put forward, as the ground for dissolution of the marriage, the Clause of Section 10 which refers to \"adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce a mensa et thoro.\" In the body of the petition, the petitioner states that the respondent, her husband, married her, according to Christian rites, at St. Joseph's Church Golden Rock, Tiruchirapalli on 27-5-1961. But soon after the marriage, the respondent behaved to her with great cruelty, and brought drunken young men to the house and attempted to constrain or induce the petitioner to submit to the indecent overtures of those men. He also beat her and starved her, and in brief, attempted to compel her to lead a life of prostitution. Because she resented this and resisted the attempts with all might, the respondent forced her to leave the house in September 1961, and she has since been living with her parents. In paragraph 10 the petitioner also states that the respondent was leading an adulterous immoral life, visiting brothels and being friendly with prostitutes. According to the petitioner, the respondent is \"an incorrigible moral wreck.\"", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "6. Under the circumstances, we are unable to accept the reference, and to grant the divorce, though we are satisfied that the parties are not acting in collusion. But, under Section 22 of Act IV of 1869, in such a case, it is competent for the Court to grant the decree of judicial separation. This decree has the effect of a divorce a mensa et thoro under the existing law. That form of the decree has been rendered obsolete as far as divorce decrees proper are concerned. Accordingly, we grant the petitioner a decree for judicial separation.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1267482/ | AIR1970MAD104", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 79)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1969, "Relief Status": "judicial_separation", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1970MAD104", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1267482", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1267482/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Smt. Chitra Alias Mahima vs Mohit Kumar (Maisi) on 29 November, 2023", "Case Number": "2023:AHC:225491", "Judgment Date": "2023-11-29", "Judges": "ble Saral Srivastava, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. The present application has been filed by the applicant-wife seeking transfer of Case No.1108 of 2023 (Mohit Kumar (Maisi) Vs. Smt. Chitra Alias Mahima), under Section 10 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar to the competent court at Jalaun at Orai. 4. The opposite party has neither put in appearance nor filed any counter affidavit. As the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the transfer application are unrebutted, therefore, they are being treated to be correct.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The present application has been filed by the applicant-wife seeking transfer of Case No.1108 of 2023 (Mohit Kumar (Maisi) Vs. Smt. Chitra Alias Mahima), under Section 10 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar to the competent court at Jalaun at Orai.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant along with her minor daughter is residing with her aged parents at Orai whereas opposite party has instituted the divorce petition at Kanpur Nagar. It is submitted that financial condition of the applicant is not good and parents of the applicant is not in a position to attend the proceeding along with the applicant at Kanpur Nagar. It is further submitted that distance between Orai to Kanpur Nagar is about 130 kilometres and applicant has no source of income to meet the litigation expenses and other expenses which is to be incurred in travelling from Orai to Kanpur Nagar to contest the case instituted by opposite party at Kanpur Nagar along with her minor daughter on each and every date fixed in the matter. Thus, the submission is that if the case is allowed to be proceeded at Kanpur Nagar, applicant would suffer serious prejudice. 4. The opposite party has neither put in appearance nor filed any counter affidavit. As the averments contained in the affidavit filed...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "8. The Transfer Application is allowed with", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/36101639/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2023, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "36101639", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/36101639/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur", "Case Title": "Fazal Masih vs Smt. Patience on 18 February, 1974", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1974-02-18", "Judges": "Beri, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 17, Section 32, Section 47", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act (hereinafter called \"the Act\") for confirmation of a decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage of the petitioner Fazal Masih and his wife Smt. Patience. 2. The petitioner and the respondent were married on December 4, 1959, under the Indian Christian Marriage Act The respondent gave birth to two male children. Domestic bickerings appear to have been a part of their married life. Certain proceedings had taken place between the husband and the wife with regard to the maintenance of the latter.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act (hereinafter called \"the Act\") for confirmation of a decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage of the petitioner Fazal Masih and his wife Smt. Patience.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "4. In these circumstances, we regret, we cannot confirm the decree and set aside the decree for divorce passed by the learned District Judge in utter ignorance of the law on the subject. We direct the learned District Judge, Udaipur to proceed with the petition for restitution of conjugal rights in accordance with law.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/480131/ | 1974(7)WLN74", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1974, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1974(7)WLN74", "Kanoon Doc ID": "480131", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/480131/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Punjab-Haryana High Court", "Case Title": "Rekha vs Emanuel on 27 November, 2008", "Case Number": "No.259 of 2008", "Judgment Date": "2008-11-27", "Judges": "Rajive Bhalla, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Prayer in this application is for transfer of a petition filed by the respondent titled as \"Emanuel V. Rekha\" under Sections 25 and 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for custody of the minor child from the Court of District Judge, Gurdaspur, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Amritsar. As a result, the application is allowed and the case filed under Sections 25 and 12 of the Act, titled as \"Emanuel V. Rekha\" pending in the Court of District Judge, Gurdaspur, is transferred to the District Judge, Amritsar. The District Judge, Gurdaspur, is directed to forthwith transmit the file of the aforementioned case to the District Judge, Amritsar, who shall upon receipt of the case either try it himself or entrust it to a Court of competent jurisdiction.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Prayer in this application is for transfer of a petition filed by the respondent titled as \"Emanuel V. Rekha\" under Sections 25 and 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for custody of the minor child from the Court of District Judge, Gurdaspur, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Amritsar.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "As a result, the application is allowed and the case filed under Sections 25 and 12 of the Act, titled as \"Emanuel V. Rekha\" pending in the Court of District Judge, Gurdaspur, is transferred to the District Judge, Amritsar. The District Judge, Gurdaspur, is directed to forthwith transmit the file of the aforementioned case to the District Judge, Amritsar, who shall upon receipt of the case either try it himself or entrust it to a Court of competent jurisdiction.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/321408/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2008, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "321408", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/321408/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Punjab-Haryana High Court", "Case Title": "Samanthia Jacob vs Xavier Jacob @ Bobby & Anr on 5 September, 2009", "Case Number": "No. 3 of 2001", "Judgment Date": "2009-09-05", "Judges": "Vinod K.Sharma, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "This reference under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short the Act) has been made by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh on a petition filed by Samanthia Jacob for dissolution of marriage under section 10 of the Act. The petitioner filed a petition under section 10 of the Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. It was pleaded that the parties are Christian and were married on 10.8.1990 according to Christian rites in Catholic Church, Chandigarh. The parties lived together as husband and wife. From the wedlock two daughters were born who were minor on the date of filing of the petition. It was pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 was addicted to wine and remained intoxicated throughout MATRF No. 3 of 2001 2 the day. He was also said to be addicted to smoke, smack and other intoxicated drugs to the extent that he was often seen lying on roads in Chandigarh in intoxicated condition. The petitioner claimed that the respondent deserted her on 4.3.1998 without any reasonable cause and their matrimonial relations were irretrievably broken and there was no chance of reconciliation between the parties.", "Fact/ Respondent": "The petitioner filed a petition under section 10 of the Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. It was pleaded that the parties are Christian and were married on 10.8.1990 according to Christian rites in Catholic Church, Chandigarh. The parties lived together as husband and wife. From the wedlock two daughters were born who were minor on the date of filing of the petition. It was pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 was addicted to wine and remained intoxicated throughout MATRF No. 3 of 2001 2 the day. He was also said to be addicted to smoke, smack and other intoxicated drugs to the extent that he was often seen lying on roads in Chandigarh in intoxicated condition. The petitioner claimed that the respondent deserted her on 4.3.1998 without any reasonable cause and their matrimonial relations were irretrievably broken and there was no chance of reconciliation between the parties.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "The decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties is confirmed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/425092/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2009, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "425092", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/425092/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Muriyal Almeda vs Laren Almeda on 3 November, 1992", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1992-11-03", "Judges": "D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The decree of divorce granted in favour of the applicant-wife by the Trial Court in proceedings under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 on 9th April, ly92 has come before this Court for confirmation under Section 17 of the said Act. 2. The wife claimed divorce on the alleged ground that the non-applicant-husband is leading an adulterous life with another wife by name Vijaya. The non-applicant-husband opposed the petition filed by the wife by filing reply in the Trial Court; but absented on the date of evidence and did not enter the witness box. The wife who examined herself in the Trial Court, stated that after her marriage with the non-applicant, she discovered that he had already kept another woman in the house and had a child from that woman. Her testimony is supported by P.W. 2 Smt. Anna Kutti Thomas. The learned Judge of the Trial Court believed the testimony of the wife and the witness supporting her to hold that the alleged ground of husband being guilty of adultery under Section 10 of the Act was fully made out against him and granted the desired relief to the wife of a decree of divorce. In this reference, both the parties were noticed; but only wife, assisted by her Counsel, appeared. The husband failed to appear.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The decree of divorce granted in favour of the applicant-wife by the Trial Court in proceedings under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 on 9th April, ly92 has come before this Court for confirmation under Section 17 of the said Act.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "2. The wife claimed divorce on the alleged ground that the non-applicant-husband is leading an adulterous life with another wife by name Vijaya. The non-applicant-husband opposed the petition filed by the wife by filing reply in the Trial Court; but absented on the date of evidence and did not enter the witness box. The wife who examined herself in the Trial Court, stated that after her marriage with the non-applicant, she discovered that he had already kept another woman in the house and had a child from that woman. Her testimony is supported by P.W. 2 Smt. Anna Kutti Thomas. The learned Judge of the Trial Court believed the testimony of the wife and the witness supporting her to hold that the alleged ground of husband being guilty of adultery under Section 10 of the Act was fully made out against him and granted the desired relief to the wife of a decree of divorce. In this reference, both the parties were noticed; but only wife, assisted by her Counsel, appeared. The husband failed to appear.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/504706/ | I(1993)DMC467", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 1992, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: I(1993)DMC467", "Kanoon Doc ID": "504706", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/504706/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "S.M.J.Naveena vs C.Gipson Villavarayer", "Case Number": "I.D.O.P.No.50 of 2018", "Judgment Date": "", "Judges": "G.Jayachandran, J., Sunder Mohan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Family Courts Act, 1984", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 19, Section 2, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion; Non Consummation; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Decree for Judicial Separation Granted", "Fact/ Petitioner": "C.Gipson Villavarayer and S.M.J.Naveena are husband and wife. They got married on 11.11.2016 as per Christian marriage law and customs. They are the parties in these two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the Cross Objection. Hence, for the sake of brevity and clarity, they are referred to as husband and wife respectively. 2. The point for consideration before this Court is whether the Family Court right in ordering judicial separation for two years while deciding the divorce petition filed by the wife and the petition for restitution of conjugal right filed by the husband.", "Fact/ Respondent": "C.Gipson Villavarayer and S.M.J.Naveena are husband and wife. They got married on 11.11.2016 as per Christian marriage law and customs. They are the parties in these two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the Cross Objection. Hence, for the sake of brevity and clarity, they are referred to as husband and wife respectively.", "Issues": "2. The point for consideration before this Court is whether the Family Court right in ordering judicial separation for two years while deciding the divorce petition filed by the wife and the petition for restitution of conjugal right filed by the husband. 3. The undisputed facts on either side are:- 10. The Family Court framed the following points for consideration:- ''1.Whether the petitioner-wife proved the plea of non- consummation of marriage as prayed for? 2.Whether the petitioner-wife proved the plea of cruelty? 3.Whether the petitioner-wife is entitled for the relief of divorce as prayed for? 4.Whether the respondent-husband is entitled for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights? 5.To what other relief the parties are entitled?'' 11. The Court below disbelieved the contention of the wife that the marriage never consummated and she was subjected to cruelty and torture. To arrive at this conclusion, the trial Court has considered the...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "29. We find that the trial Court erred in granting a decree of judicial separation, a relief not prayed by either of the parties. Having found the grounds raised in the divorce petition not proved, the trial Court ought to have dismissed I.D.O.P.No.50 of 2018, holding that the petition is devoid of merits. Further, taking note of the documents marked as Exs.R.1 to R.4, ought to have allowed I.D.O.P.No. 127 of 2018 filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. When the grounds found in sub-Section (1)(vii) and (x) of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 not made out and the material evidence shows that the wife wilfully withdrew from the matrimonial society, the Court ought to have granted restitution of conjugal rights.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96167579/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 309)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion; non_consummation; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 0, "Relief Status": "judicial_separation", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "96167579", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96167579/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "John Over vs Muriel A.I. Over on 14 October, 1924", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1924-10-14", "Judges": "Lallubhai Shah, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 14, Section 18, Section 2, Section 45, Section 58, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion", "Outcome": "Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "17. This matrimonial case presents exceptional features. It is a husband's petition founded en the alleged adultery of his wife with some person unknown. He has already been divorced from her once, viz.., by a decree nisi passed by me on August 12, 1918, on the Original Side of this High Court, which decree was made absolute on March 3, 1919. He, however, married her again on December 22, 1920, at Poona. She left him from September 8, 1922, to October 7, 1922. It would appear that her husband then thought he had cause to complain of her conduct with a Captain Chamberlain who had been living with them, but who, the petition states, has since gone to Australia. What exactly the petitioner alleges took place between Captain Chamberlain and the respondent is by no means clear on the evidence taken before the learned District Judge. But the petitioner deposes that he condoned \"the offence\" with Captain Chamberlain, and it is clear from the evidence of his son that there were disputes between the husband and wife over the latter's conduct with Captain Chamberlain. 18. Shortly afterwards, viz., about -January 1928, the respondent left the petitioner again, and this time for good. She wrote to him in March 1923 from Rawalpindi stating that she was not returning to the petitioner....", "Fact/ Respondent": "17. This matrimonial case presents exceptional features. It is a husband's petition founded en the alleged adultery of his wife with some person unknown. He has already been divorced from her once, viz.., by a decree nisi passed by me on August 12, 1918, on the Original Side of this High Court, which decree was made absolute on March 3, 1919. He, however, married her again on December 22, 1920, at Poona. She left him from September 8, 1922, to October 7, 1922. It would appear that her husband then thought he had cause to complain of her conduct with a Captain Chamberlain who had been living with them, but who, the petition states, has since gone to Australia. What exactly the petitioner alleges took place between Captain Chamberlain and the respondent is by no means clear on the evidence taken before the learned District Judge. But the petitioner deposes that he condoned \"the offence\" with Captain Chamberlain, and it is clear from the evidence of his son that there were disputes between the husband and wife over the latter's conduct with Captain Chamberlain.", "Issues": "27. The evidence before us in support of the petition practically rests on three main points, viz., (1) the alleged worthless character of the respondent and her past immorality; (2) her desertion of her husband and family; and (3) the letters written by her after her last desertion. There is no corroborative evidence of the wife's statement that she is living in adultery with another man. Captain Chamberlain is alleged in the petition to have gone to Australia. No other man's name is even suggested by the petitioner. Beyond her own letters there is nothing to show even where she is living nor whether alone or with any man. The case, therefore, is a very exceptional one in which to grant a decree and demands the greatest Care and caution in approaching it 28. The general rule of practice adopted in the English Divorce Courts is thus stated in Halsbury,...", "Petitioner Argument": "37. There are certain passages in the evidence taken on remand which would tend to suggest that the lady had committed adultery with Captain Chamberlain and with several other persons. The petitioner there stated :- In 1922 Capt. Chamberlain came to stay with us. I had reason to complain of his behaviour with respondent. While J, was away from Kirkoe 1 received a letter in September 1922 from respondent saying that she was leaving me and not returning. I. returned to Kirkeo and she came back. 1 thus condoned the offence with Capt. Chamberlain. I tried to reform respondent; but in January 1923 she again left me and took my daughter. Before she loft I had suspicions that she was corresponding with Capt. Chamberlain, and I heard that he had given her Rs. (5,000 to enable her to rejoin him. 38. Then later on he stated :- She has misconducted herself with four or five men. I. have heard that she is now married.", "Respondent Argument": "42. But I wish to add this. 1 am much struck with the difference in the way in which divorce work is done in the District Courts, as compared with the normal criminal and civil work. In the latter, and particularly in the criminal work, we usually get every assistance. If, for instance, a criminal case depended on an accomplice's evidence, then the trial Judge would be sure to deal carefully with the question whether there was any corroborative evidence. In practice the confession of a guilty party in a divorce case ought to be treated on somewhat similar lines of caution to those of an accomplice's evidence in a criminal case. And yet in the present case it was accepted almost as a matter of course. If this was the only instance of the kind. I would have regarded it as an exception. But in Wilkinson v. Wilkinson (reported on other points in 25 Bom, L K. 945) and again in Hewson v. Hewson (1924) 26 Bom. L. R. 467 this Court has had to comment adversely on the...", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "45. At, the same time, I agree that this is an exceptional case, and that the Courts should not (as a matter of prudence) ordinarily act on such confessions, without some corroborative evidence.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1701348/ | (1925)27BOMLR251, AIR 1925 BOMBAY 231", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1924, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1925)27BOMLR251, AIR 1925 BOMBAY 231", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1701348", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1701348/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Shivkarthik G.S vs Nil on 4 September, 2025", "Case Number": "CRP.No.4013 of 2025", "Judgment Date": "2025-09-04", "Judges": "P.B.Balaji, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A, Section 13B, Section 28, Section 32B", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "The revision petitioners are husband and wife, they had moved the Family Court, Coimbatore, seeking mutual divorce, invoking Section 10(A) of the Indian Divorce Act. 2.The said OP was filed on 16.04.2025. The learned Family Court has returned the petition on 21.04.2025, stating that the petition filed before completion of two years from the date of separation is not maintainable. According to the petitioners and also as seen from the petition filed under Section 10A , the date of separation is 01.01.2025.", "Fact/ Respondent": "The revision petitioners are husband and wife, they had moved the Family Court, Coimbatore, seeking mutual divorce, invoking Section 10(A) of the Indian Divorce Act.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (mutual consent 10A) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "4.The learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr.G.R.Deepak, would state that the parties have agreed to present the mutual consent divorce petition on account of irreconcilable differences and misunderstandings and also in view of the marriage having been irretrievably broken down. The learned counsel for 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 03:22:27 pm ) the petitioners would fairly state that the date of separation is only on 01.01.2025 and the mandatory period of one year of separation has not lapsed in the present case. 7.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.G.R,Deepak.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "8.The only point that arises for consideration is whether the mandatory waiting period of one year from the date of separation has to be compulsorily sat through by the parties, who have already decided to part ways, by filing a mutual consent divorce petition. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Anup Disalva’s case, took note of an earlier decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Saumya Ann Thomas vs Union of India reported in 2010 SCC Online Kerala 5197 and held that the stipulation of a period of two years being a minimum mandatory period under Section 10A is arbitrary and oppressive and that the said two year period has to be read as one year, taking into account the one year period stipulated in similar legislations namely the Special Marriage Act ( Section 28(1) ) Hindu Marriage Act ( Section 13B(1)) and Parsi Marriage Act (Section 32B(1)). 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 03:22:27 pm ) 9.The Honourable Division Bench further took note of the fact that an application for divorce by mutual consent presented by both the husband and wife reflects the will of the parties to separate and get rid...", "Decision": "9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 03:22:27 pm ) P.B.BALAJI.J, ata Pre-delivery order made in CRP.No.4013 of 2025 04.09.2025 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 03:22:27 pm )", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199222473/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "199222473", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199222473/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Alphonsa vs Rajathasammal on 30 April, 2002", "Case Number": "C.M.A.No.1535 of 2022", "Judgment Date": "2002-04-30", "Judges": "R.Poornima, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14, Section 2, Section 299, Section 3, Section 5, Section 59, Section 60, Section 63, Section 68", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Partly_Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "C.M.A.No.1535 of 2002 is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 30.04.2022 passed in OP.No.10 of 1998 by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, whereas Tr.A.S.Nos.704 and 705 of 2002 are directed against the order, dated 30.04.2002 passed in SOP. Nos.13 of 1999 and 3 of 1998 separately. One Smile Daniel is the husband of Rajathasammal, the petitioner in S.O.P.No.3 of 1998 herein. He was working as Junior Assistant in the District and Sessions Court, Pudukottai. The marriage between the respondent and Smile Daniel was solemnized, on 12.09.1984 in St.Pauls Lutheran Church at Perumpushi in Vilavancode Taluk, Kanniyakumari District. At the time of marriage, the respondent was working as a Teacher in London Mission School at Eathamozhi and living nearby the said School. Her husband Smile Daniel was also 3/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/01/2026 07:36:52 pm ) C.M.A.No.1535 of 2022 and Tr.A.S Nos.704 and 705 of 2002 permanently residing with her at Eathamozhi, going from there to Pudukottai and returning on week ends and during other holidays. They have no issues. Alphonsa namely the first appellant herein is the divorced first wife of Smile Daniel, who married her on 15.09.1975. They lived as husband and wife till 11.04.1977 only. The 2nd appellant is their daughter. Their marriage was dissolved on 10.01.1983 by mutual consent and by their...", "Fact/ Respondent": "One Smile Daniel is the husband of Rajathasammal, the petitioner in S.O.P.No.3 of 1998 herein. He was working as Junior Assistant in the District and Sessions Court, Pudukottai. The marriage between the respondent and Smile Daniel was solemnized, on 12.09.1984 in St.Pauls Lutheran Church at Perumpushi in Vilavancode Taluk, Kanniyakumari District. At the time of marriage, the respondent was working as a Teacher in London Mission School at Eathamozhi and living nearby the said School. Her husband Smile Daniel was also 3/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/01/2026 07:36:52 pm ) C.M.A.No.1535 of 2022 and Tr.A.S Nos.704 and 705 of 2002 permanently residing with her at Eathamozhi, going from there to Pudukottai and returning on week ends and during other holidays. They have no issues. Alphonsa namely the first appellant herein is the divorced first wife of Smile Daniel, who married her on 15.09.1975. They lived as husband and wife till 11.04.1977 only. The 2nd appellant is their daughter. Their marriage was dissolved on 10.01.1983 by mutual consent and by their executing a Deed of Divorce and the same was registered with the Marthandam Sub-Registrar's Office as document No.1 of 1983.", "Issues": "1.Whether Smt.Alphonsa is the first wife of the deceased Smile Daniel ? 2. Whether the marriage between the deceased Smile Daniel and Alphonsa, the petitioner in SOP No.13 of 1999 dissolved by way of mutual divorce deed, executed between 10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/01/2026 07:36:52 pm ) C.M.A.No.1535 of 2022 and Tr.A.S Nos.704 and 705 of 2002 both the parties ? 3. Whether the marriage between Smile Daniel and Rajathasammal held on 12.09.1984, as per Ex.B9 is valid in law ? 4. Whether the Will executed by Smile Daniel on 30.09.1996 is valid and proved by Rajathasammal as per law ? 13. Point Nos.1 to 4 The petition in SOP.No.13 of 1999 was filed by Alphonsa and her daughter Viji claiming to be the wife and daughter of late.Smile Daniel and seeking issuance of a succession certificate in their favour, thereby enabling them to receive a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-...", "Petitioner Argument": "7. The learned counsel for the appellants in CMA.No.1535 of 2002 would submit that the learned trial Court erred in law and on 6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/01/2026 07:36:52 pm ) C.M.A.No.1535 of 2022 and Tr.A.S Nos.704 and 705 of 2002 facts in accepting the case of the respondent based on Ex.B29 (the alleged Will). According to the evidence of RW2, the testator had bequeathed the land and building under Ex.B29. However, the respondent Rajathasammal, who examined herself as RW1, has categorically deposed that the building in the said property was constructed by her after the death of her husband, namely the testator. This inherent contradiction in the evidence of RW1 and RW2 itself is sufficient to disbelieve the respondent’s claim and to hold that the alleged Will was not in existence at the relevant point of time. The Court below further failed to consider that RW2, the attesting witness to Ex.B29, has clearly admitted in his evidence that he had signed the Will only before it was filing before the Court, and not at the time of its...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "15. The parties are Christian. Part III of the Divorce Act deals with the grounds for dissolution of marriage. Section 10 thereof enumerates with grounds for the dissolution of marriage. Section 2 of the above Act provides that nothing hereinafter contained therein shall authorise any Court to grant any relief under the Act, unless the petitioner (or respondent) professes the Christian religion, nor to pass a decree of dissolution of marriage, unless the parties to the marriage reside in India at the time when the petition is presented. 16. Section 3 of this Act deal with interpretation provides that the District Judge having original civil jurisdiction within the local limits (of whose jurisdiction under this act, the marriage was solemnized 13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/01/2026 07:36:52 pm ) C.M.A.No.1535 of 2022 and Tr.A.S Nos.704 and 705 of 2002 or) the husband and wife reside or resided together shall have the jurisdiction. 17. Section 10 of the above Act provides that any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act 2001, may, on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground, that since...", "Decision": "39. In the result, Tr.A.S.No.705 of 2002 is allowed and the order passed in SOP.No.3 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil is set aside and the SOP.No.3 of 1998 is dismissed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191479048/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 2002, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "191479048", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191479048/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)", "Case Title": "Youth Welfare Federation Rep. By Its ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Rep. By Its ... on 9 October, 1996", "Case Number": "W.P. No. 9717 of 1983", "Judgment Date": "1996-10-09", "Judges": "Lingaraja Rath, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 112, Section 14, Section 17, Section 18, Section 2, Section 22, Section 26, Section 292, Section 293, Section 3, Section 311, Section 494, Section 57, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Adultery; Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Partly_Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. W.P. No. 9717 of 1983 was filed as public interest litigation raising the question of vires of the Sections. During the hearing of the case the learned single Judge felt the matter should be appropriately heard by a Division Bench as \"this case raises very important questions touching the personal law of the Christians as contained in 1 he Indian Divorce Act .\" The learned Judge also felt that it is appropriate for the Court to hear representations of organisations of the Christian community including of women which should be vitally interested in the matter. Notices were issued to seven organisations whose names were ascertained from the Bar and permission was also allowed to any other person, organisation or institution to intervene in the matter either for or against the contentions raised in the writ petition. In pursuance of the direction a press-note was issued by the Registrar of the High Court. Seven Christian organisations in Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh High Court Women Lawyers Association and two individuals filed intervention applications. When the case along with another Writ Petition No. 8160 of 1984 which has since been dismissed as not pressed came up for hearing, representation was made by the learned Counsel Smt. Jayasree Sarathy that certain other organisations and individuals were to file separate writ petitions. Writ...", "Fact/ Respondent": "\"10. When husband may present petition for dissolution:-Any husband may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court, praying that his marriage may be dissolved on the ground that his wife has, since the solemnization thereof, been guilty of adultery.", "Issues": "2. W.P. No. 9717 of 1983 was filed as public interest litigation raising the question of vires of the Sections. During the hearing of the case the learned single Judge felt the matter should be appropriately heard by a Division Bench as \"this case raises very important questions touching the personal law of the Christians as contained in 1 he Indian Divorce Act .\" The learned Judge also felt that it is appropriate for the Court to hear representations of organisations of the Christian community including of women which should be vitally interested in the matter. Notices were issued to seven organisations whose names were ascertained from the Bar and permission was also allowed to any other person, organisation or institution to intervene in the matter either for or against the contentions raised in the writ petition. In pursuance of the direction a press-note was issued by the Registrar of...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "7. In Narasu Appa 's case, the Court considered the validity of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act (Act 25 of 1946). One of the arguments that substantially engaged the discussion of the Court was that the impugned Act discriminated against Hindus in applying it to them as Muslim personal law, which permits polygamy, had become void at the commencement of the Constitution being inconsistent to Article 15(1) of the Constitution inasmuch as a Muslim male is permitted to have more than one wife whereas a Muslim woman is restricted to one husband and that this discrimination is one exclusively based upon sex. Even though the Muslim personal law of polygamy had thus become void, yet the impugned Act singled out only the Hindu community for a discriminatory treatment. Chief Justice Chagla held personal law to be outside the ambit of Article 13(1) of the Constitution on the reasons that the Constitution of India is modelled upon the Government of India Act, 1915 of which Section 112, dealing with the law to be administered by the High Courts provided that the High Courts shall, in matters of inheritence and succession to lands, rents and goods, and in matters...", "Decision": "53. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated. There is", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/476455/ | 1996(4)ALT1138", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; adultery; desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1996, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1996(4)ALT1138", "Kanoon Doc ID": "476455", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/476455/", "Chunks Indexed": 32 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Monika Sanctis vs Henry Joseph And Anr. on 17 December, 2002", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2002-12-17", "Judges": "Shylendra Kumar, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 17A, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 22, Section 34, Section 35, Section 45, Section 5, Section 52, Section 55, Section 56, Section 57, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty; Nullity Sec19; Desertion", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is an appeal by the wife under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act r/w Section 19 of the Family Court Act directed against the order dated 8-3-1999 passed by the II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, at Bangalore in M.C. No. 117/1998 allowing the petition of the wife under Sections 10 and 11 of the Indian Divorce Act partially and granting a decree for judicial separation. 2. The wife being aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, refusing her the full relief of dissolution of marriage and denying her a decree of divorce has come up in appeal,", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is an appeal by the wife under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act r/w Section 19 of the Family Court Act directed against the order dated 8-3-1999 passed by the II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, at Bangalore in M.C. No. 117/1998 allowing the petition of the wife under Sections 10 and 11 of the Indian Divorce Act partially and granting a decree for judicial separation.", "Issues": "8. The respondents having remained absent and set ex parte, the trial Court was only required to look into the petition averments and framed question as to whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce. 9. The petitioner examined herself and deposed that she has been treated with such cruelty and that the first respondent was living in adultery and also that the first respondent has committed acts of sodomy and perverse sex. 10. The learned trial Judge though recorded a finding of cruelty as against the husband accepting the pleadings supported by the evidence, nevertheless thought that act of adultery on the part of the first respondent having not been proved inasmuch as the petitioner had not deposed that she had seen the first and second respondents' living in adultery, that a decree of divorce cannot be granted and only granted the relief of Judicial separation. 11....", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "25. One very salient change brought about is doing away with the requirement of confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the District Court by a Bench of 3 judges of the High Court. This indicates that a decree for dissolution of a marriage passed under the Indian Divorce Act after the amending Act becomes effective on its own and does not require any further confirmation. If that is the situation we do not see any reason to impose the restriction of waiting in period of 6 months before a decree for dissolution of the marriage can be made absolute, when the High Court is passing such a decree. In fact on a proper understanding of the provisions of the Act, the provisions of Section 16 are applicable only in a situation where the petition for divorce is examined by the High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. We commend that this is a proper understanding of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. Accordingly we hold that the provisions of Section 16 does...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/417034/ | AIR2003KANT190, AIR 2003 KARNATAKA 190, 2003 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 676, (2003) 2 KANT LJ 588, (2003) 2 MARRILJ 525, (2003) MATLR 505, (2003) 9 ALLINDCAS 294 (KAR), (2003) 1 KCCR 635, (2004) 3 CIVLJ 472", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 363)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty; nullity_sec19; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2002, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR2003KANT190, AIR 2003 KARNATAKA 190, 2003 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 676, (2003) 2 KANT LJ 588, (2003) 2 MARRILJ 525, (2003) MATLR 505, (2003) 9 ALLINDCAS 294 (KAR), (2003) 1 KCCR 635, (2004) 3 CIVLJ 472", "Kanoon Doc ID": "417034", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/417034/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Henry Fernandes And Etc. vs Succorinha Fernandes And Etc. on 18 January, 2001", "Case Number": "Petition No. 318 of 1988", "Judgment Date": "2001-01-18", "Judges": "B.N. Srikrishna, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Special Marriage Act, 1954", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Both these suits have been referred to this Division Bench by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The issue we have to answer is; \"Whether in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Pragati Varghese v. Cyril George Varghese , , a Christian husband would be entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.\"", "Fact/ Respondent": "\"Whether in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Pragati Varghese v. Cyril George Varghese , , a Christian husband would be entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.\"", "Issues": "\"Whether in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Pragati Varghese v. Cyril George Varghese , , a Christian husband would be entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.\"", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "\"Notwithstanding the judgment of the Full Bench in Pragati Varghese v. Cyril George Varghese , , a Christian husband is not entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty or on any other ground except the ground of adultery.\"", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1912562/ | AIR2001BOM208, 2001(3)BOMCR360, II(2001)DMC536, 2001(2)MHLJ806, AIR 2001 BOMBAY 208, (2001) 2 ALLMR 93 (BOM), (2001) 2 DMC 536, (2001) 2 HINDULR 97, (2001) 2 MAH LJ 806, (2002) 1 MARRILJ 416, (2002) 2 RECCIVR 253, (2001) 3 CIVLJ 478, (2001) 3 BOM CR 360", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; adultery", "Judgment Year": 2001, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR2001BOM208, 2001(3)BOMCR360, II(2001)DMC536, 2001(2)MHLJ806, AIR 2001 BOMBAY 208, (2001) 2 ALLMR 93 (BOM), (2001) 2 DMC 536, (2001) 2 HINDULR 97, (2001) 2 MAH LJ 806, (2002) 1 MARRILJ 416, (2002) 2 RECCIVR 253, (2001) 3 CIVLJ 478, (2001) 3 BOM CR 360", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1912562", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1912562/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Olga Thelma Gomes vs Mark Gomes on 27 January, 1959", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1959-01-27", "Judges": "S.C. Lahiri, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 2, Section 3, Section 46, Section 488, Section 497, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a Reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act for confirmation of a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner Olga Thelma Gomes and her husband Mark Gomes. The petitioner filed the petition for dissolution against her husband on the allegation that her husband was guilty of adultery coupled with desertion for more than two years and also on the allegation that her husband was guilty of adultery coupled with cruelty. From the marriage certificate which has been produced in this case it appears that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 26-4-1936, at St. Francis Xavier Church at 68, Bow Bazar Street according to Christian rites. As a result of the marriage one daughter was born to the petitioner. Upon the evidence which has been believed by the court below the petitioner and her husband lived happily for some time and their last matrimonial home was at premises No. 38 Beckbagan which is within the jurisdiction of the District Judge of 24-Parganas. The petitioner states on oath that both she and her husband have been living in India since their birth and both of them are Indian Christians. The court of the District Judge, 24-Parganas, therefore, has jurisdiction to make a decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 2 of the Indian...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a Reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act for confirmation of a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner Olga Thelma Gomes and her husband Mark Gomes. The petitioner filed the petition for dissolution against her husband on the allegation that her husband was guilty of adultery coupled with desertion for more than two years and also on the allegation that her husband was guilty of adultery coupled with cruelty. From the marriage certificate which has been produced in this case it appears that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 26-4-1936, at St. Francis Xavier Church at 68, Bow Bazar Street according to Christian rites. As a result of the marriage one daughter was born to the petitioner. Upon the evidence which has been believed by the court below the petitioner and her husband lived happily for some time and their last matrimonial home was at premises No. 38 Beckbagan which is within the jurisdiction of the District Judge of 24-Parganas. The petitioner states on oath that both she and her husband have been living in India since their birth and both of them are Indian Christians. The court of the...", "Issues": "\"In the divorce court, adultery means willing sexual intercourse between a husband or wife and one of the opposite sex while the marriage subsists.\" In the case of Abson v. Abson, (1952) 1 All E. R. 370, the question arose whether a divorced woman could be held guilty of adultery, the allegation being that the divorced wife was guilty of adultery as she took part in acts of sexual intercourse with one Rayner. On this question Karminski J. observed as follows at page 372 of the Report: \"When the wife took part in an act of sexual intercourse with Rayner, was he then dishonouring or defiling her own marriage bed or that of the man with whom the intercourse took place? Clearly, so far as the wife was concerned, she could not be defiling or dishonouring her own marriage bed, because, as a single woman, she had no marriage bed...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "16. For the reasons aforesaid I am of opinion that adultery as a matrimonial offence is wider than adultery as a crime and under the Indian Divorce Act a husband may be guilty of adultery even with an unmarried woman, a widow or a woman whose previous marriage stood dissolved.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1367854/ | AIR1959CAL451, 63CWN395, AIR 1959 CALCUTTA 451, ILR (1960) 1 CAL 520 63 CAL WN 395, 63 CAL WN 395", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1959, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1959CAL451, 63CWN395, AIR 1959 CALCUTTA 451, ILR (1960) 1 CAL 520 63 CAL WN 395, 63 CAL WN 395", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1367854", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1367854/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Kuruvilla Varghese vs Sapnam Elizabeth Joseph on 25 May, 2007", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2007-05-25", "Judges": "K.T. Sankaran, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14, Section 16, Section 23", "Legal Topics": "Non Consummation; Cruelty; Nullity Sec19; Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The questions involved in this Matrimonial Appeal are : (1) Whether a petition for dissolution of marriage filed by the husband on the ground that the wife wilfully refused to consummate the marriage and the marriage has not therefore been consummated (which is a ground for dissolution of marriage under Clause (vii) of Section 10 introduced by The Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, Act 51 of 2001 by the substitution of Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869) is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petition was filed twelve years after the marrjage and therefore the petitioner is guilty of unreasonable delay in presenting the petition within the meaning of Section 14 of the Act, when the petition was presented within reasonable time after the commencement of Act 51 of 2001? (2) Whether refusal by the wife to consummate the marriage on the ground that there is likelihood of her begetting children with mental disorder as the relatives of the husband have children with mental retardation, amounts to wilful refusal to consummate the marriage? 2. The parties are Indian Christians. Their marriage was solemnized on 29-8-1991 at St. Mary's Malankara Syrian Catholic Church, Vettiyar. The husband was working as a Mechanical Engineer in H.M.T. Kalamassery at the time of marriage. After the wedding, for three days,...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The questions involved in this Matrimonial Appeal are : (1) Whether a petition for dissolution of marriage filed by the husband on the ground that the wife wilfully refused to consummate the marriage and the marriage has not therefore been consummated (which is a ground for dissolution of marriage under Clause (vii) of Section 10 introduced by The Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, Act 51 of 2001 by the substitution of Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869) is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petition was filed twelve years after the marrjage and therefore the petitioner is guilty of unreasonable delay in presenting the petition within the meaning of Section 14 of the Act, when the petition was presented within reasonable time after the commencement of Act 51 of 2001? (2) Whether refusal by the wife to consummate the marriage on the ground that there is likelihood of her begetting children with mental disorder as the relatives of the husband have children with mental retardation, amounts to wilful refusal to consummate the marriage?", "Issues": "6. Before us, the respondent-wife argued the case herself, without the assistance of a counsel. She argued the case efficiently, in fluent English. She is educated and is fully aware of the Court proceedings and the nuances of litigation. Since she appeared in person, we had heard the case in greater detail and we had also occasion to ascertain whether she is willing to consummate the marriage at least at this belated stage. She expressed her unwillingness for the same. The position is thus clear that the state of affairs as between the parties continue to be the same as before. (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, may, on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent- (i) has...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "5. The respondent-wife contended that she had to waste twelve years of her 'prime life' by agreeing to the request made by the husband to her to act the role of his wife. She further stated that the husband was bidding for time to settle his family affairs. He has settled all his brothers well in life and now he wants a divorce. The respondent also contended that the petition is not a bona fide one and that it is highly belated. The respondent asserted that she is not impotent. She also denied the case of cruelty. 16. The respondent also stated in evidence that there was no attempt to get the opinion of a doctor to rule out the possibility of begetting any child with mental retardation. We quote her own words : \"on the basis of my observation in the family members of the petitioner, I formed an opinion that he is also carrier of mentally retarded genes.\" The only bodily relationship between the parties, according to the husband, was a permission to kiss when he presented a...", "Factors to be Considered": "1. The questions involved in this Matrimonial Appeal are : (1) Whether a petition for dissolution of marriage filed by the husband on the ground that the wife wilfully refused to consummate the marriage and the marriage has not therefore been consummated (which is a ground for dissolution of marriage under Clause (vii) of Section 10 introduced by The Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, Act 51 of 2001 by the substitution of Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869) is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petition was filed twelve years after the marrjage and therefore the petitioner is guilty of unreasonable delay in presenting the petition within the meaning of Section 14 of the Act, when the petition was presented within reasonable time after the commencement of Act 51 of 2001? (2) Whether refusal by the wife to consummate the marriage on the ground that there is likelihood of her begetting children with mental disorder as the relatives of the husband have children with mental retardation, amounts to wilful refusal to consummate the marriage? 2. The parties are Indian Christians. Their marriage was solemnized on 29-8-1991 at St. Mary's Malankara Syrian Catholic Church, Vettiyar. The husband...", "Decision": "For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the Appeal, set aside the judgment of the Court below and allow the petition for dissolution of marriage under Clause (vii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869. A decree nisi is issued for dissolution of marriage under Section 16 of the Divorce Act.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/600946/ | AIR2007KER240, AIR 2007 KERALA 240, 2007 (5) ALL LJ NOC 918, 2007 (6) ABR (NOC) 1032 (KER), 2007 AIHC NOC 552, (2008) MATLR 481, (2007) 3 KER LT 228", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Non Consummation", "All Grounds": "non_consummation; cruelty; nullity_sec19; adultery", "Judgment Year": 2007, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR2007KER240, AIR 2007 KERALA 240, 2007 (5) ALL LJ NOC 918, 2007 (6) ABR (NOC) 1032 (KER), 2007 AIHC NOC 552, (2008) MATLR 481, (2007) 3 KER LT 228", "Kanoon Doc ID": "600946", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/600946/", "Chunks Indexed": 15 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Saleenamma Oomman vs K.I.Jose @ Davidson on 3 September, 2010", "Case Number": "Mat.Appeal.No. 136 of 2004", "Judgment Date": "2010-09-03", "Judges": "Basant, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Basant J., The wife is the appellant. She claimed a decree for divorce against the respondent, her husband, under Section 10 of the Divorce Act. It is relevant that the subsection of section 10 under which the claim was made was not specified. The marriage took place on 27.11.1999 at the Vakathanam Salvation Army Church in accordance with the Christian religious rites. Ext.A1 is the Certificate of marriage. The spouses lived together as husband and wife thereafter. While the wife, a qualified Nurse was employed at Delhi earlier, after marriage she did not resume her employment. The spouses were not blessed with any children. It is the case of the claimant wife that she was the victim of baseless allegations and insult as a result of the failure to conceive. According to her, there Mat. A No.136 of 2004 2 was no defect in her but she had accepted the request of her husband, the respondent to undergo treatment. According to her, mental and physical cruelty were inflicted on her on account of her alleged inability to conceive. The spouses started seperate residence from 21.10.2002. All the efforts made by the wife and her relatives to ensure that the spouses resumed cohabitation met with cruel retorts/responses. No maintenance was paid. The wife was not enquired about at all. Baseless and...", "Fact/ Respondent": "Basant J., The wife is the appellant. She claimed a decree for divorce against the respondent, her husband, under Section 10 of the Divorce Act. It is relevant that the subsection of section 10 under which the claim was made was not specified. The marriage took place on 27.11.1999 at the Vakathanam Salvation Army Church in accordance with the Christian religious rites. Ext.A1 is the Certificate of marriage. The spouses lived together as husband and wife thereafter. While the wife, a qualified Nurse was employed at Delhi earlier, after marriage she did not resume her employment. The spouses were not blessed with any children. It is the case of the claimant wife that she was the victim of baseless allegations and insult as a result of the failure to conceive. According to her, there Mat. A No.136 of 2004 2 was no defect in her but she had accepted the request of her husband, the respondent to undergo treatment. According to her, mental and physical cruelty were inflicted on her on account of her alleged inability to conceive. The spouses started seperate residence from 21.10.2002. All the efforts made by the wife and her relatives to ensure that the spouses...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "4. The respondent was served in this appeal. He has entered appearance through counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is not interested in continuing the marital relationship. Appropriate orders may be passed. The Mat. A No.136 of 2004 4 respondent does not want to oppose the prayer for divorce in this appeal. It is further pointed out that as per the order in O.P. No. 1135 of 2003, the Family Court has directed the respondent/husband and his father to pay an amount to the appellant herein. Against that order, an appeal was taken before this court and that Appeal ; M.A. No. 341 of 2006 now stands dismissed.", "Factors to be Considered": "Basant J., The wife is the appellant. She claimed a decree for divorce against the respondent, her husband, under Section 10 of the Divorce Act. It is relevant that the subsection of section 10 under which the claim was made was not specified. The marriage took place on 27.11.1999 at the Vakathanam Salvation Army Church in accordance with the Christian religious rites. Ext.A1 is the Certificate of marriage. The spouses lived together as husband and wife thereafter. While the wife, a qualified Nurse was employed at Delhi earlier, after marriage she did not resume her employment. The spouses were not blessed with any children. It is the case of the claimant wife that she was the victim of baseless allegations and insult as a result of the failure to conceive. According to her, there Mat. A No.136 of 2004 2 was no defect in her but she had accepted the request of her husband, the respondent to undergo treatment. According to her, mental and physical cruelty were inflicted on her on account of her alleged inability to conceive. The spouses started seperate residence from 21.10.2002. All the efforts made by the wife and her relatives to ensure that the spouses...", "Decision": "(c) The marriage between the appellant and the respondent solemnised as per Ext.A1 certificate of marriage on 27.11.1999 at Mat. A No.136 of 2004 8 Salvation Army Church at Vakathanam is hereby dissolved with effect from this date.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1353368/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2010, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1353368", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1353368/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Rosy Kurian Kannanaikal vs Joseph Verghese Cheeran on 5 April, 2002", "Case Number": "No. 648 of 1994", "Judgment Date": "2002-04-05", "Judges": "N.K. Jain, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Family Courts Act, 1984", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 2, Section 20, Section 22, Section 29, Section 55, Section 56, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "A Full Bench of this Court not agreeing with the view taken by an earlier Full Bench decision in the case of Jayakumar v. Smt. Harriet Nirmala and observing that \"there are number of reference petitions pending in this Court which shall now have to await the decision of the larger Bench\", has referred this matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench vide its order dated 15-12-2000. (i) Whether a reference to High Court for confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage or nullity of marriage, under Sections 17 and 20 of the Divorce Act, 1869, is necessary where such decree is granted by a Family Court, under the Family Courts Act, 1984 ?", "Fact/ Respondent": "The petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband are Christians. They were married according to the Christian rites on 28-4-1991 at Bangalore. The petitioner filed the petition in M.C. No. 648 of 1994 under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (for short, \"the Divorce Act \") in the Family Court at Bangalore, making allegations against her husband with regard to his having relationship with other women, in addition to allegations of sodomy, physical injury, demanding of dowry and subjecting her to mental cruelty stating that she has become an object of divine displeasure. The petition was hotly contested. It was allowed by an order dated 5-12-1998 dissolving the marriage between the contesting parties under the provisions of the Divorce Act .", "Issues": "(i) Whether a reference to High Court for confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage or nullity of marriage, under Sections 17 and 20 of the Divorce Act, 1869, is necessary where such decree is granted by a Family Court, under the Family Courts Act, 1984 ? (iii) If the answer to point (ii) is in the negative, whether confirmation is called for in the instant case? 3. The facts leading to the order of reference are as follows: \"10-A. Dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.--(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, a petition for dissolution of marriage may be presented to the District Court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "The petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband are Christians. They were married according to the Christian rites on 28-4-1991 at Bangalore. The petitioner filed the petition in M.C. No. 648 of 1994 under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (for short, \"the Divorce Act \") in the Family Court at Bangalore, making allegations against her husband with regard to his having relationship with other women, in addition to allegations of sodomy, physical injury, demanding of dowry and subjecting her to mental cruelty stating that she has become an object of divine displeasure. The petition was hotly contested. It was allowed by an order dated 5-12-1998 dissolving the marriage between the contesting parties under the provisions of the Divorce Act .", "Decision": "21. Though the larger Bench is not generally called upon to decide the case on merits, since in the present case regarding merits of the dispute between the parties has also been referred to us, we will consider the same. The parties who are present in the Court and identified by their Counsel submitted that they (petitioner and the respondent) are living separately for more than eight years and in view of the insertion of Section 10-A in the Divorce Act providing for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent they may be granted a decree for dissolution, instead of examining the decree of the Family Court under Section 17 . The petitioner has in fact filed an application I.A. No. I on 13-1-2002 for this purpose. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that as these proceedings for confirmation of divorce under Section 17 is a continuation of the original lis, a decree for dissolution of marriage may be granted under Section 10-A of the Divorce Act be passed. A petition for divorce can be converted into one for divorce by...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/706144/ | II(2002)DMC79, ILR2002KAR1831, 2004(3)KARLJ75", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 2002, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: II(2002)DMC79, ILR2002KAR1831, 2004(3)KARLJ75", "Kanoon Doc ID": "706144", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/706144/", "Chunks Indexed": 20 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "Mr. George Raju Singh vs Mrs. Nisha Nidhi on 21 April, 2026", "Case Number": "F.A. No.58 of 2021", "Judgment Date": "2026-04-21", "Judges": "Sujit Narayan Prasad, J., Sanjay Prasad, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 2", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on 05.08.2021 and decree signed on 12.08.2021 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No. 238 of 2016 filed by the Respondent-wife under Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act for a decree of divorce has been allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff- respondent-wife as narrated, is that the marriage of plaintiff and defendant was solemnized on 28.10.1998 at Queen of the Apostle Church, Kurji, Patna, Bihar, according to Christianity and customs and after the marriage, the plaintiff came to her matrimonial house at 20E/M.S. Flat, Sisham Road, Golmuri, Jamshedpur and their marriage was consummated and out of the aforesaid wedlock, one daughter namely Simran Shreya was born on 02.08.1999 at Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur and a son namely Akshay Anand was born on 27.01.2007 at Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur and presently both the children are residing with plaintiff (respondent herein) and she being a mother and natural guardian is looking after their day to day affairs.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on 05.08.2021 and decree signed on 12.08.2021 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No. 238 of 2016 filed by the Respondent-wife under Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act for a decree of divorce has been allowed.", "Issues": "II. Whether the applicant has got valid cause of action? III. Whether the defendant has committed acts of cruelty on the applicant? IV. Whether applicant is entitled to a decree of divorce? V. To what other relief or reliefs the applicant is entitled to? 25. The aforesaid issues were decided against the appellant-husband and in favour of respondent-wife and the suit was decreed on contest in the following terms: \"That the suit be and the same is decreed on contest. The marriage of plaintiff Nisha Nidhi and defendant George Raju Singh solemnized on 28.10.1998 is hereby dissolved. It will be 8 effected from the date of decree. Let a decree be prepared accordingly.\" 26. The appellant-husband, being aggrieved with the judgment passed on 05.08.2021 and decree signed on 12.08.2021 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur approached this Court by filing the instant appeal. Submission made on behalf of the...", "Petitioner Argument": "32. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent-wife had earlier filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, which was dismissed due to the reason that the appellant had always supported the respondent and led a happy conjugal life without any complaint till the month of October, 2013, thereafter his father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, uncle and aunt-in-law came to his flat having three bed rooms at Vijaya Shatabdi and started residing there and when he objected the same, then the disturbances between the parties arose and his in-laws influenced the respondent-wife to lodge a frivolous complaint against him, but the learned court has not considered the same. 10 33. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant has applied for a joint loan along with his wife and Flat No. 1242 situated at Vijaya Shatabdi is registered in their joint name and both of them along with their children were happily residing there, but the learned court has not considered the same. 34. It has been submitted that the appellant's father-in-law and mother-in-law have assaulted his daughter resulted in...", "Respondent Argument": "40. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, defending the 12 impugned order, has submitted that appellant and respondent are legally married couple and they are blessed with two children, but since the beginning of their marital life, appellant had greedy eyes over the property of the respondent and the respondent-wife purchased a flat in Shatabdi Tower at her own income, however, the appellant manipulated and got his name entered in the ownership of flat. 41. It has further been submitted that the appellant always treated the respondent-wife with cruelty as he has criminal background and several criminal cases are pending against him. 42. It has further been submitted that appellant used to get blank cheque signed by the respondent-wife and received money, even, without consent of respondent, the appellant inducted a tenant in her company quarter and when the respondent came to know, she had to pay Rs.1,00,000/-to the tenant, which was received by the appellant. 43. It has further been submitted that on 30.10.2013, the appellant brutally assaulted the respondent-wife and snatched valuable articles from her and since 30.10.2013 both...", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear.", "Decision": "89. Accordingly, issue as framed by this court that is decided against the appellant-husband and it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the learned family court, allowing the decree of divorce to the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty under Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act, requires no interference.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/13407850/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "13407850", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/13407850/", "Chunks Indexed": 18 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Asha Gomes vs Arthur Gomes on 18 February, 2002", "Case Number": "No. 51 of 2001", "Judgment Date": "2002-02-18", "Judges": "H.L. Gokhale, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Heard Mr. Rego for the appellant. None is present for the respondent, though he has been served. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order passed by the Family Court, Mumbai dated 23rd August, 2001 in Petition No. A-1135 of 2000. The appeal was admitted on 23rd October, 2001 and the hearing was expedited. The record of the proceedings from lower Court is received thereafter and the appellant has filed paper book. 2. When the matter reached for final hearing before this Bench, Mr. Rego, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, pointed out that the respondent had remained absent though served in the Family Court also. The appellant herein had filed the above referred matrimonial petition, seeking divorce under the provisions of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 on the ground of cruelty, as interpreted by the Full Bench of this Court in Pragati Varghese v. Cyril George Varghese , reported in II (1997) DMC 407 (FB)=1997 (3) Mh. LJ 602. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant was treated with such cruelty that it was impossible for her to continue her married life with the respondent.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. Heard Mr. Rego for the appellant. None is present for the respondent, though he has been served. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order passed by the Family Court, Mumbai dated 23rd August, 2001 in Petition No. A-1135 of 2000. The appeal was admitted on 23rd October, 2001 and the hearing was expedited. The record of the proceedings from lower Court is received thereafter and the appellant has filed paper book.", "Issues": "\"10(1) Any marriage solemnized whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001 may, on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the solamnization of the marriage, the respondent- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (x) has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent.\"", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "In fact for that matter in a very recent judgment in the case of G.V.N. Kameswara Rao v. G. Jabilli , reported in I (2002) SLT 153=1 (2002) DMC 266=AIR 2002 SCW 162, the Apex Court has held that for constituting cruelty, the conduct need not necessarily be of such nature as to case reasonable apprehension that it would harm the petitioner to live with other party. Whether the acts committed by the respondent, amount to cruelty has to be assessed after taking into consideration the status of parties in social life, their customs, traditions and such similar circumstances. The Court should consider whether the conduct of the respondent was such that it had become intolerable for the petitioner to suffer any longer. 10. For the sake of record, we would like to point out that the above referring Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 has been since amended by the Parliament by Act No. 51 of 2001 and has now a much more humane provision in Section 10(l)(x) when it comes to a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty. This provision has come into force from 24.9.2001. The said provision reads as follows :", "Decision": "11. Having gone through the material on record, we are of the view that the appellant had made out a case of cruelty before the Trial Court and the learned Judge has erred in ignoring the material which was placed before him. There was no reason for him to come to the conclusion that in fact the appellant was at fault when the respondent did not care to contest the petition, and the submissions made by the appellant on cruelty were cogent and uncontroverted. It was for her to form her impression as to how she was treated. She has placed it on record and we cannot say that she was unreasonable in contending that she was meted out a cruel treatment over a period of four years in an unsatisfactory married life. For the reasons stated above, in our opinion, she has made out a case under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 as interpreted in Pragati Varghese (supra). She is, therefore, entitled to a decree of divorce. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set-aside the order passed...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1563100/ | I(2002)DMC794", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; adultery", "Judgment Year": 2002, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: I(2002)DMC794", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1563100", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1563100/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Elam Plakkat Mathew Alias Joly Joseph vs Mulam Kothrayil Kochurani Alias Rani on 14 July, 1999", "Case Number": "O. P. 122/97", "Judgment Date": "1999-07-14", "Judges": "Ar. Lakshmanan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 17, Section 19", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19; Adultery", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Husband is the petitioner in this reference. Respondent is his wife. The marriage was solemnised in accordance with the Christian rites on 24-6-96. It is alleged that even prior to the marriage respondent was pregnant by somebody else and she delivered a baby on 27-1-97. The petitioner filed O. P. 122/97 before the Family Court for an injunction to restrain the respondent from using his name as the father of the child born to her. When the Original Petition came up for evidence on 23-1-98 the respondent admitted that the petitioner is not the father of the child born to her and O. P. 112/97 was allowed in his favour. It is further alleged that the petitioner has been living separately from the respondent prior to one year from the filing of the petition and that the respondent was impregnated by somebody else, could not live with her and that she is living in adultery and therefore the petitioner is entitled for a decree on the ground of adultery. The respondent remained ex parte. Before the lower Court petitioner was examined as PW1 and Ext. A1, copy of the certificate issued from St. George Church, Vilangad was marked. Respondent remained ex parte and no evidence was adduced on her behalf either oral or documentary. The Family Court, Kozhikode on...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. Husband is the petitioner in this reference. Respondent is his wife. The marriage was solemnised in accordance with the Christian rites on 24-6-96. It is alleged that even prior to the marriage respondent was pregnant by somebody else and she delivered a baby on 27-1-97. The petitioner filed O. P. 122/97 before the Family Court for an injunction to restrain the respondent from using his name as the father of the child born to her. When the Original Petition came up for evidence on 23-1-98 the respondent admitted that the petitioner is not the father of the child born to her and O. P. 112/97 was allowed in his favour. It is further alleged that the petitioner has been living separately from the respondent prior to one year from the filing of the petition and that the respondent was impregnated by somebody else, could not live with her and that she is living in adultery and therefore the petitioner is entitled for a decree on the ground of adultery. The respondent remained ex parte. Before the lower Court petitioner was examined as PW1 and Ext. A1, copy of the certificate issued from St. George Church, Vilangad was marked. Respondent...", "Issues": "2) that the parties are within the prohibited degree of consanguinity (whether natural or legal) or affinity; 3) that either party was a lunatic or idiot at the time of the marriage; 4) that the former husband or wife of either party was living at the time of the marriage, and the marriage with such former husband or wife was then in force. The Section also provides that nothing in the said Section shall affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to make decrees of nullity of marriage on the ground that the consent of either party was obtained by force or fraud.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "1. Husband is the petitioner in this reference. Respondent is his wife. The marriage was solemnised in accordance with the Christian rites on 24-6-96. It is alleged that even prior to the marriage respondent was pregnant by somebody else and she delivered a baby on 27-1-97. The petitioner filed O. P. 122/97 before the Family Court for an injunction to restrain the respondent from using his name as the father of the child born to her. When the Original Petition came up for evidence on 23-1-98 the respondent admitted that the petitioner is not the father of the child born to her and O. P. 112/97 was allowed in his favour. It is further alleged that the petitioner has been living separately from the respondent prior to one year from the filing of the petition and that the respondent was impregnated by somebody else, could not live with her and that she is living in adultery and therefore the petitioner is entitled for a decree on the ground of adultery. The respondent remained ex parte. Before the lower Court petitioner...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1454739/ | AIR1999KER354, I(2000)DMC126, AIR 1999 KERALA 354, ILR(KER) 1999 (3) KER 221, (2000) 1 HINDULR 468, (1999) 2 KER LJ 227, (2000) 1 DMC 126, (1999) 2 KER LT 776, (2000) 1 MARRILJ 108, (1999) MATLR 579, (1999) 4 RECCIVR 404", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19; adultery", "Judgment Year": 1999, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1999KER354, I(2000)DMC126, AIR 1999 KERALA 354, ILR(KER) 1999 (3) KER 221, (2000) 1 HINDULR 468, (1999) 2 KER LJ 227, (2000) 1 DMC 126, (1999) 2 KER LT 776, (2000) 1 MARRILJ 108, (1999) MATLR 579, (1999) 4 RECCIVR 404", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1454739", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1454739/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court of India", "Case Title": "Reynold Rajamani & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 July, 1982", "Case Number": "Civil Appeal No. 2631 of 1982", "Judgment Date": "1982-07-30", "Judges": "R.S Pathak, J., Reddy, O. Chinnappa, J., Islam, Baharul, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 13B, Section 2, Section 27, Section 28, Section 3, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "PATHAK J. The appellants, who belong to the Roman Catholic community, were married on December 30, 1967 in 34 Podannur in the State of Tamil Nadu under s. 27 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 . On July 26, 1979 they put in a joint petition under s. 28 of the Special Marriage Act for a decree of divorce by mutual consent in the Court of the learned District Judge, Delhi. On March 11, 1980 the trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that s. 28 of the Special Marriage Act could not be availed of. The appellants filed 'a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi which having been dismissed they proceeded in appeal to this Court. In the appeal they applied for permission to amend the joint petition to enable them to rely upon s. 7 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 read with s. 1 (2) (d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973 of England. The amendment was allowed, and the appellants filed an amended joint petition i n the trial court - seeking divorce on the ground that they had been living separately for more than two years and had not been able to live together and their marriage had broken down irretrievably and therefore they were entitled to a decree of divorce...", "Fact/ Respondent": "S.T. Desai and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondent. The following Judgments were delivered;", "Issues": "Divorce Act cannot be enlarged by reference to s. 7 of the Act. So also has a Special Bench of the Madras High Court in T.M. Bashiam v. Victor (l) and a Single Judge of that Court in A. George Cornelius v. Elizabeth Dopti Samadanam .(2) Miss Thomas appeals to us to adopt a policy of \"social engineering\" and to give to s. 7 the content which has been enacted in s. 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and s. 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, both of which provide for divorce by mutual consent. It is possible to say that the law relating to Hindu marriages and to marriages governed by the Special Marriage Act presents a more advanced stage of development in this area than the Indian Divorce Act . However, whether a provision for divorce by mutual consent should be included in the Indian Divorce...", "Petitioner Argument": "Learned counsel for the appellants then points out that a Christian marriage can be registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and that there is no reason why a marriage registered under the Indian Christian Marriage Act should not enjoy an advantage which is available to a marriage registered under the Special Marriage Act . Reliance is placed on the constitutional prohibition against discrimination embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution. Assuming that the marriage in this case could have been registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 , inasmuch as it was solemnised in 1967 it was open to the parties to avail of that Act instead of having resort to the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 . In the circumstances, it is not open to the appellants to com plain of the disadvantage now suffered by them. It is also urged by the appellants that the Letters Patent jurisdiction enjoyed by the High Court in matrimonial matters is sufficiently extensive to enable the High Court to make a decree for divorce on the ground now pleaded. We have...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Constitutional Doctrine: Gender equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21; severance of discriminatory conditions requiring Christian wives to prove adultery coupled with cruelty/desertion (Ammini E.J. / Pragati Varghese).", "Decision": "My brother Pathak J. has pointed out that the history of matrimonial legislation has been towards liberalisation of the grounds for divorce. Inevitably so. The history of matrimony itself, in the recent past, has been a movement from ritual and sacrament to reality and contract even as the history of the relationship of the sexes has been from male dominance to equality between the sexes. But the world is still a man's world and the laws are man-made laws, very much so. We have just heard that in an advanced country like the United States of America, the Equal Rights for Women Amendment could not be successfully pushed through for failure to obtain the support of the necessary number of States. Our constitution-makers and our Parliament have certainly done better. We have constitutional and legal equality for the sexes. But even so, economic and social equality between the sexes appears to be a very distant goal. One has only to read the daily sickly reports of 'dowry deaths' and 'atrocities on women' to realise that women, in our country, are...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81548/ | 1982 AIR 1261, 1983 SCR (1) 32, AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 1261, (1982) MARRILJ 498, (1982) MATLR 359, (1982) 95 MAD LW 141, 1982 CRI APP R (SC) 223, 1982 UJ (SC) 570, (1982) 2 DMC 268, (1982) 8 ALL LR 649, 1982 (2) SCC 474", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity", "Judgment Year": 1982, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1261, 1983 SCR (1) 32, AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 1261, (1982) MARRILJ 498, (1982) MATLR 359, (1982) 95 MAD LW 141, 1982 CRI APP R (SC) 223, 1982 UJ (SC) 570, (1982) 2 DMC 268, (1982) 8 ALL LR 649, 1982 (2) SCC 474", "Kanoon Doc ID": "81548", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81548/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "A vs B on 18 January, 1996", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1996-01-18", "Judges": "K. Narayana Kurup, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 15, Section 18, Section 19", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Nullity Sec19; Desertion; Adultery; Non Consummation", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a petition for nullity of marriage filed by the husband under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act. 2. The parties belong to the Syrian Christian community. Their marriage was solemnised on 12.2.1995 at the St. Thomas Catholicate Aramana Church, Muvattupuzha. Admittedly, the parties resided together only for 15 days. On 27.2,1995, the respondent returned to her own house at Trichur. The allegations of the petitioner are that the respondent was and is a schizophrenic, that she is physically under-developed, and impotent, that these facts were suppressed from the petitioner before marriage and that, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a decree of nullity of marriage under Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act on the grounds of insanity and impotency of the respondent and fraud. It is also alleged in the petition that because of the respondent's mental and physical deficiencies, she also refused to have sexual intercourse with the petitioner and thereby failed to consummate the marriage. The averments contained in the petition are repudiated by the respondent. According to the respondent, she is absolutely normal-physically and mentally. Her further case is that she never refused to have sexual intercourse with the petitioner. On the contrary, it was the petitioner who refused to have normal sexual intercourse with her. According to the respondent, the petitioner...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a petition for nullity of marriage filed by the husband under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act.", "Issues": "1. Whether the respondent is schizophrenic before the marriage and at the time of marriage and even thereafter ? 2. Whether the respondent is physically under-developed and impotent (frigid) ? 3. Sine the marriage is not consummated as admitted by both parties whether a decree for nullity can be issued ? 4. Whether the marriage solemnised on 12th February, 1995 between the petitioner and respondent is liable to be declared as null and void as provided in the Indian Divorce Act ? 5. Whether the respondent is entitled to get divorce on the ground of alleged cruelty ? 6. Whether the relief prayed for by the petitioner is liable to be granted on the facts and circumstances of the case as pleaded by the parties ? 7. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get his costs in prosecuting the case ? 3. The evidence in the case consists of the...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "1. This is a petition for nullity of marriage filed by the husband under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act. 2. The parties belong to the Syrian Christian community. Their marriage was solemnised on 12.2.1995 at the St. Thomas Catholicate Aramana Church, Muvattupuzha. Admittedly, the parties resided together only for 15 days. On 27.2,1995, the respondent returned to her own house at Trichur. The allegations of the petitioner are that the respondent was and is a schizophrenic, that she is physically under-developed, and impotent, that these facts were suppressed from the petitioner before marriage and that, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a decree of nullity of marriage under Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act on the grounds of insanity and impotency of the respondent and fraud. It is also alleged in the petition that because of the respondent's mental and physical deficiencies, she also refused to have sexual intercourse with the petitioner and thereby failed to consummate the marriage. The averments contained in the petition are repudiated by the respondent. According to the respondent, she is absolutely normal-physically and mentally. Her further case is that she never refused to have sexual intercourse with the petitioner. On the...", "Decision": "In the result, the prayer of the petitioner for nullity of marriage is rejected and the respondent is granted a decree for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty simpliciter.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/796249/ | II(1997)DMC373", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; nullity_sec19; desertion; adultery; non_consummation", "Judgment Year": 1996, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: II(1997)DMC373", "Kanoon Doc ID": "796249", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/796249/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Sajan Ninan vs Binu S. George on 10 January, 2003", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2003-01-10", "Judges": "K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 15, Section 18, Section 45", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The respondent wife filed an application under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 alleging desertion and cruelty by the appellant/husband. The appellant/husband filed a counter affidavit dated 24.7.2001. The parties went on trial. The respondent/petitioner closed her evidence. The appellant/husband commenced his evidence. He introduced certain evidence as the nullity of the marriage between them. At that point the respondent wife objected contending that such evidence could not be adduced in a petition under Section 10 filed by her on the ground of desertion and cruelty. This was answered by the appellant contending that in the counter affidavit he had already raised a counter claim for declaring the marriage a nullity in terms of Rule 6A Order 8 CPC read with Section 45 of the Divorce Act, 1869. Thereupon the learned single Judge was called upon to decide whether a counter claim will lie in a proceedings under Section 10 in the light of Section 15 of the Act alleging nullity of marriage. That was decided as per the order impugned wherein it is held that a counter claim as to nullity of marriage cannot be raised under Section 15 by respondent in a proceedings under Section 10 . That order is impugned in this appeal. 2. It is contended by the appellant that his counter claim raised...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The respondent wife filed an application under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 alleging desertion and cruelty by the appellant/husband. The appellant/husband filed a counter affidavit dated 24.7.2001. The parties went on trial. The respondent/petitioner closed her evidence. The appellant/husband commenced his evidence. He introduced certain evidence as the nullity of the marriage between them. At that point the respondent wife objected contending that such evidence could not be adduced in a petition under Section 10 filed by her on the ground of desertion and cruelty. This was answered by the appellant contending that in the counter affidavit he had already raised a counter claim for declaring the marriage a nullity in terms of Rule 6A Order 8 CPC read with Section 45 of the Divorce Act, 1869. Thereupon the learned single Judge was called upon to decide whether a counter claim will lie in a proceedings under Section 10 in the light of Section 15 of the Act alleging nullity of marriage. That was decided as per the order impugned wherein it is held that a counter claim as to nullity of marriage cannot be raised under Section 15 by respondent in a proceedings under Section 10...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "6. In such circumstances even if Section 15 is not applicable as contended by the appellant, as Section 45 is relating to the procedural matter alone, it cannot be contended that Rule 6A of Order 8 CPC is applicable to the proceedings under the Divorce Act . Therefore there is nothing for interference with the order impugned. Any how it is made clear that it will not preclude the appellant in agitating a separate petition on the self same ground urged in the alleged counter claim.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1347059/ | AIR2003KER213, II(2003)DMC257, 2003(1)KLT740, AIR 2003 KERALA 213, (2003) 2 KHCACJ 152 (KER), 2003 (2) KHCACJ 152, ILR(KER) 2003 (2) KER 382, (2003) 1 CIVILCOURTC 307, (2003) MATLR 660, (2003) 3 RECCIVR 44, (2003) 7 INDLD 649, (2003) 1 KER LJ 375, (2003) 2 DMC 257, (2003) 2 HINDULR 246, (2003) 1 KER LT 740, (2004) 2 MARRILJ 739, (2003) 2 CURCC 178, (2002) 94 CUT LT 628", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2003, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR2003KER213, II(2003)DMC257, 2003(1)KLT740, AIR 2003 KERALA 213, (2003) 2 KHCACJ 152 (KER), 2003 (2) KHCACJ 152, ILR(KER) 2003 (2) KER 382, (2003) 1 CIVILCOURTC 307, (2003) MATLR 660, (2003) 3 RECCIVR 44, (2003) 7 INDLD 649, (2003) 1 KER LJ 375, (2003) 2 DMC 257, (2003) 2 HINDULR 246, (2003) 1 KER LT 740, (2004) 2 MARRILJ 739, (2003) 2 CURCC 178, (2002) 94 CUT LT 628", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1347059", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1347059/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Punjab-Haryana High Court", "Case Title": "Shallu Rani vs Shamoun on 2 February, 2017", "Case Number": "No.738 of 2016", "Judgment Date": "2017-02-02", "Judges": "Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 125, Section 24", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Applicant-wife, by way of instant transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ' CPC '), seeks transfer of the petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act ('the Act' for short) titled as Shamoun Vs. Shallu Rani filed by respondent-husband from Gurdaspur to Patiala. It has gone undisputed before this Court that applicant-wife, along with her minor child, is staying with her parents at Patiala. Since the applicant-wife is not working, she is dependent on her parents. Respondent- husband is not paying any amount of maintenance either for the applicant- wife or for the minor child. Distance between Gurdaspur and Patiala is about 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2017 04:43:59 ::: TA No.738 of 2016 2 250 kilometers. Other litigations between the parties, including under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at the instance of the applicant-wife are also pending at Patiala.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Applicant-wife, by way of instant transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ' CPC '), seeks transfer of the petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act ('the Act' for short) titled as Shamoun Vs. Shallu Rani filed by respondent-husband from Gurdaspur to Patiala.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to plaintiff or defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; interest of justice demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant considerations, the Court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to have a fair trial in the Court from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the duty of the Court to make such order.\" 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2017 04:44:00 ::: TA No.738 of 2016 5 Again, deliberating on an identical...", "Decision": "[ RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK ] 02.02.2017 JUDGE vishnu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 7 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2017 04:44:00 :::", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161620777/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2017, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "161620777", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161620777/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Sherly Thomas vs Johny on 29 November, 2001", "Case Number": "O.P. 21040/98", "Judgment Date": "2001-11-29", "Judges": "R. Rajendra Babu, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A, Section 13, Section 13B, Section 16, Section 18, Section 19, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Adultery; Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The important question for consideration is whether a joint petition under Section 10A of the Divorce Act can be entertained before the High Court in a pending case filed by one of the spouses for dissolution of their marriage. 2. The wife filed O.P. 21040/98 for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent alleging the grounds of cruelty, desertion and adultery. It was alleged that the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was soleminzed on 21.4.1988 at St. George Forane Church, Kaipuzha, Kottayam, as per the religious rites among Christian community and thereafter they lived in the house of the 1st respondent. A child was born on 7.9.91 out of the above wedlock, and the 1st respondent was always cruel towards the petitioner and she was subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty. Thereafter he deserted the petitioner and the child from January, 1998 onwards, and the 1st respondent was leading was leading an adulterous life with respondents 2 and 3 and hence the petitioner sought for a decree for dissolution of the marriage.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The wife filed O.P. 21040/98 for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent alleging the grounds of cruelty, desertion and adultery. It was alleged that the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was soleminzed on 21.4.1988 at St. George Forane Church, Kaipuzha, Kottayam, as per the religious rites among Christian community and thereafter they lived in the house of the 1st respondent. A child was born on 7.9.91 out of the above wedlock, and the 1st respondent was always cruel towards the petitioner and she was subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty. Thereafter he deserted the petitioner and the child from January, 1998 onwards, and the 1st respondent was leading was leading an adulterous life with respondents 2 and 3 and hence the petitioner sought for a decree for dissolution of the marriage.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (mutual consent 10A) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 1st respondent.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "1. The important question for consideration is whether a joint petition under Section 10A of the Divorce Act can be entertained before the High Court in a pending case filed by one of the spouses for dissolution of their marriage. 2. The wife filed O.P. 21040/98 for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent alleging the grounds of cruelty, desertion and adultery. It was alleged that the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was soleminzed on 21.4.1988 at St. George Forane Church, Kaipuzha, Kottayam, as per the religious rites among Christian community and thereafter they lived in the house of the 1st respondent. A child was born on 7.9.91 out of the above wedlock, and the 1st respondent was always cruel towards the petitioner and she was subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty. Thereafter he deserted the petitioner and the child from January, 1998 onwards, and the 1st respondent was leading was leading an adulterous life with respondents 2 and 3 and hence the petitioner sought for a decree for dissolution of the marriage. 3. The 1st respondent filed an objection denying all the allegations raised against him, and contended that he...", "Decision": "11. In the result C.M.P. 53500/2001 is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent is dissolved by a decree nisi.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1009881/ | I(2002)DMC703, AIR 2002 KERALA 280, ILR(KER) 2002 (1) KER 432, (2002) 1 DMC 703, (2002) 1 KER LJ 243, (2002) 1 KER LT 467, (2002) 2 MARRILJ 456, (2002) 2 ICC 504", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; adultery; desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2001, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: I(2002)DMC703, AIR 2002 KERALA 280, ILR(KER) 2002 (1) KER 432, (2002) 1 DMC 703, (2002) 1 KER LJ 243, (2002) 1 KER LT 467, (2002) 2 MARRILJ 456, (2002) 2 ICC 504", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1009881", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1009881/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Premchand Hira vs Bai Galal on 25 June, 1927", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1927-06-25", "Judges": "Amberson Marten, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 14, Section 17, Section 2, Section 3, Section 34, Section 4, Section 47, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. Now in the first place the learned Judge here has never had the marriage proved properly. There is no certificate of marriage. There is a statement in the petition that the marriage was solemnized in a Salvation Army Hall. Whether that was a duly licensed place for the performance of Christian marriages, and whether the marriage was performed by a duly licensed person in pursuance of the requirements of the Indian Christian Marriage Act 1872, we do not know. But I do unhesitatingly say that in every divorce case that has hitherto come before me in this High Court-and I believe the same is true of the Divorce Court in England-one principal element is that the marriage should be proved strictly and that in general a certificate of marriage should be produced. The learned Judge will, therefore, take that course in the present ease, and he will he careful to see that the requirements of the Indian Christian Marriage Act 1872 have been carried out in this particular case. In this connection I would draw his attention to the fact that in her evidence before the Court the wife describes herself as a Hindu and that both parties have Hindu names. But under Section 4 of that Act it is essential to prove that one or both of the...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. Now in the first place the learned Judge here has never had the marriage proved properly. There is no certificate of marriage. There is a statement in the petition that the marriage was solemnized in a Salvation Army Hall. Whether that was a duly licensed place for the performance of Christian marriages, and whether the marriage was performed by a duly licensed person in pursuance of the requirements of the Indian Christian Marriage Act 1872, we do not know. But I do unhesitatingly say that in every divorce case that has hitherto come before me in this High Court-and I believe the same is true of the Divorce Court in England-one principal element is that the marriage should be proved strictly and that in general a certificate of marriage should be produced. The learned Judge will, therefore, take that course in the present ease, and he will he careful to see that the requirements of the Indian Christian Marriage Act 1872 have been carried out in this particular case. In this connection I would draw his attention to the fact that in her evidence before the Court the wife describes herself as a Hindu and that both parties have...", "Issues": "16. As regards what my brother Blackwell has just said about the effect of the decision of the House of Lords in Russell v. Russell [1924] A.C. 687 I should like to reserve my final opinion until the matter has been argued before me by counsel, and in particular as to whether there is any difference in India arising from the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act . But I entirely agree, as I have already said, that the proper way to avoid the difficulty altogether is to prove otherwise than by the evidence of the wife that she has been living in adultery with the co-respondent. And I may point out that when this Court's judgment in Hewson v. Hewson (1924) 26 Bom. L.R. 467 was given, the decision of the House of Lords overruling the Court of Appeal in Russell v. Russell had not been given, and consequently...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "23. In his original judgment the learned Judge was prepared to pass a decree nisi in favour of the petitioner, but having regard to the evidence on remand he has now come to the conclusion that the petitioner's case must fail because the adultery alleged in the petition, viz., adultery taking place \"from about\" or \"on or about\" May 15, 1922, was condoned by reason of the fact that the husband and wife afterwards lived together as such and that consequently there was condonation within the meaning of Section 14 of the Indian Divorce Act. But unfortunately the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the true doctrine of condonation and to give effect to Section 7 of the Act which requires the Court in all proceedings thereunder to act and give relief on principles and rules \"which, in the opinion of the said Courts, are as nearly as may be conformable to the principles and rules on which the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in England for the time being acts and gives relief\". Now it is a clear proposition of English divorce law that condonation is not absolute, but is only conditional, and that if there is a...", "Decision": "29. Therefore, the order I would pass would be to pass a decree absolute for the dissolution of the marriage, and to award a sum of Rs 300 as damages against the co-respondent. He must also pay the costs of the proceedings throughout.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1799882/ | (1927)29BOMLR1336, AIR 1927 BOMBAY 594", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1927, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1927)29BOMLR1336, AIR 1927 BOMBAY 594", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1799882", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1799882/", "Chunks Indexed": 13 }, { "Court": "Telangana High Court", "Case Title": "Alwala Swamy vs Alwala , Kothi Savithri on 14 November, 2023", "Case Number": "FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.44 OF 2010", "Judgment Date": "2023-11-14", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Special Marriage Act, 1954", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 125, Section 27, Section 498", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Mr. M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.C.Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 27.06.2009 passed in F.C.O.P.No.94 of 2008 by the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge at Karimnagar, the appellant preferred the present appeal.", "Fact/ Respondent": "(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Mr. M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.C.Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "6. Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that after marriage, both the parties lived together for about two months. Since 05.09.2009, they are living separately and therefore, there is no chance of reunion. During the pendency of the 5 present appeal, the appellant re-married and he is staying with his second wife. The Family Court did not consider the said aspects and dismissed the O.P. erroneously. 7. Whereas, Mr.C.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/wife would contend that the appellant in order to obtain decree of divorce to get rid of the respondent/wife filed one petition after the other. Respondent never subjected the appellant to cruelty. In fact, the appellant himself did not take care of their minor daughter and did not pay the maintenance. The appellant and his parents subjected the respondent/wife to cruelty and therefore, she was compelled to file a complaint. However, the same was ended in acquittal. She was compelled to file M.C.No.17 of 2001 seeking maintenance to her daughter. Despite the same, she is willing and ready to join the...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear.", "Decision": "16. As discussed supra, appellant had filed the aforesaid O.P.No.94 of 2008 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. On consideration of entire evidence both oral and documentary, learned Family Court dismissed the same holding that the appellant failed to prove cruelty. Irretrievable break down of marriage is not a ground for grant of decree of divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. Therefore, on the said ground, we cannot grant decree of divorce. The said principle was laid down by the Apex Court in Anil Kumar Jain vs. Maya Jain 3. However, the Apex Court is having such power to grant decree of divorce on coming to a conclusion that the marriage is irretrievably broken down, in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86361259/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2023, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "86361259", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86361259/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Mrs. Indu Bala Toppo vs Mr. Francis Xavier Toppo on 7 September, 2001", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2001-09-07", "Judges": "Arijit Pasayat, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (in short the Act') seeking confirmation of the decree for dissolution of marriage passed by learned Additional District Judge. Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as the wife') filed and application under Section 10 of the Act praying for a decree of divorce from the respondent (hereinafter also referred to as the husband') on the ground that cruelty was meted out to her by the husband and his family members. Said prayer was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi in I.D.A. 661 of 1998. Parties entered into marital ties on 7th September 1996 and the marriage was solemnized according to Christian rites at Sacred Heart Cathedral, Ashok Place, Gole Dakkhana, New Delhi. Five priests conducted the ceremonies. After they entered into the marital life, husband and his family members did not treat the wife with love, affection and dignity and they expressed dissatisfaction about various arrangements made by the petitioner's parents and she was subjected to torture. She had to bear the barbaric assaults made. The couple left for Siliguri on 17th September 1996 and reached there on 18th September 1996 in the evening and stayed at Bishop's house, Nirmal Hridaya.On 19th September 1996 they visited a relative and on 20th September 1996 reached...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (in short the Act') seeking confirmation of the decree for dissolution of marriage passed by learned Additional District Judge. Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as the wife') filed and application under Section 10 of the Act praying for a decree of divorce from the respondent (hereinafter also referred to as the husband') on the ground that cruelty was meted out to her by the husband and his family members. Said prayer was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi in I.D.A. 661 of 1998.", "Issues": "8. The expression 'cruelty', as noted above has not been defined. It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behavior. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. Cruelty is a course of conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the Court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree.If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin at to the nature of cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately,it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and...", "Petitioner Argument": "4. Inspite of notice there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "5. Grounds on which a wife can present a petition for dissolution of marriage are set out in Section 10 of the Act. The said provisions read as follows: \" Section 10 : When husband may petition for dissolution-Any husband may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court, praying that his marriage may be dissolved on the ground that his wife has, since the solemnization thereof, been guilty of adultery. When wife may petition for dissolution-Any wife may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court, praying that her marriage may be dissolved on the ground that, since the solemnization thereof, her husband has exchanged his profession of Christianity for the profession of some religion, and gone through a form of marriage with another woman; Or has been guilty of incestuous adultery, Or of bigamy with adultery Or of marriage with another woman with adultery Or of rape, sodomy or bestiality, Or of adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce a mensa et toro Or of adultery coupled with desertion, without reasonable excuse, for two years or upwards.\" 6. One of the grounds...", "Decision": "3. In the petition filed before the trial Court, petitioner has averred that she has not condoned the acts of cruelty committed by the respondents or his relatives. The petition has not been field in collusion with the respondent and there is no unnecessary or improper delay in filing the petition. Respondent did not appear in Court though he was served with notice. The trial Court proceeded with the matter ex parte. In support of her case, petitioner examined herself as PW-1. As the respondent was set ex parte no witness was examined on his behalf. Considering the materials on records learned trial Judge held that petitioner has made out a case for divorce. A decree for divorce was accordingly drawn up and the case has been submitted to this Court for confirmation of the decree.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1503366/ | AIR2002DELHI54, 94(2001)DLT306, II(2001)DMC631, 2001(60)DRJ331, AIR 2002 DELHI 54, 2002 A I H C 808, (2002) 2 JCR 109 (DEL), (2001) 94 DLT 306, (2001) 2 DMC 631, (2001) 60 DRJ 331, (2001) 2 HINDULR 584, (2002) 1 MARRILJ 494, (2002) MATLR 32, (2002) 1 RECCIVR 472", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; adultery", "Judgment Year": 2001, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR2002DELHI54, 94(2001)DLT306, II(2001)DMC631, 2001(60)DRJ331, AIR 2002 DELHI 54, 2002 A I H C 808, (2002) 2 JCR 109 (DEL), (2001) 94 DLT 306, (2001) 2 DMC 631, (2001) 60 DRJ 331, (2001) 2 HINDULR 584, (2002) 1 MARRILJ 494, (2002) MATLR 32, (2002) 1 RECCIVR 472", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1503366", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1503366/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Telangana High Court", "Case Title": "Nishkal Singampalli, vs Kannepamula Vijaya Kumar on 10 February, 2025", "Case Number": "2010:KER:34522", "Judgment Date": "2025-02-10", "Judges": "Moushumi, J., B.R, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "(per Justice B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO) The Appellant-wife has preferred the instant Appeal aggrieved by the order, dated 03.11.2022 in O.P.No.778 of 2017 passed by I Additional Family Court at Hyderabad, whereby the Divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 10 (iv) (x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short 'the Act') was allowed. (iv) of the Act that his marriage was performed with the appellant-wife on 29.12.2010 as per Christian Rules and Customs. He alleged that on the first night of the marriage, he noticed white patches on the lips and body of the appellant-wife, when the respondent-husband ascertained with the appellant-wife about the white patches on her lips and body, she informed that they were sun burns. It is further alleged in the petition that in the month of January, 2012, the respondent-husband requested the appellant-wife to visit a Doctor and get treatment.", "Fact/ Respondent": "(per Justice B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO) The Appellant-wife has preferred the instant Appeal aggrieved by the order, dated 03.11.2022 in O.P.No.778 of 2017 passed by I Additional Family Court at Hyderabad, whereby the Divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 10 (iv) (x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short 'the Act') was allowed.", "Issues": "8. The core issue which arises for our consideration is whether the appellant-wife treated the respondent-husband with cruelty or not? 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the appeal is barred by law. The impugned order is passed on 03.11.2022, the appellant-wife has made copy application on 10.11.2022, copy was delivered on 08.12.2022, appeal is filed on 27.12.2022 which is within limitation and that the decision cited by respondent counsel in Arunoday Singh 's case (supra) is not applicable. 10. In matrimonial life, cruelty can be defined in many ways. It has many perspectives which depend upon the socio-economic status and 8 circumstances of parties to the marriage. It varies from person to person. It also varies with time, place, economic status and other circumstances. Cruelty can be physical and mental. Physical cruelty provides more of a direct evidence, that it can be perceptible when compared to mental...", "Petitioner Argument": "*THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO + FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.5 OF 2023 % 10--02--2025 # Nishkal Singampalli ... Appellant vs. $ Kannepamula Vijaya Kumar ... Respondent !Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Sanjeev Reddy Gillela ^Counsel for Respondent: Sri Ms.A.Harini Head Note : ? Cases referred: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3285 2011 (1) DMC 364 = 2010:KER:34522 2022 SCC OnLine Delhi 726 = 2022:DHC:894-DB (1975) 2 SCC 326 (1988) 1 SCC 105 (1994) 1 SCC 337 (2007) 4 SCC 511 2 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD **** FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.5 OF 2023 Between: Nishkal Singampalli ... Appellant And Kannepamula Vijaya Kumar ... Respondent JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 10.02.2025 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes 3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes _______________________ MOUSHUMI BATTACHARYA,J _____________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN...", "Respondent Argument": "17. The respondent-husband leveled allegations against the appellant-wife that she opposed for sex and in the month of July, 2011 when he insisted for sex then he noticed white patches increased in her body and he was scared to see the patches as it was spreading on her body parts. Respondent-husband stated in his cross-examination that they separated in the year 2014 and during their stay together they used to move along with the appellant's friends, families to Nirmal, Srisailam and other parts and that the appellant-wife visited Bangalore in the year, 2015 along with his sister on the eve of his birthday, in the presence of the appellant, respondent's sister asked him about the reunion, in turn the respondent-husband said that he will think over it, he has not issued legal notice nor put any E-Mail to the appellant-wife seeking for divorce. 18. The appellant-wife has stated in her cross-examination that she and her husband stayed together till September, 2012 and that she visited her husband in the month of January, 2016, by then the Vitiligo has become prominent....", "Factors to be Considered": "12. In Sobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi 5, the Apex Court examined the concept of cruelty and held that the word 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act . It has been used in Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Act in the context of human conduct or behaviour in 4 (1975) 2 SCC 326 5 (1988) 1 SCC 105 9 relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse.", "Decision": "22. In view of the above discussions, Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.11.2022 in O.P.No.778 of 2017 passed by I Additional Family Court at Hyderabad is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous application/s, pending if any, shall stand closed. MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J 10th February, 2025. PLV", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/164045118/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "164045118", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/164045118/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Maria Alias Omini vs K. Ignatius Alias Ronnie on 30 April, 1999", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1999-04-30", "Judges": "R. Jayasimha Babu, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 13, Section 18, Section 19", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19; Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Nullity Adjudicated", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This appeal by the wife is directed against the judgement of the learned single Judge of this Court who dismissed her application for annulment of her marriage. 2. In the petition, it had been alleged that she and the respondent were married on 18-8-96 as per Roman Catholic rites at Loyola Church in Nungambakkam and that Immediately after the marriage she was taken to the respondent's house, wherein she lived with the respondent. The respondent instead of acting like any normal husband had avoided having coitus with the petitioner, which gave rise the suspicion in the petitioner's mind regarding such very unusual behaviour on the part of the respondent. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent went to the extent of informing the petitioner that sex is not an immediate attraction, and avoided having intercourse with the petitioner. Such behaviour on the part of the petitioner continued for months together, and the marriage remained unconsummated despite the entereaties of the petitioner. The respondent did not engage in intercourse even though the petitioner lived with him for ten months. It was, therefore, alleged by her that the respondent suffered from serious sexual disability and had failed to fulfil a fundamental obligation of matrimony. It was alleged by her in paragraph 4 of the petition that the fundamental obligation of the...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This appeal by the wife is directed against the judgement of the learned single Judge of this Court who dismissed her application for annulment of her marriage.", "Issues": "5. After the written statement was filed the petitioner took out an application to direct the respondent to submit himself before a medical board for ascertaining as to whether the respondent is impotent or not and submit a report to the Court. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-husband to that application it was stated by him that he would rely on the medical report referred to in his written statement at the time of trial. 6. When the matter proceeded to trial, the wife examined herself and spoke to all the averments made in her petition. She also stated that she was prepared to present herself for medical examination to prove that she was perfectly alright and that she was not in any way preventing the consummation of the marriage. She was cross-examined by the counsel for the plaintiff. She denied the suggestion that she was responsible for...", "Petitioner Argument": "2. In the petition, it had been alleged that she and the respondent were married on 18-8-96 as per Roman Catholic rites at Loyola Church in Nungambakkam and that Immediately after the marriage she was taken to the respondent's house, wherein she lived with the respondent. The respondent instead of acting like any normal husband had avoided having coitus with the petitioner, which gave rise the suspicion in the petitioner's mind regarding such very unusual behaviour on the part of the respondent. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent went to the extent of informing the petitioner that sex is not an immediate attraction, and avoided having intercourse with the petitioner. Such behaviour on the part of the petitioner continued for months together, and the marriage remained unconsummated despite the entereaties of the petitioner. The respondent did not engage in intercourse even though the petitioner lived with him for ten months. It was, therefore, alleged by her that the respondent suffered from serious sexual disability and had failed to fulfil a fundamental obligation of matrimony. It was alleged by her...", "Respondent Argument": "3. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that having become completely frustrated, she had to leave the matrimonial home and go back to her parents place after which she caused a legal notice to be issued. In response to that notice the respondent denied the allegations made against him, but he stated that he was not interested in living with the petitioner and that he needed some time to return the money which he had taken from the petitioner's parents at the time of the marriage. The personal effects of the petitioner were also returned after that exchange of notices. 4. The respondent/husband in his written statement did not deny the fact that the marriage had remained without being consummated, even though the parties had lived together as husband and wife for ten months under the same roof, and there was no impediment to the marriage being consummated while they so lived together. The fad that they were married in the Church was not disputed. In paragraph 4 of the written statement it was stated by the respondent...", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "13. It is thus seen that the grounds for dissolution set out in Section 10 of the Act, are altogether different from the grounds of which a decree of nullity of marriage can be sought Under Section 18 of the Act. The prohibition against collusive proceedings set out in Section 13 of the Act and the duty of the Court to satisfy itself of the absence of collusion regarding the form of marriage, or the adultery or condonation thereof, referred to in Section 12 of the Act is not attracted to a proceeding for declaring the marriage as null and void under Section 18 of the Act. The learned trial Judge has failed to notice the distinction between the two proceedings and has misled himself in holding that the relief could be denied to the petitioner on the ground of collusion. That findings of the learned Trial Judge, as we have already observed is not a sustainable finding, as there has been in fact to collusion.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1346801/ | AIR 2000 MADRAS 202, (2000) 2 MARRILJ 583 (2000) MATLR 393, (2000) MATLR 393", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19; adultery", "Judgment Year": 1999, "Relief Status": "nullity", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR 2000 MADRAS 202, (2000) 2 MARRILJ 583 (2000) MATLR 393, (2000) MATLR 393", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1346801", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1346801/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Virbala Sumant Lokhande vs Sumant Madhay Lokhande on 10 April, 1973", "Case Number": "Petition No. 7 of 1965", "Judgment Date": "1973-04-10", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 3, Section 37", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Adultery; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The appellant original applicant held filed a petition for divorcee against her husband under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. The appellant claimed divorce on two distinct grounds. She prayed that her marriage may be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization thereof her husband has been guilty of adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce, a mensa et toro. She also claimed dissolution of marriage on the additional ground that since the solemnization of the marriage her husband was guilty of adultery coupled with desertion without reasonable excuse for two years or upwards. 2. The respondent-husband resisted the application and denied the allegations about adultery, cruelty and desertion. After consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Extra Joint Judge at Poona came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that the petitioner failed to establish the ground based upon adultery coupled with legal circulate. However, the learned Judge was sufficient for recording a finding that the respondent husband was living in adultery for two years or more since the solemnization of the marriage. But according to the learned Judge the evidence adduced to the learned Judge the evidence adduced by the petitioner was not sufficient to support a finding that the husband was...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The appellant original applicant held filed a petition for divorcee against her husband under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. The appellant claimed divorce on two distinct grounds. She prayed that her marriage may be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization thereof her husband has been guilty of adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce, a mensa et toro. She also claimed dissolution of marriage on the additional ground that since the solemnization of the marriage her husband was guilty of adultery coupled with desertion without reasonable excuse for two years or upwards.", "Issues": "The President of the Division, Siri J. Hannen, rejected the petition on the narrow ground that the husband's conduct did not amount to desertion for two years. but whether the conduct amount to desertion or not is made clear in his following lucid observations:- \"I have on other occasions pointed out that if an is living with another woman the wife is justified in saying 'I shall not return to you, nor shall I allow you to have access to me while you are living in open adultery with another woman'. And it may be that in this case that which amounts to desertion has commenced, and that when the necessary time has elapsed the wife may claim relief both on the ground of adultery and desertion\". The above mentioned decision was cited with approval in (1888) 13 PD 216 Garcia v. Garcia. The facts here were that the parties...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "15. In the result the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the learned Extra Joint Judge. Poona, is set aside and a decree for dissolution of the marriage under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act is passed in favour of the e appellant on the ground that the respondent-husband has been guilty of adultery coupled with desertion without reasonable excuse for two years or upwards. The appellant will be entitled to costs throughout.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/511543/ | AIR1974BOM297, (1974)76BOMLR364, ILR1974BOM459, AIR 1974 BOMBAY 297, ILR (1974) BOM 451 76 BOM LR 364, 76 BOM LR 364", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; adultery; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1973, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1974BOM297, (1974)76BOMLR364, ILR1974BOM459, AIR 1974 BOMBAY 297, ILR (1974) BOM 451 76 BOM LR 364, 76 BOM LR 364", "Kanoon Doc ID": "511543", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/511543/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Susan Samuel vs Oommen Mathew on 26 February, 2009", "Case Number": "W.P.(C) No.1913 of 2009", "Judgment Date": "2009-02-26", "Judges": "P.R, J., P.S, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 3, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Petitioner who is the wife has initiated proceedings for getting a decree of divorce under the Divorce Act before the Principal Family Court, Bangalore, as M.C.No.2687 of 2006, Ext.P1 produced in the case. At the same time, the respondent herein, also filed a petition for divorce, O.P.(Div) No.652 of 2007, later in point of time. Hence, the petitioner moved the Family Court, Thiruvalla, under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, where the latter proceedings was filed, for a stay of further proceedings, in view of the matter pending before the Family Court, Bangalore, as per Ext.P3. By the impugned order under challenge, Family Court, Thiruvalla, held that the Family Court at Bangalore has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in question and refused to stay the further proceedings pending before the 2 Family Court, Thiruvalla. The petitioner challenges the correctness of the order passed by the Family Court, Thiruvalla, in this writ petition. 2. Sri.V.V.Nandagopal Nambiar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as per Section 7 of the Family Court Act, Bangalore Court, where the proceedings have been initiated by his client is fully competent to entertain the same. According to him, the nature of the dispute will squarely come under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'...", "Fact/ Respondent": "Petitioner who is the wife has initiated proceedings for getting a decree of divorce under the Divorce Act before the Principal Family Court, Bangalore, as M.C.No.2687 of 2006, Ext.P1 produced in the case. At the same time, the respondent herein, also filed a petition for divorce, O.P.(Div) No.652 of 2007, later in point of time. Hence, the petitioner moved the Family Court, Thiruvalla, under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, where the latter proceedings was filed, for a stay of further proceedings, in view of the matter pending before the Family Court, Bangalore, as per Ext.P3. By the impugned order under challenge, Family Court, Thiruvalla, held that the Family Court at Bangalore has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in question and refused to stay the further proceedings pending before the 2 Family Court, Thiruvalla. The petitioner challenges the correctness of the order passed by the Family Court, Thiruvalla, in this writ petition.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "3. It is true that the nature of the relief to be granted in the proceeding is a decree for divorce and necessarily, the Family Court is the competent forum for getting such a relief. Therefore, the question is not whether the Family Court has jurisdiction or not, but the question is which Family Court is having jurisdiction. As per Section 7 , the jurisdiction of a District Court in respect of matters which could be filed before it is with reference to the various nature of the disputes mentioned W.P.(C) No.1913 of 2009 3 in the explanation to Section 7 . If the Family Court was not constituted, it must be the District Court which has to entertain the dispute, and that will depend upon the provisions under which the reliefs are claimed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/332665/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2009, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "332665", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/332665/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "M.R.G.L.J. Vailsher vs Smt. Ramola Vailshery And Others on 26 June, 1997", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1997-06-26", "Judges": "R. P. Sethi, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15, Section 3, Section 497, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Alleging adultery coupled with cruelly, respondent-1 wife tiled a petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'), praying to pass a decree nisi and to grant her the custody of the minor children. She further prayed for issuance of directions 10 the appellant-husband for providing sufficient means by way of settlements towards education, shelter, food, clothing, medical and other incidental expenses. On proof of the averments made, a decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage between the parties was passed in favour of the wife granting her six months time to seek an absolute decree. Minor children were directed to be given in the custody of the wife till the decree was made absolute. In the absence of sufficient evidence, the other reliefs claimed by the wife were not allowed by the learned single Judge in the order impugned in the appeal. It is submitted that the judgment and decree passed against the appellant is against law and facts which requires to be set aside. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that the appellant and respondent No. 1 were married in accordance with the Christian rites on 20th December, 1981 at Hudson Memorial Church. Bangalore. Out of the wedlock, one male and another female children were born. The appellant...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. Alleging adultery coupled with cruelly, respondent-1 wife tiled a petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'), praying to pass a decree nisi and to grant her the custody of the minor children. She further prayed for issuance of directions 10 the appellant-husband for providing sufficient means by way of settlements towards education, shelter, food, clothing, medical and other incidental expenses. On proof of the averments made, a decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage between the parties was passed in favour of the wife granting her six months time to seek an absolute decree. Minor children were directed to be given in the custody of the wife till the decree was made absolute. In the absence of sufficient evidence, the other reliefs claimed by the wife were not allowed by the learned single Judge in the order impugned in the appeal. It is submitted that the judgment and decree passed against the appellant is against law and facts which requires to be set aside.", "Issues": "\"(a) whether the petitionor has established that the respondent is guilty of adultery (b) Whether the petitioner has established that the respondent has treated her with such cruelty as to entitle her to a decree of judicial separation? (c) Whether the petitioner has condoned the adultery committed by respondent? (d) Whether the petitioner is presented or prosecuted in collusion with the respondent? and, (e) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the divorce sought for?\" On proof of points (a) and (b) and in the absence of evidence for point (c), the learned single Judge allowed the petition as noted herein above. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently submitted that herelient was not proved to have violated any of the conditions specified under S. 10 of the Act. It was submitted that as respondent-2 was admittedly an un-married woman and respondent No. 3 a widow, the appellant...", "Petitioner Argument": "2. The facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that the appellant and respondent No. 1 were married in accordance with the Christian rites on 20th December, 1981 at Hudson Memorial Church. Bangalore. Out of the wedlock, one male and another female children were born. The appellant husband was alleged to have neglected his wife and the children from 1-1-1991 onwards. The appellant was alleged to have come in contact with Miss Premakumari, R2 herein. She was stated to be a Nurse and the appellant husband hired an apartment adjoining to his work spot where they used to meet. It was further alleged that he managed her transfer to Vani Vilas Hospital, Bangalore, by allegedly giving a bribe of Rs. 12,000/-. Premakumari was alleged to have given birth to a daughter in 1986. The daughter was alleged lo have been conceived out of the illicit relationship of the husband and the said Premakumari. The name of the appellant husband was shown in the Kumud Nursing Home, Jayanagar, Bangalore, as father of the child. Out of this illicit relationship...", "Respondent Argument": "14. The teamed counsel for the respondent contended that as the petitioner continued to live with the respondent even after they came to know about the adultery, there has been condonation of Ihe adultery by the petitioner and as such she would not be entitled to a decree of divorce. It is no doubt true that even after coining to know about the respondent's relationship with R.W. 3 the petitioner continued to live with the respondent till about January, 1991. But it must be remembered that this is not a case of a stray act of adultery by the respondent, which could be said to have been condoned by the petitioner cohabiting with the respondent even after the act of adultery. The evidence of R.W.-3 shows that the respondent was living with her till 1993. As such, the act of adultery committed by respondent with R.W.-3 has been a continuous one and it is admitted that before filing this petition, the petitioner filed a suit against the respondent and obtained an order of temporary injunction restraining him from coming to...", "Factors to be Considered": "The Supreme Court in Smt. Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India , held that \"'adultery' under the civil law has a wider connotalion man under the Penal Code.\". On the technical ground of the applicability of Section 497 of the Penal Code, stability of the marriage cannot be permitted to be scorned or sacrificed. There is therefore no substance in the argument of the learned counsel that as the respondent wife had not proved the ingredients of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge of adultery for the purpose of deciding the application under Section 10 of the Act had not been proved.", "Decision": "14. The teamed counsel for the respondent contended that as the petitioner continued to live with the respondent even after they came to know about the adultery, there has been condonation of Ihe adultery by the petitioner and as such she would not be entitled to a decree of divorce. It is no doubt true that even after coining to know about the respondent's relationship with R.W. 3 the petitioner continued to live with the respondent till about January, 1991. But it must be remembered that this is not a case of a stray act of adultery by the respondent, which could be said to have been condoned by the petitioner cohabiting with the respondent even after the act of adultery. The evidence of R.W.-3 shows that the respondent was living with her till 1993. As such, the act of adultery committed by respondent with R.W.-3 has been a continuous one and it is admitted that before filing this petition, the petitioner filed a suit against the respondent and obtained an order of temporary injunction restraining him from coming to...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1522983/ | AIR1997KANT341, II(1997)DMC604, ILR1998KAR1874, 1997(3)KARLJ531, AIR 1997 KARNATAKA 341, (1998) ILR (KANT) 1874, (1998) 1 HINDULR 300, (1997) 3 KANT LJ 531, (1997) 4 CURCC 224, (1998) 1 MARRILJ 245, (1998) 3 ALLCRILR 269, (1998) 3 RECCRIR 310, (1998) 3 RECCIVR 99, (1997) 2 DMC 604", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1997, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1997KANT341, II(1997)DMC604, ILR1998KAR1874, 1997(3)KARLJ531, AIR 1997 KARNATAKA 341, (1998) ILR (KANT) 1874, (1998) 1 HINDULR 300, (1997) 3 KANT LJ 531, (1997) 4 CURCC 224, (1998) 1 MARRILJ 245, (1998) 3 ALLCRILR 269, (1998) 3 RECCRIR 310, (1998) 3 RECCIVR 99, (1997) 2 DMC 604", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1522983", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1522983/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Tripura High Court", "Case Title": "Sri Surajit Debbarma vs Smt. Sonali Debbarma on 23 September, 2020", "Case Number": "MAT App. 06 of 2015", "Judgment Date": "2020-09-23", "Judges": "[Per S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 2, Section 27, Section 32, Section 34, Section 494, Section 498A", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "(x) has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent.\" [31] With a view to examine the true nature and import of the concept of 'cruelty', it would be appropriate to compare the provisions with regard to 'cruelty' as a ground of divorce provided under the different Indian statutes governing divorce. [32] Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , section 13 provides the grounds of divorce. It enables either of the spouses Page 17 of 32 to the marriage to seek a decree of divorce on any of the grounds specified under section 13 of the act. 'Cruelty' is one of these grounds which reads as under:", "Fact/ Respondent": "(x) has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent.\"", "Issues": "(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party- .............................................................................. (ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or\" Provided that in every suit for divorce on this ground it shall be in the discretion of the Court whether it should grant a decree for divorce or for judicial separation only;\" [38] In the given case, the appellant has sought for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. He has made no allegation of physical cruelty against his wife. In Shobha Rani (supra), the Apex Court observed that the court will have no problem to determine physical cruelty because it is question of fact and degree. But when it is mental, it creates difficulty. The...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "[41] As regards cruelty, the Divorce Act, 1869 under clause (X) of sub section (1) of section 10 provides that either party to the marriage may present a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground that since the solemnization of marriage, the respondent has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent. Therefore, the test of cruelty must depend on the terms of the statute which has to be judged in the context of the case. [42] With regard to the test of such cruelty, the Apex Court in Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane reported in (1975) 2 SCC 326 observed as follows:", "Decision": "The appeal is allowed accordingly.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186623837/ | AIR 2021 (NOC) 485 (TRI.), AIRONLINE 2020 TRI 315", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2020, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR 2021 (NOC) 485 (TRI.), AIRONLINE 2020 TRI 315", "Kanoon Doc ID": "186623837", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186623837/", "Chunks Indexed": 14 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Suo Motu Reference In The Matter Of ... vs Unknown on 1 April, 2002", "Case Number": "No. 51 of 2001", "Judgment Date": "2002-04-01", "Judges": "B.N. Srikrishna, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001; Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Family Courts Act, 1984", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 23, Section 37, Section 4, Section 40, Section 43, Section 44, Section 45, Section 55, Section 56, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "3. If there is exclusion, how the petitions under the Indian Divorce Act in which decree nisis have been passed by the High Court should be dealt with? 4. Whether the Original Petitions under the Divorce Act , pending in the High Court, which are at the stage of prior to decree, should be transferred to the concerned Family Courts/District Courts for being dealt with in accordance with law?", "Fact/ Respondent": "8. The next question for consideration is whether Act 51 of 2001 has retrospective effect. There appears to be serious disagreement amongst counsel on this issue. While some of the counsel have urged that the Act should not be made applicable to the proceedings which were pending in the High Court prior to 3rd October, 2001, some urge that there is no reason why it should not be made applicable retrospectively. Mr. Tony George Kannanthanam strongly contended that the procedure with regard to confirmation of decrees, where a decree was passed by a District Court or the procedure of confirmation by a special ,Bench where the decree nisi was passed by the High Court contemplated under Ss. 16, 17 and 20, are discriminatory as against Christians and result in imposition of cumbersome procedure, which achieve no useful purpose. He contended that, it is precisely the reason why the amendment was brought into effect. He strongly urged that this Court should hold that the procedure for confirmation of decrees prescribed in Ss. 16, 17 and 20 of the unamended Act should be declared as violative of Article 14 and ultra vires of the Constitution, That is not an issue which we...", "Issues": "1. This reference has been made for judicial determination of the following questions which vitally concern the jurisdiction of this Court in matrimonial matters where the parties are Christians. The questions which arise for consideration and determination of this Court are as under: \"1. Whether there is exclusion of the original jurisdiction of the High Court in matrimonial matters under the Divorce Act by virtue of the provisions of Sections 7 , 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act? 2. ' How far the amendments effected to the erstwhile Indian Divorce Act have interfered with or curtailed the original jurisdiction of the High Court in matrimonial matters under the Divorce Act ? 4. Whether the Original Petitions under the Divorce Act , pending in the High Court, which are at the stage of prior to decree, should be transferred to the concerned Family Courts/District Courts for being dealt with...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "3. If there is exclusion, how the petitions under the Indian Divorce Act in which decree nisis have been passed by the High Court should be dealt with?", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1231919/ | II(2002)DMC753", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2002, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: II(2002)DMC753", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1231919", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1231919/", "Chunks Indexed": 17 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Jose vs Ali Joseph on 29 June, 1990", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1990-06-29", "Judges": "Varghese Kalliath, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. A well educated young couple with two children are before us. The husband filed a petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, for short, the Act, to shap the marriage tie by a decree of the court dissolving the marriage with his wife, the counter petitioner Their marriage was on 21-5-1979. Parties belong to Roman Catholic Community and their marriage was solemnised at the Bishop's House, Kottayam. After the marriage, the counter petitioner gave birth to two children, 2. Section 10 of the Act provides that a husband may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court praying that his marriage may be dissolved on the ground that his wife has, since the solemnization thereof, been guilty of adultery. The provision for dissolution of marriage, particularly, a dissolution at the instance of the husband, is a very stringent provision. The husband is entitled to claim divorce only if the wife is found to be guilty of adultery. Even in a case where the marriage is irretrievably broken and the parties cannot lead with peace and tranquillity a married life, for sufficient reasons, other than the ground of adultery and even if the court is satisfied that the marriage relationship cannot be resurrected by conciliation so long as the law provides that the court...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. A well educated young couple with two children are before us. The husband filed a petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, for short, the Act, to shap the marriage tie by a decree of the court dissolving the marriage with his wife, the counter petitioner Their marriage was on 21-5-1979. Parties belong to Roman Catholic Community and their marriage was solemnised at the Bishop's House, Kottayam. After the marriage, the counter petitioner gave birth to two children,", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "6. In the petition, the petitioner has stated thus :--(Matter ommitted as in Vernakular) 7. Further, in paragraph 9 of the petition, he has stated that even though he has asked about the parentage of the children, the counter petitioner did not disclose the same. He has also stated that he has made the necessary enquiries to find out the name of the adulterer, and his address, but he was unsuccessful. These things are stated in the petition as excuses for not impleading the adulterer.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "8. There is a serious controversy as regards the question whether before proceeding to try a petition for divorce on the ground of adultery and if that petition does not contain the name of the adulterer, whether it is the duty of the court to dismiss the petition, if no separate application is filed to excuse the petitioner from not impleading the adulterer a correspondent in the petition. Certainly, in this case, no separate petition was filed stating reasons for not impleading the adulterer a correspondent even though the facts leading to the grounds contemplated under Section 11(2) of the Act are narrated in the petition. On this score, the court below raised a point as point No. 1 whether the petition is maintainable, and that point has been answered against the petitioner finding that the petition is not maintainable. In considering the point, sufficient attention is not seen made to the averments in the petition, by the court below. We are not saying that making averments in the petition itself is sufficient and that the court has got power to excuse the petitioner for not impleading the adulterer a co-respondent in the petition and the petition can be tried....", "Decision": "With the above observations, appeal is disposed of. Case is remitted back to the court below. No order as to costs. Parties are directed to appear before the lower court on 30th July, 1990.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40579/ | I(1991)DMC392", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1990, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: I(1991)DMC392", "Kanoon Doc ID": "40579", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40579/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Dr. David Chakravarthy Arumainayagam ... vs Geetha Chakravathy Arumainayagam And ... on 18 March, 2000", "Case Number": "No.107 of 1993", "Judgment Date": "2000-03-18", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 19, Section 2, Section 39", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Application filed by the applicant/defendant under Order 14, Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order 14, Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code to decide the maintainability of the O.M.S. before this Court on the ground of jurisdiction based on domicilary requirement as a preliminary issue. The applicant is the defendant in the main original matrimonial suit. The respondent filed the main case under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. Even in para. 3 of the main petition, the respondent had conceded that the applicant is domiciled in the United Kingdom. It is also conceded that the co-respondent is in Ireland and the alleged matrimonial wrong took place in Malaysia. The applicant sent a notice for grant of divorce from England where she is domiciled. k The respondent also filed an Application as 4438 of 1993 under section 39 of the Indian Divorce Act. He also filed O.A.No.107 of 1993 to restrain the applicant from alienating her property. There is a candid admission on the part of the respondent that the applicant is no longer in India and she is domiciled in United Kingdom. The marriage solemnized between the parties was already dissolved by a decree passed by the County Court in United Kingdom where she is domiciled. Under section 2 of the Indian Divorce Act, domicile...", "Fact/ Respondent": "The applicant is the defendant in the main original matrimonial suit. The respondent filed the main case under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. Even in para. 3 of the main petition, the respondent had conceded that the applicant is domiciled in the United Kingdom. It is also conceded that the co-respondent is in Ireland and the alleged matrimonial wrong took place in Malaysia. The applicant sent a notice for grant of divorce from England where she is domiciled. k The respondent also filed an Application as 4438 of 1993 under section 39 of the Indian Divorce Act. He also filed O.A.No.107 of 1993 to restrain the applicant from alienating her property. There is a candid admission on the part of the respondent that the applicant is no longer in India and she is domiciled in United Kingdom. The marriage solemnized between the parties was already dissolved by a decree passed by the County Court in United Kingdom where she is domiciled. Under section 2 of the Indian Divorce Act, domicile is the relevant factor for exercising jurisdiction, it goes to the root of the case. There is no need to waste the judicial time of this Court. The...", "Issues": "5. The point that arises for consideration is whether the Original Matrimonial Suit 19 of 1993 is maintainable before this Court on the ground of jurisdiction based on domicile requirement ?", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent mainly contended that the question of domicile depends upon the question of fact and law and as it requires evidence, it cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. Learned counsel further stated that the main suit itself was filed in the year 1993 and after lapse of seven years only, the applicant had filed this application raising the ground of jurisdiction to be tried as a preliminary issue and on the ground of delay, the application has to be dismissed.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "Extent of power to grant relief-generally. Nothing hereinafter contained shall authorise any Court to grant any relief under this Act except where the petitioner or respondent professes the Christian religion and to make decrees of dissolution-or to make decrees of dissolution of marriage except where the parties to the marriage are domiciled in India at the time when the petition is presented, or of nullity or to make decrees of nullity of marriage except where the marriage has been solemnized in India and the petitioner is resident in India at the time of presenting the petition, or to grant any relief under this Act, other than a decree of dissolution of marriage or of nullity of marriage, except where the petitioner resides in India at the time of presenting the petition.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/518807/ | II(2001)DMC276", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2000, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: II(2001)DMC276", "Kanoon Doc ID": "518807", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/518807/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Mr Walter Alexander Monteiro vs Mrs Kripalatha Benedicta Lobo on 14 September, 2012", "Case Number": "WRIT PETITION NO.27486 OF 2012", "Judgment Date": "2012-09-14", "Judges": "Mohan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 498", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "By the impugned order, the Court below has allowed the application for amendment filed by the respondent herein. The records reveal that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent. However, it seems disputes have arisen between the parties, hence they decided to live apart and consequently, they jointly filed MC No.10/2012 Indian Divorce Act, 1869 praying for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent by a decree of divorce. During the pendency of the said matter, again it seems that the disputes have aggravated between the parties and ultimately, the respondent herein having felt that no useful purpose will be served in continuing the divorce petition filed under Section 10(A) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, sought to get itself converted as the one filed under Section 10 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869. According to the respondent, since the differences have started mounting even after filing the consent divorce petition, the petitioner 3 herein started misbehaving with her and hence she felt that the petitioner will not give his consent for divorce. 2. It is the case of the petitioner herein that the respondent has misused the funds of the petitioner to certain extent and that false cases are being filed by her against him either under section 498 of IPC etc.,", "Fact/ Respondent": "By the impugned order, the Court below has allowed the application for amendment filed by the respondent herein. The records reveal that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent. However, it seems disputes have arisen between the parties, hence they decided to live apart and consequently, they jointly filed MC No.10/2012 Indian Divorce Act, 1869 praying for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent by a decree of divorce. During the pendency of the said matter, again it seems that the disputes have aggravated between the parties and ultimately, the respondent herein having felt that no useful purpose will be served in continuing the divorce petition filed under Section 10(A) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, sought to get itself converted as the one filed under Section 10 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869. According to the respondent, since the differences have started mounting even after filing the consent divorce petition, the petitioner 3 herein started misbehaving with her and hence she felt that the petitioner will not give his consent for divorce.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "By the impugned order, the Court below has allowed the application for amendment filed by the respondent herein. The records reveal that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent. However, it seems disputes have arisen between the parties, hence they decided to live apart and consequently, they jointly filed MC No.10/2012 before the jurisdictional Court under Section 10(A) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 praying for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent by a decree of divorce. During the pendency of the said matter, again it seems that the disputes have aggravated between the parties and ultimately, the respondent herein having felt that no useful purpose will be served in continuing the divorce petition filed under Section 10(A) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, sought to get itself converted as the one filed under Section 10 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869. According to the respondent, since the differences have started mounting even after filing the consent divorce petition, the petitioner 3 herein started misbehaving with her and hence she felt that the petitioner will not give his consent for...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97025470/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2012, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "97025470", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97025470/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Mathai Joseph vs Marikutty Joseph on 19 December, 2012", "Case Number": "Mat.Appeal.No. 617 of 2010", "Judgment Date": "2012-12-19", "Judges": "Pius C.Kuriakose, J., Babu Mathew P.Joseph, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "The parties to the above cases have compromised all the issues between them. A written compromise signed by them and attested by the respective counsel is filed. They also pray that the matrimony between them be dissolved in terms of S.10 (A) of the Indian Divorce Act. 2. We have gone through the compromise as well as the petition under Section 10(A) . All necessary ingredients for granting a divorce under Section 10(A) are agreed upon by the parties in their compromise petition. It is stated by the parties that they are convinced that the matrimony between them has Mat. Appeal Nos. 617 & 715 OF 2010 and R.P.(FC) No.270 of 2010 -:2:- become irretrievably broken down and they have realized that continuance of the matrimonial bond will not be useful to either of them. There is no collusion between them in the matter of mutual divorce agreed between them. It is averred that unsuccessful attempts for resolution of marriage were made. It is also averred in the compromise petition that in full and final settlement of all the claims the wife, Smt.Mary has received an amount of Rs.17,00,000/-(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs only) from the husband, Sri.Joseph. Under the above circumstances, we record the compromise and order that the matrimony between the appellant in Mat. Appeal No.715 of 2010 and the...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. We have gone through the compromise as well as the petition under Section 10(A) . All necessary ingredients for granting a divorce under Section 10(A) are agreed upon by the parties in their compromise petition. It is stated by the parties that they are convinced that the matrimony between them has Mat. Appeal Nos. 617 & 715 OF 2010 and R.P.(FC) No.270 of 2010 -:2:- become irretrievably broken down and they have realized that continuance of the matrimonial bond will not be useful to either of them. There is no collusion between them in the matter of mutual divorce agreed between them. It is averred that unsuccessful attempts for resolution of marriage were made. It is also averred in the compromise petition that in full and final settlement of all the claims the wife, Smt.Mary has received an amount of Rs.17,00,000/-(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs only) from the husband, Sri.Joseph. Under the above circumstances, we record the compromise and order that the matrimony between the appellant in Mat. Appeal No.715 of 2010 and the respondent therein is liable to be dissolved by a decree of divorce in terms of S.10(A) . We, therefore, allow Mat. Appeal No. 617 of 2010 in...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "2. We have gone through the compromise as well as the petition under Section 10(A) . All necessary ingredients for granting a divorce under Section 10(A) are agreed upon by the parties in their compromise petition. It is stated by the parties that they are convinced that the matrimony between them has Mat. Appeal Nos. 617 & 715 OF 2010 and R.P.(FC) No.270 of 2010 -:2:- become irretrievably broken down and they have realized that continuance of the matrimonial bond will not be useful to either of them. There is no collusion between them in the matter of mutual divorce agreed between them. It is averred that unsuccessful attempts for resolution of marriage were made. It is also averred in the compromise petition that in full and final settlement of all the claims the wife, Smt.Mary has received an amount of Rs.17,00,000/-(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs only) from the husband, Sri.Joseph. Under the above circumstances, we record the compromise and order that the matrimony between the appellant in Mat. Appeal No.715 of 2010 and the respondent therein is liable to be dissolved...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155539854/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2012, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "155539854", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155539854/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Mrs. Myrtle Stephenson vs Robert Stephenson And Anr. on 7 May, 1982", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1982-05-07", "Judges": "Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 3, Section 45", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. After perusing the records we are unable to confirm under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act the decree for divorce granted by the learned District Judge dissolving the marriage of the petitioner Mrs. Myrtle Stephenson. Any petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act may be presented to the 'District Court' which according to Section 3 means the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction under this Act the husband and wife reside or last resided together. In the instant case the petitioner-wife neither pleaded nor proved that she and the respondent No. 1 either reside or had last resided together within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, 24 Parganas. 2. The petitioner in para i of her petition averred, no doubt, that the marriage between the parlies was registered at the Church of Christ King at 5, Syed Amir AH Avenue, P. S. Beniapukur, District 24 Parganas within the jurisdiction of the District Judge's Court at 24 Parganas. But she pleaded in para 2 that a few days after marriage the respondent had taken her to her temporary place of service at Railway Quarter, Block No 89, Warangal-3, Kazipet, Andhra Pradesh. Her further case was that immediately thereafter the respondent had began to treat her...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. After perusing the records we are unable to confirm under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act the decree for divorce granted by the learned District Judge dissolving the marriage of the petitioner Mrs. Myrtle Stephenson. Any petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act may be presented to the 'District Court' which according to Section 3 means the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction under this Act the husband and wife reside or last resided together. In the instant case the petitioner-wife neither pleaded nor proved that she and the respondent No. 1 either reside or had last resided together within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, 24 Parganas.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "1. After perusing the records we are unable to confirm under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act the decree for divorce granted by the learned District Judge dissolving the marriage of the petitioner Mrs. Myrtle Stephenson. Any petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act may be presented to the 'District Court' which according to Section 3 means the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction under this Act the husband and wife reside or last resided together. In the instant case the petitioner-wife neither pleaded nor proved that she and the respondent No. 1 either reside or had last resided together within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, 24 Parganas.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96175/ | AIR1983CAL31, (1983)1COMPLJ69(CAL), 86CWN924, AIR 1983 CALCUTTA 31, (1982) 86 CAL WN 924, 1982 (2) CAL HN 71, (1983) 1 CALLJ 69, 1983 (1) DMC 299", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 1982, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1983CAL31, (1983)1COMPLJ69(CAL), 86CWN924, AIR 1983 CALCUTTA 31, (1982) 86 CAL WN 924, 1982 (2) CAL HN 71, (1983) 1 CALLJ 69, 1983 (1) DMC 299", "Kanoon Doc ID": "96175", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96175/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)", "Case Title": "Swamidas Ravi Prasad Rao vs T. Kasturibai And Anr. on 24 September, 1993", "Case Number": "O.P. No. 336 of 1988", "Judgment Date": "1993-09-24", "Judges": "P.L.N. Sarma, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 125, Section 14, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "This reference case is coming up before us under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, (for short ' The Act ') for confirmation of the decree dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent passed by the Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. 1. Petitioner is the husband while the first respondent is the wife and second respondent is the alleged adulterer. The parties are referred to as such in this Judgment for convenience sake.", "Fact/ Respondent": "This reference case is coming up before us under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, (for short ' The Act ') for confirmation of the decree dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent passed by the Additional District Judge, Tirupathi.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the wife contended that there is absolutely no evidence worth mentioning to establish that the wife is guilty of adultery as required under Section 10 of \" The Act \". The evidence of P.W. 1 is, to say the least, based on surmises and assumptions, and the same is not at all sufficient to establish the gravamen of the charge. Ex. A-2 letter was never written by the wife and it does not contain the signature of wife, neither it contains any date. It is not a complete letter at all. A portion of it was only filed and it does not inspire any confidence and, therefore, ought not to have been relied upon by the learned Judge. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge is not sustainable and the decree for dissolution of the marriage should not be confirmed. 9. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to look into the evidence on record and the dates and events narrated which are practically admitted. Before doing so, it is necessary to refer to the principles of onus and standard of proof required in a case under Section 10...", "Decision": "15. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the decree for dissolution of the marriage granted by the learned Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, is not at all sustainable and it is not in accordance with law and Court is cot satisfied on the evidence on record that the allegations made by the husband are true. On the other hand, we are clearly of the opinion that the allegations made are false. Therefore, the judgment and decree for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of adultery granted by the Additional District Judge, Tirupathi is set aside, and O.P. No. 336 of 1988 is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1135507/ | 1994(1)ALT81, II(1994)DMC480", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1993, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1994(1)ALT81, II(1994)DMC480", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1135507", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1135507/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Punjab-Haryana High Court", "Case Title": "Miss Shireen Mall vs John James Taylor on 21 December, 1951", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1951-12-21", "Judges": "Soni, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14, Section 17, Section 176, Section 19, Section 2, Section 3, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Nullity Adjudicated", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is an application by Shireen Mall under the provisions of Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Indian Matrimonial Causes (War Marriages) Act XL of 1948, praying that this Court may declare the marriage between her and the respondent to be null and void. 2. The facts as deposed to by the petitioner are that she was employed as a Sergeant in the Women's Auxiliary Corps (India) and was stationed at Meerut. In June 1943 she came to know the respondent John James Taylor, then a Lieutenant in the British Army. They fell in love with each other and he proposed to marry her. He was in Meerut from June 1943 till November 1943. The petitioner states that Taylor had repeatedly told her and had promised that alter they had been married they would live in England after his repatriation. Her point is that it was just a false promise. Many letters have been produced showing great affection by the respondent for the petitioner. My special attention was drawn by the counsel for the petitioner to a letter written by the respondent to the petitioner bearing date 26th November 1943 marked Ex. P. 7 in which the respondent Taylor, wrote to her thanking her for a present...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is an application by Shireen Mall under the provisions of Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Indian Matrimonial Causes (War Marriages) Act XL of 1948, praying that this Court may declare the marriage between her and the respondent to be null and void.", "Issues": "12. I would, however, go further than this in the present case. The petitioner was undoubtedly a minor as understood in the Indian Christian Marriage Act and her father being dead her mother's consent should have been obtained. This consent was never given and I doubt whether her marriage could have been validly solemnized in Dehra Dun, there being no consent of an undoubted guardian. This fact was known to the officiating priest.", "Petitioner Argument": "2. The facts as deposed to by the petitioner are that she was employed as a Sergeant in the Women's Auxiliary Corps (India) and was stationed at Meerut. In June 1943 she came to know the respondent John James Taylor, then a Lieutenant in the British Army. They fell in love with each other and he proposed to marry her. He was in Meerut from June 1943 till November 1943. The petitioner states that Taylor had repeatedly told her and had promised that alter they had been married they would live in England after his repatriation. Her point is that it was just a false promise. Many letters have been produced showing great affection by the respondent for the petitioner. My special attention was drawn by the counsel for the petitioner to a letter written by the respondent to the petitioner bearing date 26th November 1943 marked Ex. P. 7 in which the respondent Taylor, wrote to her thanking her for a present to his mother and telling her that he had told all about her to his mother in...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "* * * * (3) a promise made without any intention of performing it; * * * The respondent lured her into the belief that he was deeply interested in her. He disappeared from this country soon after their last meeting in Delhi during the Christmas week of 1944. He never even let her know that he was going to leave this country, and the letter that he sent her from England bearing date 2nd August 1945 shows what kind of man he was and how he had behaved to wards her. This is a most disgraceful and disgusting letter. This conclusively proves in my opinion that he was using the petitioner merely for his pleasure during the short time that he was going to be in India without the slightest intention of taking her as his wife to England and living there with her as husband and wife. In my opinion there is no doubt that fraud was practised on her. In these circumstances I consider that the petitioner and the respondent went through a ceremony without any intention...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71126/ | AIR1952P&H277, AIR 1952 PUNJAB 277", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; adultery", "Judgment Year": 1951, "Relief Status": "nullity", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1952P&H277, AIR 1952 PUNJAB 277", "Kanoon Doc ID": "71126", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71126/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Mrs. Dawn Henderson vs D. Henderson on 11 February, 1969", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1969-02-11", "Judges": "M. Anantanarayanan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 22", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree for Judicial Separation Granted", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a Reference under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act by the learned District Judge of Tiruchirapalli, for confirmation of the decree nisi dissolving the marriage between the parties under Section 17 of the same Act. 2. The petitioner is the wife, and she has put forward, as the ground for dissolution of the marriage, the clause of Section 10 which refers to adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce a mesne et toro.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The petitioner is the wife, and she has put forward, as the ground for dissolution of the marriage, the clause of Section 10 which refers to adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce a mesne et toro.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it may still be open to the petitioner, if the respondent is continuing in his profligate ways and is committing acts of adultery with other women, to take out further proceedings for actual divorce, on the basis of evidence about such a specific act, We merely record this, with the observation that it may certainly be open to the petitioner to resort to such a remedy, if there is an adequate basis for it, in the future.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "8. Under the circumstances, we are unable to accept the Reference, and to grant the divorce, though we are satisfied that the parties are not acting in collusion. But, under Section 22 of the Act IV of 1869, in such a case, it is competent for the Court to grant the decree of judicial separation. This decree has the effect of a divorce a mesne et toro under the existing law. That form of the decree has been rendered obsolete as far as divorce decrees proper are concerned. Accordingly, we grant the petitioner a decree for judicial separation.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1522061/ | (1969)2MLJ196, AIR 1970 MADRAS 104, 1982 MADLW 458 (1969) 2 MADLJ196, (1969) 2 MADLJ196", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 37)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1969, "Relief Status": "judicial_separation", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1969)2MLJ196, AIR 1970 MADRAS 104, 1982 MADLW 458 (1969) 2 MADLJ196, (1969) 2 MADLJ196", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1522061", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1522061/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Dr.Smitha Mathew vs Dr.Prasoon Kuruvila on 5 July, 2011", "Case Number": "Mat.Appeal.No. 263 of 2010", "Judgment Date": "2011-07-05", "Judges": "Joseph Francis, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Mat.A. No.263 of 2010 is filed by the respondent/wife in O.P. 491 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam. The respondent in this appeal is the petitioner in that petition, which was filed by him under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Mat. A.No. 265 of 2010 is filed by respondents 1 to 3 in O.P.No. 492 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam. The respondent in that appeal was the petitioner in that Original Petition, which was filed by him for the custody of the child. The first respondent in that Original Petition is his wife and respondents 2 and 3 are the parents of the first respondent. 2. The averments in O.P.No.491 of 2009 are briefly as follows: The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the Mat.A..Nos. 263 & 265 of 2010 2 wife and their marriage was solemnised on 3.2.2003 as per the Christian rites. After the marriage they lived together in the house of the petitioner. A male child was born in this wedlock on 20.2.2004. The petitioner is a doctor by profession and was doing his MD in General Medicine at Kottayam at the time of marriage. The respondent is also a doctor preparing for the entrance examination for MD...", "Fact/ Respondent": "Mat.A. No.263 of 2010 is filed by the respondent/wife in O.P. 491 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam. The respondent in this appeal is the petitioner in that petition, which was filed by him under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Mat. A.No. 265 of 2010 is filed by respondents 1 to 3 in O.P.No. 492 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam. The respondent in that appeal was the petitioner in that Original Petition, which was filed by him for the custody of the child. The first respondent in that Original Petition is his wife and respondents 2 and 3 are the parents of the first respondent.", "Issues": "\"11. The expression `cruelty' has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and Mat.A..Nos. 263 & 265 of 2010 18 degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to love with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct...", "Petitioner Argument": "14. The learned senior counsel for the appellant wife submitted that the finding in paragraph 18 of the judgment is to the effect that the wife wanted to stay away from the matrimonial home. She disliked Mat.A..Nos. 263 & 265 of 2010 11 parents-in-law and failed to look after the husband even while he was suffering from serious illness - jaundice' is entered into contrary to evidence on record. The circumstance under which the appellant stayed away from home i.e., in connection with the education, work etc, was not considered while arriving at the conclusion. The Court below also failed to take note of the fact that the particular course in Radiology specialized by the appellant is offered only in Medical Colleges at Thiruvananthapuram and Kozhikode. Appellant if at all stayed away from home, is under compulsions of education or work. That by itself cannot be treated as a reason to arrive at the finding that the 'respondent avoided to stay in matrimonial home'. Instead of finding that the wife stayed away from husband during his illness, the court below...", "Respondent Argument": "12. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and the learned senior counsel for the respondent. 13. In Mat.A.No. 263 of 2010 the learned counsel for the appellant mainly raised the following contentions. The Court below failed to take note of the actual problems between the parties and instead of addressing it with a view to save the marital relationship between the parties, proceeded to dissolve the marriage. In paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment, the Family Court wrongly found that 'the petitioner/husband' has succeeded to prove that the wife behaved cruelly and indifferently towards him and a complete reading of the said paragraph will show that the Court below has not assigned any reason whatsoever to arrive at the said conclusion. 19. The learned senior counsel for the respondent husband submitted that the Family Court is fully justified in granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty on the basis of evidence on record. 25. The learned counsel for the respondent/husband pointed out seven instances of cruelty. The first instance is the repeated slapping of the respondent/husband...", "Factors to be Considered": "20. Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 provides that the marriage be dissolved on the ground that the respondent has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent. The cruelty as a ground of matrimonial relief has been defined as conduct of such a character as to have caused danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, so as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger. The concept of cruelty varied from time to time, from place to place and from individual to individual in its application to social status of persons involved and economic condition and other matters. 21. The parties have relied on a large body of case law. We Mat.A..Nos. 263 & 265 of 2010 15 need only refer to a fiew of them. In Dr. N. G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane (1975 (2) SCC 326), the Court, inter alia, held that the Court has to deal not with the ideal husband and an ideal wife, but with the particular man and woman before it. The...", "Decision": "40. Considering all the above aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the Family Court is not justified in passing a decree of divorce in O.P. No. 491 of 2009 on the ground of cruelty and that the judgment has to be set aside in allowing Mat.Appeal No. 263 of 2010.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80201601/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2011, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "80201601", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80201601/", "Chunks Indexed": 18 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "C.Rajamani vs Rathna Bai on 21 October, 2009", "Case Number": "No.50 of 1998", "Judgment Date": "2009-10-21", "Judges": "R.Mala, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 18, Section 19, Section 21, Section 45, Section 73", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty; Nullity Sec19; Non Consummation; Conversion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "This Petition has been filed for a declaration of the marriage solemnized on 22.01.1981 at Roman Catholic Church Thalayavattai Kanniyakumar District as null and void on the ground the same is vitiated by fraud or in the alternative for judicial separation on the grounds of desertion coupled with cruelty. (i) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 22.01.1981. The marriage was solemnized at Roman Catholic Church Thalayavattai at Kanniyakumar District. At the time of marriage 12 sovereigns of jewels were given along with a bank pass book with a deposit of Rs.10,000/- and the respondent is in custody of the jewels till he deserted the petitioner in the year 1995. The respondent did not mind for the welfare of the family and did not evince any interest in taking care of the petitioner. She behaved in such un-tolerable manner. She quarrelled with the petitioner for no fault on his part. She did not cook for a week or two. On another occasion, she blamed her fate for marrying the petitioner and scolded her parents for selecting the petitioner as her husband. She was atrocious and arrogant that quite often she used to go to her parents without any reason whatsoever and without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner and stay there for weeks. Sometime for...", "Fact/ Respondent": "(i) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 22.01.1981. The marriage was solemnized at Roman Catholic Church Thalayavattai at Kanniyakumar District. At the time of marriage 12 sovereigns of jewels were given along with a bank pass book with a deposit of Rs.10,000/- and the respondent is in custody of the jewels till he deserted the petitioner in the year 1995. The respondent did not mind for the welfare of the family and did not evince any interest in taking care of the petitioner. She behaved in such un-tolerable manner. She quarrelled with the petitioner for no fault on his part. She did not cook for a week or two. On another occasion, she blamed her fate for marrying the petitioner and scolded her parents for selecting the petitioner as her husband. She was atrocious and arrogant that quite often she used to go to her parents without any reason whatsoever and without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner and stay there for weeks. Sometime for months together. She also attempted to suicide by pouring kerosene on her and setting fire. The respondent made the matrimonial home a hell and the petitioner was put to...", "Issues": "4. After hearing the arguments on both sides, counsel and perused the materials available on records. The following issues were framed for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the alternative relief of judicial separation on the ground of desertion coupled with cruelty? 3. To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled?\" 5. The additional issues was framed as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare that the marriage solemnised on 22.1.1981 between the petitioner and the respondent is null and void on the ground that the same is vitiated by fraud. 6, Additional Issue : On the side of the petitioner P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. On the respondent side, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R16 were marked. 7. During the pendency of the trial,...", "Petitioner Argument": "10. But It is contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the trial only he came to know that the respondent/wife has played fraud and obtained consent for marriage since she has not attained puberty. She is not capable of performing conjugality. Hence, she has wantonly suppressed the same and marriage has been performed and fraud has been played by this respondent. Hence the marriage is vitiated by fraud. It is pertinent to note that it is the duty of the petitioner to plead the fraud and prove the same. It is appropriate to incorporate Order VI Rule 4 of CPC . It is as follows: \"Particulars to be given where necessary- In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars with dates and items (if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading\" 11. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not...", "Respondent Argument": "14. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the application has been filed belatedly stating that the respondent/wife is concealing something and prayed fraud and obtained consent for the marriage. So the marriage itself is void. The marriage has taken place on 22.1.1981. He filed application in 1998. Therefore there is a delay. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision reported in 1(2001) DMC 640 (SC) (D.BALAKRISHNAN V.PAVALAMANI) and urged that in the matrimonial matter there is no limitation and \"annulment of marriage: Non-consummation of marriage due to impotency: petition filed 10 years after marriage:petition cannot be held barred by limitation\". 15. It is true in matrimonial matter, there is no limitation. But however, this citation is not applicable to the facts of the case because the marriage has been consummated that admittedly the petitioner/P.W.1 himself has taken the respondent/wife to hospital and took treatment to begot child. As per the documents filed by him and oral testimony of both the parties P.W.1 and R.W.1 corroborated the same. In the above said circumstances the...", "Factors to be Considered": "\"\"Mental cruelty in Section 13(1) (i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also...", "Decision": "36. In fine, the suit is dismissed and the respondent-wife is entitled for maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from the petitioner from the date of the petition. She is also entitled for the right of residence in the petitioner's property till her life time.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1178522/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty; nullity_sec19; non_consummation; conversion", "Judgment Year": 2009, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1178522", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1178522/", "Chunks Indexed": 24 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Jyotsna W/O Suresh Jagtap vs Suresh John Jagtap on 2 February, 2001", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2001-02-02", "Judges": "B.N. Srikrishna, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Family Courts Act, 1984", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 19, Section 2, Section 20, Section 7, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a reference made to this Court by the Family Court at Nagpur, purportedly under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage made by the Family Court. 3. The parties before us are Christians by religion and they were married on 7-5-1995 as per Christian religious rites and customs at the Methodist Marathi Church, Civil Lines, Nagpur. The marriage ran aground and a petition came to be filed before the Family Court at Nagpur on 31-8-1999 by the petitioner wife under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty coupled with adultery. This petition was contested by the respondent-husband. The Family Court tried the petition and by its judgment and decree dated 28-5-2000 allowed the petition and ordered dissolution of the marriage between the parties solemnized on 7-5-1995, by a decree of divorce. The Family Court, however, declared that the decree of divorce granted by it was subject to confirmation by the High Court. The Family Court thereafter has forwarded the reference to this Court, purportedly under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, for confirmation of the decree dated 28-5-2000 made by it.", "Fact/ Respondent": "3. The parties before us are Christians by religion and they were married on 7-5-1995 as per Christian religious rites and customs at the Methodist Marathi Church, Civil Lines, Nagpur. The marriage ran aground and a petition came to be filed before the Family Court at Nagpur on 31-8-1999 by the petitioner wife under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty coupled with adultery. This petition was contested by the respondent-husband. The Family Court tried the petition and by its judgment and decree dated 28-5-2000 allowed the petition and ordered dissolution of the marriage between the parties solemnized on 7-5-1995, by a decree of divorce. The Family Court, however, declared that the decree of divorce granted by it was subject to confirmation by the High Court. The Family Court thereafter has forwarded the reference to this Court, purportedly under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, for confirmation of the decree dated 28-5-2000 made by it.", "Issues": "4. This reference raises a question of some importance and is likely to affect other similarly placed parties. We have, therefore, bestowed anxious consideration on the following issue which arises in the case: \"Whether, after the coming into force of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and the establishment of Family Courts, the procedure of decree nisi followed by confirmation by the High Court under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 , is to be followed by the Family Court?\"", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "(b) It is declared that the decree made by the Family Court on 28-5-2000 operates as a final decree for dissolution of marriage, subject to the right of appeal under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1703655/ | 2001(3)BOMCR14, I(2001)DMC776", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 2001, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2001(3)BOMCR14, I(2001)DMC776", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1703655", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1703655/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Doris Padmavathy vs Christodass on 11 February, 1969", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1969-02-11", "Judges": "M. Anantanarayanan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 22", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a reference under Sections 10 and 17 of the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869) made by the learned District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, for confirmation of the decree nisi granted by him dissolving the marriage between Doris Padmavathy (petitioner) and her husband V. Christodass (respondent),, We may state, at the outset, that the respondent has remained ex parte throughout, and that the petitioner seeks divorce on the ground specified in a clause of Section 10 of the Act, namely, \" adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to divorce a mensa et toro \". 2. The facts are quite simple. In her petition, the petitioner states that she married the respondent on 15th September, 1958 according to the rights of the Christian religion. Immediately after the marriage, the husband and wife lived together at Bhilai and later at Tiruchirapalli. The respondent was then transferred in 1961 to the Thermal Station at the Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The respondent was in poor health and began to act in a cruel manner towards the petitioner, sometimes even using physical violence. She tolerated this, hoping that his conduct would improve, as also, his health. On 17th September, 1966, the respondent was enraged at the refusal of the petitioner to give finance for a foreign trip, and he...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a reference under Sections 10 and 17 of the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869) made by the learned District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, for confirmation of the decree nisi granted by him dissolving the marriage between Doris Padmavathy (petitioner) and her husband V. Christodass (respondent),, We may state, at the outset, that the respondent has remained ex parte throughout, and that the petitioner seeks divorce on the ground specified in a clause of Section 10 of the Act, namely, \" adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to divorce a mensa et toro \".", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "8. As has been the course taken by us in similar cases where cruelty alone is a proved, and not adultery, we are competent to grant a decree for judicial separation under Section 22 of the Act, on the ground of the established grave cruelty. In the present case also, we accept the reference to this extent, and grant a decree for judicial separation between the parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, if the alleged adulterous relationship between the respondent and a third party is even now continuing, it may be open to the petitioner to take out fresh proceedings for divorce upon that fresh and future cause of action. We do not desire to make any observations in anticipation on such a matter: but if the necessary facts exist, the petitioner may certainly proceed to such remedies at law as the petitioner may be advised to take. No order as to costs throughout.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/429790/ | (1969)2MLJ645", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1969, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1969)2MLJ645", "Kanoon Doc ID": "429790", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/429790/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Gauhati High Court", "Case Title": "Ka. Amal Lyngdoh vs U. Jabin Pakem on 15 May, 1987", "Case Number": "Divorce Suit No. 4/86", "Judgment Date": "1987-05-15", "Judges": "Saikia, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 22, Section 23", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion; Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree for Judicial Separation Granted", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The decree nisi dated 29-7-86 dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent granted by the Judge, District Council Court, Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council, Jowai in Divorce Suit No. 4/86 has come up for confirmation under Section 17 , Divorce Act, 1869. The parties are Christians. They were married according to the Christian Marriage Act, 1872 and they had 7 children. The petitioner sued the respondent for divorce on the grounds that the respondent had deserted her for more than 7 years since 1979 without any reasonable cause and had not maintained her and her children since then; and he had treated her with cruelty having often threatened to injure her person, and to burn her house and make her unsafe. 2-3. The petitioner examined herself as witness 1 and one U. Kilbert Latam as witness 2. The petitioner deposed that she married the respondent in 1967 whereafter they cohabited and lived together as husband and wife for about 12 years and had 7 children. Since 1979 the respondent deserted her and her children and he, very often, threatened to hurt her and to burn her house whenever she met him, and made her life miserable and unsafe wherefore she had to leave her village and come to stay at Jowai town where also whenever the respondent...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The decree nisi dated 29-7-86 dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent granted by the Judge, District Council Court, Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council, Jowai in Divorce Suit No. 4/86 has come up for confirmation under Section 17 , Divorce Act, 1869. The parties are Christians. They were married according to the Christian Marriage Act, 1872 and they had 7 children. The petitioner sued the respondent for divorce on the grounds that the respondent had deserted her for more than 7 years since 1979 without any reasonable cause and had not maintained her and her children since then; and he had treated her with cruelty having often threatened to injure her person, and to burn her house and make her unsafe.", "Issues": "6. For confirmation of the decree nisi two questions arise for consideration, namely, (1) Whether the facts and circumstances stated by the petitioner amounted to cruelty under the law; (2) Whether the grounds stated in the petition, namely, desertion and cruelty constituted valid grounds for dissolution of marriage?", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "10. While applying the law to facts of the case, we have to remember that \"Cruelty\" means cruel in the ordinary sense. It has no esoteric or artificial meaning. There must be some grave and weighty matters to constitute cruelty as was held in Le Brocq v. Le Brocq, (1964) 1 WLR 1085. Cruelty as a ground of divorce must be some conduct of respondents as gives the petitioner a reasonable cause of apprehension of injury to body, mind or health in future. In Forbes v. Forbes, (1955) 2 All ER 311, it was laid down that \"if a wife deliberately and consistently refuses to satisfy her husband's natural and legitimate craving to have children, and the deprivation reduces him to despair and affects his mental health, the wife is guilty of cruelty. There may be cruelty without an intention to injure as was held in Gollins v. Gollins, 1964 AC 644. Persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without any reason may amount to cruelty. (Sheldon v. Sheldon, 1966 P 62 or constructive desertion (1969) 1 P 122). Persistent cruelty may be a ground. Where the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to...", "Decision": "15. Under Section 22 , Divorce Act, 1869, no decree shall hereafter be made for a divorce a mensa et toro, but the husband or wife may obtain a decree of judicial separation on the ground of adultery or cruelty or desertion without reasonable excuse for two years or upwards, and such decree shall have the effect of a divorce a mensa et toro under the existing law and such other legal effect as hereinafter mentioned", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1944622/ | AIR1987GAU69, AIR 1987 GAUHATI 69, (1987) 2 DMC 403 (1987) 2 CURCC 267, (1987) 2 CURCC 267", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion; adultery", "Judgment Year": 1987, "Relief Status": "judicial_separation", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1987GAU69, AIR 1987 GAUHATI 69, (1987) 2 DMC 403 (1987) 2 CURCC 267, (1987) 2 CURCC 267", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1944622", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1944622/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Sri Victor Sebastian S/O Hilari Karkada vs Smt. Thorulatha D/O John Bangera on 24 February, 2006", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2006-02-24", "Judges": "R. Gururajan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. The appellant-husband married respondent on 8.5.1996 at U.B.M. Jublee Church, Udupi as per the customary rights of Protestant Christians. Parties are related to each other. The respondent is a daughter of appellant's mother's younger sister. Parties were knowing each other from their childhood and at the time of marriage, the appellant was working at Dubai. After marriage, at the respondent's instance, the newly married couple had rented a house and they were staying together at Udupi. After four months of the marriage, the respondent had vacated the rented house and gone to her parents house, taking away an advance deposit amount paid by the appellant to the landlord in the. matter. She did not join her husband. The respondent in the light of the amendment to the Indian Divorce Act 2001 filed a petition Under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act 1869 before the learned Judge alleging cruelty in the matter. Objections were filed. Witnesses were examined. The learned Judge, after hearing has chosen to allow the application filed by the respondent-wife in terms of the impugned order. This order is challenged before us.- 3. Sri. Vishwajith Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argues that in terms of the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that Section 10(x) is attracted to the facts of this case....", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The appellant-husband married respondent on 8.5.1996 at U.B.M. Jublee Church, Udupi as per the customary rights of Protestant Christians. Parties are related to each other. The respondent is a daughter of appellant's mother's younger sister. Parties were knowing each other from their childhood and at the time of marriage, the appellant was working at Dubai. After marriage, at the respondent's instance, the newly married couple had rented a house and they were staying together at Udupi. After four months of the marriage, the respondent had vacated the rented house and gone to her parents house, taking away an advance deposit amount paid by the appellant to the landlord in the. matter. She did not join her husband. The respondent in the light of the amendment to the Indian Divorce Act 2001 filed a petition Under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act 1869 before the learned Judge alleging cruelty in the matter. Objections were filed. Witnesses were examined. The learned Judge, after hearing has chosen to allow the application filed by the respondent-wife in terms of the impugned order. This order is challenged before us.-", "Issues": "10. Grounds for dissolution of marriage: (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, may, on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent- (x) has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent. Page 0246", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "4. Sri. Ananda Shetty, learned Counsel for the respondent supports. the order of the learned Judge.", "Factors to be Considered": "12. ( Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta ) is a Judgment of the Supreme Court. In the said case in para 21, the Apex Court has ruled that \"cruelty for the purpose of Under Section 13(1) (I-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards, the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue. the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical - cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult -to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of .matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively.\" 13. In ( Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey ), the Supreme...", "Decision": "1. Sri. Victor Sebastian is before us aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 11.8.2005 passed in MC No. 24/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Udupi in this appeal.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/882118/ | II(2006)DMC844, ILR2006KAR3097, AIR 2006 (NOC) 858 (KAR), 1997 (4) SCC 565, 2006 (3) AIR KANT HCR 270, 2006 A I H C 1742, (2006) 2 DMC 844, (2006) 4 ICC 486, (2006) 2 HINDULR 264, (2006) 3 KANT LJ 257, (2006) 2 KCCR 984, (2006) MATLR 609, (2007) 1 CIVLJ 554, (2006) 3 CIVILCOURTC 229, (2006) 4 RECCIVR 577, (2006) 4 CURCC 36, (1997) 1 CURLR 809, (1997) 1 RAJ LW 141, (1997) 2 LABLJ 26, (1997) 2 SCALE 569, (1997) 2 SCR 472 (SC), (1997) 2 SERVLR 378, (1997) 30 ALL LR 389, (1997) 33 BANKLJ 146, (1997) 3 JT 500 (SC), (1997) 3 SUPREME 312, (1997) 4 LAB LN 5, (1997) 76 FACLR 176, 1997 ADSC 3 408, 1997 LABLR 409, 1997 SCC (L&S) 1241", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2006, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: II(2006)DMC844, ILR2006KAR3097, AIR 2006 (NOC) 858 (KAR), 1997 (4) SCC 565, 2006 (3) AIR KANT HCR 270, 2006 A I H C 1742, (2006) 2 DMC 844, (2006) 4 ICC 486, (2006) 2 HINDULR 264, (2006) 3 KANT LJ 257, (2006) 2 KCCR 984, (2006) MATLR 609, (2007) 1 CIVLJ 554, (2006) 3 CIVILCOURTC 229, (2006) 4 RECCIVR 577, (2006) 4 CURCC 36, (1997) 1 CURLR 809, (1997) 1 RAJ LW 141, (1997) 2 LABLJ 26, (1997) 2 SCALE 569, (1997) 2 SCR 472 (SC), (1997) 2 SERVLR 378, (1997) 30 ALL LR 389, (1997) 33 BANKLJ 146, (1997) 3 JT 500 (SC), (1997) 3 SUPREME 312, (1997) 4 LAB LN 5, (1997) 76 FACLR 176, 1997 ADSC 3 408, 1997 LABLR 409, 1997 SCC (L&S) 1241", "Kanoon Doc ID": "882118", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/882118/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Punjab-Haryana High Court", "Case Title": "Jyoti Gagneja vs Ajit Paul on 31 August, 2022", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2022-08-31", "Judges": "Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 24", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, pending before the Family Court, Gurdaspur to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Fazilka. \"9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, pending before the Family Court, Gurdaspur to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Fazilka.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is having a minor child, who is living in her care and custody, therefore, it is very difficult for her to defend the said case at Gurdaspur. 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 02-09-2022 00:57:37 ::: TA-984-2019 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay , 2002 SC 396 and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC 237, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that \"while deciding the transfer application, the Courts are required to give more weightage and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships.\" Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, considering the fact that if the...", "Respondent Argument": "Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has not opposed the prayer of the petitioner-wife. It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case at the instance of the wife, the Court is to consider family condition of the wife, custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important, convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and fro from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "31.08.2022 (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) Waseem Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 02-09-2022 00:57:38 :::", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21247772/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2022, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "21247772", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21247772/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Roshini @ Thresiamma vs Rajesh Joseph @ Chacko on 14 June, 2010", "Case Number": "Mat.Appeal.No. 751 of 2010", "Judgment Date": "2010-06-14", "Judges": "K.T.Sankaran, J., M.L.Joseph Francis, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Unclear", "Outcome": "Interim", "Fact/ Petitioner": "In Mat. Appeal Nos.751 of 2010 and 762 of 2010, the appellant is Roshni @ Thresiamma, the wife of the respondent Rajesh Joseph @ Chacko. In Mat. Appeal No.761 of 2010, the appellants are Rajesh Joseph @ Chacko and his parents and the respondent is Roshni @ Thresiamma. In O.P.(F.C.) No.2198 of 2012, Roshni @ Thresiamma is the petitioner and Rajesh Joseph @ Chacko is the respondent. 2. Roshni and Rajesh Joseph are hereinafter referred to as wife and husband. The wife filed O.P.No.395 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, against the husband and his parents for a decree for return of Rupees Twenty lakhs allegedly paid at the time of marriage. As per the common judgment dated Mat. Appeal Nos.751, 761 & 762/2010 and O.P. (F.C.) No.2198 OF 2012.", "Fact/ Respondent": "In Mat. Appeal Nos.751 of 2010 and 762 of 2010, the appellant is Roshni @ Thresiamma, the wife of the respondent Rajesh Joseph @ Chacko. In Mat. Appeal No.761 of 2010, the appellants are Rajesh Joseph @ Chacko and his parents and the respondent is Roshni @ Thresiamma. In O.P.(F.C.) No.2198 of 2012, Roshni @ Thresiamma is the petitioner and Rajesh Joseph @ Chacko is the respondent.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (mutual consent 10A) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "e) Post I.A.No.153 of 2013 on 22.7.2013.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92102026/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; unclear", "Judgment Year": 2010, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "92102026", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92102026/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Patrick Herbert Van-Hek vs Mrs. More Ilma Van-Hek on 23 December, 1981", "Case Number": "Divorce Suit No. 5 of 1978", "Judgment Date": "1981-12-23", "Judges": "B.C. Chakrabarti, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Divorce Act made by the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore after having passed a decree of divorce in Divorce Suit No. 5 of 1978 of his Court. The petitioner instituted the suit in 1977 on an allegation that the petitioner and the respondent both of whom are Indian citizens professing the Christian, faith were married in May, 1944. Since after the marriage they were living peacefully and four children were born to them. The children have attained majority and art now living abroad. Sometime in 1965 the respondent wife picked up acquaintance and intimacy with a seaman and became very friendly with him. She started mixing with the said seaman freely and in such a manner that the petitioner felt humiliated and lowered in the estimation of others. His attempts to correct and mend the wife turned futile. On the 25th Dec. 1965 the respondent left the matrimonial home and went away to her mother's place at No. 1 Molisii Street, Calcutta. She has been residing there ever since and has been leading an adulterous life with the said seaman. It is said that the name and whereabouts of the seaman with whom the respondent is living is not known to the petitioner as the seaman lives away...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Divorce Act made by the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore after having passed a decree of divorce in Divorce Suit No. 5 of 1978 of his Court. The petitioner instituted the suit in 1977 on an allegation that the petitioner and the respondent both of whom are Indian citizens professing the Christian, faith were married in May, 1944. Since after the marriage they were living peacefully and four children were born to them. The children have attained majority and art now living abroad. Sometime in 1965 the respondent wife picked up acquaintance and intimacy with a seaman and became very friendly with him. She started mixing with the said seaman freely and in such a manner that the petitioner felt humiliated and lowered in the estimation of others. His attempts to correct and mend the wife turned futile. On the 25th Dec. 1965 the respondent left the matrimonial home and went away to her mother's place at No. 1 Molisii Street, Calcutta. She has been residing there ever since and has been leading an adulterous life with the said seaman. It is said that the name and whereabouts...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "5. Having considered the case made out in the application for divorce and the evidence on record we are unable to sustain and affirm the decree of dissolution of marriage as passed by the learned Additional District Judge. The case in the application for dissolution is that the respondent has been very friendly and intimate terms with a particular seaman from the year 1965, The suit was instituted in 1977 i.e, to say nearly 12 years thereafter, The law requires that in the case of a suit for dissolution of marriage by the petitioner husband on the ground of adultery, it is necessary to make the adulterer a co-respondent. In order to evade making the said person a co-respondent it is said in paragraph 22 of the petition that the name and whereabouts of the said seaman is not known to the petitioner as he lives away from India and seldom comes back. The evidence however, suggests otherwise. It reads as if that the respondent deserted the matrimonial home with the sole object of meeting the said seaman as often...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1907060/ | AIR1982CAL356, AIR 1982 CALCUTTA 356, 1982 (2) DMC 266 1982 MATLR 209, 1982 MATLR 209", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1981, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1982CAL356, AIR 1982 CALCUTTA 356, 1982 (2) DMC 266 1982 MATLR 209, 1982 MATLR 209", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1907060", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1907060/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "L.Anandaraj vs Unknown on 23 November, 2022", "Case Number": "C.R.P.No.3827 of 2022", "Judgment Date": "2022-11-23", "Judges": "S.Sounthar, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "The petitioners herein filed this revision challenging the order passed by the Court below dismissing their petition seeking waiver of six months waiting period under Section 10(A) of the Indian Divorce Act. 2. According to the petitioners, the marriage between them had taken place on 10.05.2008. It is specifically stated by the petitioners in their petition seeking https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 4 C.R.P.No.3827 of 2022 divorce by mutual consent that though they lived under the same roof, there was no cohabitation between them and there was no possibility of continuing the marital tie. It was further averred that they mutually agreed to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent. It was further averred that the 1 st petitioner had vacated the house and started staying along with his relatives. Therefore, it is seen from the averments found in the petition that there has been no cohabitation between the parties from the inception of marriage. Therefore for all practical purpose they having been living apart without matrimonial cohabitation for the period of three years, the petitioners have filed a petition seeking divorce by mutual consent on 12.07.2022.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Respondent contested the petition, denying allegations of mutual consent 10A under Section 10 and submitting that no statutory grounds exist for dissolving the marriage.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (mutual consent 10A) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "4. In the case on hand , in the petition filed for divorce by mutual consent, the petitioners had averred that they never had cohabitation after the date of marriage. Therefore, from the inception the petitioners have been living apart without any https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 4 C.R.P.No.3827 of 2022 cohabitation. In these circumstances, the six months waiting period mentioned under Section 10(A) (2) of the Indian Divorce Act, cannot be insisted. Consequently, the order impugned in this revision is set aside and the Court below is directed to advance the hearing and consider the petition for divorce filed by the petitioners on the ground of mutual consent without insisting for six (6) months waiting period. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. 23.11.2022 Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order jai To The Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 4 C.R.P.No.3827 of 2022 S.SOUNTHAR, J. jai C.R.P.No.3827 of 2022 23.11.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 4", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138585656/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; unclear", "Judgment Year": 2022, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "138585656", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138585656/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)", "Case Title": "V. Bhagyalaxmi vs V. Rahul Kumar on 20 November, 2007", "Case Number": "O.P. No. 89 of 2005", "Judgment Date": "2007-11-20", "Judges": "Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 20.2.2007 made in IA No. 91 of 2006 in O.P. No. 89 of 2005 on the file of the Family Court, Warangal, whereby, the learned Judge allowed the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C . amending the provision of law as Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act instead of Section 10(x) of the Indian Divorce Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the husband i.e., the respondent herein instituted O.P. No. 89 of 2005 seeking divorce under Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 stating that his wife i.e., the petitioner herein treated him with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with her. Before the trial commenced, the respondent-husband filed the present application seeking amendment of the provision of law as Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act instead of Section 10(x) of the Indian Divorce Act. As stated above, the trial Court allowed the application by amending the provision as sought for. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.2.2007, the petitioner-wife has filed this civil revision petition.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The brief facts of the case are that the husband i.e., the respondent herein instituted O.P. No. 89 of 2005 seeking divorce under Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 stating that his wife i.e., the petitioner herein treated him with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with her. Before the trial commenced, the respondent-husband filed the present application seeking amendment of the provision of law as Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act instead of Section 10(x) of the Indian Divorce Act. As stated above, the trial Court allowed the application by amending the provision as sought for. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.2.2007, the petitioner-wife has filed this civil revision petition.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "3.1 In my considered view, the trial Court grossly erred in entertaining the O.P. itself when the parties to the proceedings are Hindus. In fact, in the preamble to the Divorce Act , it is made clear that the enactment of the Divorce Act is meant for those persons professing the Christian religion. Therefore, it is not known as to how the original petition filed by the respondent-husband seeking divorce under the Divorce Act is maintainable. In fact, the trial Court should have rejected the O.P. at the threshold. After coming to know of the mistake that has crept in, the respondent-husband filed the present application seeking amendment of the provision, which, in my considered view, is not permissible under law. The provisions under which a divorce can be sought under the Divorce Act are entirely different from the provisions under which a divorce can be sought under the Hindu Marriage Act . No doubt, the original petition for divorce is maintainable at any stage during the subsistence of the marriage between the spouses, but it is not known what...", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "4. In the result, this civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is allowed and the order dated 20.2.2007 made in IA No. 91 of 2006 in O.P. No. 89 of 2005 is hereby set aside. Consequently, in the light of the observations made by this Court that only Christians can maintain a petition for divorce under the Divorce Act , the O.P. filed by the respondent-husband is hereby dismissed. If the respondent-husband so chooses and is advised, he can file a separate O.P. under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act .", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195414232/ | 2008(2)ALD36, 2008(3)ALT32", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2007, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2008(2)ALD36, 2008(3)ALT32", "Kanoon Doc ID": "195414232", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195414232/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Kallu Daniel vs G.D. Hemalatha on 31 May, 2005", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2005-05-31", "Judges": "Anand Byrareddy, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Special Marriage Act, 1954", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 23", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The present Appeal is filed against the order of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hubli, returning the petition of the appellant, seeking a decree of divorce filed under Section 12 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, to present it before the proper Court. 'Whether the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Hubli, did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition seeking divorce under the Divorce Act, 1869 ?' The reasoning of the Court in returning the petition is two fold. Firstly, that the petition was filed under Section 12 of the Divorce Act, 1869, whereas it should have been filed under Section 10 of the Divorce Act and secondly, that the Act prescribed that a petition for divorce under Section 10 shall be presented before the District Court or the High Court and therefore, that Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The respondent has been served, she remains unrepresented. The only question to be considered in this Appeal is;", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "4. In the light of the above, this Appeal is allowed. The order returning the petition is set aside. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/905650/ | II(2005)DMC264, ILR2005KAR2708, 2006(3)KARLJ132, AIR 2006 (NOC) 66 (KAR), 2005 A I H C 3844, (2006) 3 KANT LJ 132, (2005) 2 HINDULR 136, (2005) 4 ICC 179, (2005) 3 KCCR 1812, (2005) 33 ALLINDCAS 505 (KAR), 2005 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1838, (2005) 2 DMC 264", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2005, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: II(2005)DMC264, ILR2005KAR2708, 2006(3)KARLJ132, AIR 2006 (NOC) 66 (KAR), 2005 A I H C 3844, (2006) 3 KANT LJ 132, (2005) 2 HINDULR 136, (2005) 4 ICC 179, (2005) 3 KCCR 1812, (2005) 33 ALLINDCAS 505 (KAR), 2005 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1838, (2005) 2 DMC 264", "Kanoon Doc ID": "905650", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/905650/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Allan John Waters vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 July, 2008", "Case Number": "APPEAL NO. 476 OF 2006", "Judgment Date": "2008-07-23", "Judges": "Per Bilal Nazki, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 109, Section 120, Section 161, Section 164, Section 23, Section 313, Section 323, Section 34, Section 372, Section 373, Section 375, Section 377", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Partly_Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Appeals No. 476 and 681 of 2006 are filed by the accused persons against their convictions, whereas Appeal No. 603 of 2006 is filed by the State for enhancement of the sentence of the accused persons. They were tried for offences under Sections 372, 373, 377, 323 read with Sections 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. They were also tried under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. These cases were filed against the accused persons in unusual circumstances. A Criminal Writ Petition was suo motu entertained by the High Court, being Writ Petition No. 585 of 1985.", "Fact/ Respondent": "19. In cross-examination, the witness stated that besides Hindi, he could partly understand Marathi and so also English. His statement was recorded in English. He did not remember the date and year of recording his statement. He could not read and write English.", "Issues": "At the time of making the statement, he was living with his mother in Aeroli. He did not know where his father was residing. He did not know whether he was alive. He had one younger brother and one elder sister. The sister was married. He was an illiterate person. From the age of 12 to 13 years, he started earning for himself by doing some work. He had no shelter, and he used to sleep on foot-path. From year 2000, he started residing with his mother. He was in contact with his brother and sister. 17. It may be noted that when this statement was recorded on 20th April, 2005, after the portion of the statement was recorded in examination-in-chief, which has been referred to hereinabove, the learned Special Public Prosecutor sought an adjournment on the ground that he had yet to study the case, and the adjournment was...", "Petitioner Argument": "Only Advocate Adenwalla and Kranti Londhe were produced before the Court. The other witness whose testimony has been discussed hereinabove, viz., Sunil Kadam, who was produced before the Court, was not even interrogated by the Investigating Officer. His statement was received by the Investigating Officer from Cuffe Parade Police Station, where his statement had been recorded in connection with another complaint. It is not even known whether any F.I.R. was registered by the Cuffe Parade Police Station. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants further submits that in the absence of any statement having been recorded by this Investigating Officer of Sunil Kadam and any statement having been provided to the defence before trial or before the appeals in the Court, the accused's right got prejudiced, as it was not known to the accused as to what type of the case they would have to face. Therefore, it is submitted that Sunil Kadam's testimony should not be taken into consideration at all for ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:23 ::: 40 coming to the conclusions about the guilt or innocence of...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "(5) P.Ws. 1 and 4 are the witnesses, who are projected as victims. Both of them were living for number of years in the Anchorage. As we have pointed out earlier, they did not complain to anybody, except P.W.2., after a long time the alleged practice of using them for sexual purposes has been initiated. In the circumstances, when P.Ws. 1 and 4, who had always the liberty of leaving the home at their will, their conduct of not reporting for number of years to anybody becomes suspicious. In this connection, we may rely on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Gowrishankara Swamigalu v. State of Karnataka and Anr. , reported in 2008(4) SCALE 389, which was a case under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the report about the alleged offence was made much after the incident. Paragraph 10 is quoted below:- \"Delay in lodging of a First Information Report although by itself may not be a ground to disbelieve the entire ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:23 ::: 52 prosecution case, but each case must be judged on its own facts. If the story of P.W.1 is to be accepted at its face value,...", "Decision": "It be listed tomorrow, the 24th, in the Court for appropriate hearing.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/453012/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2008, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "453012", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/453012/", "Chunks Indexed": 22 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "A. vs B. on 21 August, 1992", "Case Number": "Petition No. 3758 of 1989", "Judgment Date": "1992-08-21", "Judges": "Tipnis, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 3", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Decree of Nullity Adjudicated", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. The petitioner-husband filed M. J. Petition No. 3758 of 1989 on the Original Side of this Court seeking a declaration and decree of nullity of the marriage between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife solemnised on 19th January, 1986. The repondent-wife is the cousin of the petitioner-husband. Broadly, the case of the petitioner is that not only he was forced to accept the proposal to marry the respondent but even the respondent was unwilling to marry and her consent was obtained by force by the mother of the respondent. After the engagement, the petitioner went to Dubai from where he wrote many letters to the respondent but she never replied. Even after his return to India from Dubai, despite his efforts, the wife did not respond. Thereafter, the marriage was solemnised on. 19th January, 1986. After the marriage, the petitioner tried to nave sexual relationship with the respondent, but the respondent did not respond. Ultimately, the respondent told the petitioner not to have any sexual relations. The respondent told the petitioner that she was forced to marry him. The respondent threatened the petitioner that if he tried to have sex with her, she would commit suicide. The petitioner has stated that the marriage was never consummated. The petitioner again went to Saudi Arabia for about a year. During this period...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The petitioner-husband filed M. J. Petition No. 3758 of 1989 on the Original Side of this Court seeking a declaration and decree of nullity of the marriage between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife solemnised on 19th January, 1986. The repondent-wife is the cousin of the petitioner-husband. Broadly, the case of the petitioner is that not only he was forced to accept the proposal to marry the respondent but even the respondent was unwilling to marry and her consent was obtained by force by the mother of the respondent. After the engagement, the petitioner went to Dubai from where he wrote many letters to the respondent but she never replied. Even after his return to India from Dubai, despite his efforts, the wife did not respond. Thereafter, the marriage was solemnised on. 19th January, 1986. After the marriage, the petitioner tried to nave sexual relationship with the respondent, but the respondent did not respond. Ultimately, the respondent told the petitioner not to have any sexual relations. The respondent told the petitioner that she was forced to marry him. The respondent threatened the petitioner that if he tried to have sex with her, she would commit suicide. The petitioner has stated...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (nullity sec19) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "2. The petitioner-husband filed M. J. Petition No. 3758 of 1989 on the Original Side of this Court seeking a declaration and decree of nullity of the marriage between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife solemnised on 19th January, 1986. The repondent-wife is the cousin of the petitioner-husband. Broadly, the case of the petitioner is that not only he was forced to accept the proposal to marry the respondent but even the respondent was unwilling to marry and her consent was obtained by force by the mother of the respondent. After the engagement, the petitioner went to Dubai from where he wrote many letters to the respondent but she never replied. Even after his return to India from Dubai, despite his efforts, the wife did not respond. Thereafter, the marriage was solemnised on. 19th January, 1986. After the marriage, the petitioner tried to nave sexual relationship with the respondent, but the respondent did not respond. Ultimately, the respondent told the petitioner not to have any sexual relations. The respondent told the petitioner that she was forced to marry him. The respondent...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "9. A bare reading of Section 10 and Sec. 18 of the Indian Divorce Act makes it clear that the petition may be presented either to the District Court or to the High Court. So far as the District Court is concerned, by definition under Section 3(3) , it means in the ' case of any petition under the Act, the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction, or. of whose jurisdiction under the Act, the husband and wife reside or last resided together. Under Sec. 3(1) , \"High Court\" means with reference to any area, in a State, the High Court for that State and in the case of any petition under the Act, \"High Court\" means the High Court for the area where the husband and wife reside or last resided together. In our opinion, looking to the scheme of the Act, the District Court of a particular District will have jurisdiction to entertain the petition under the Act if the husband and wife reside or last resided together in its jurisdiction....", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/848450/ | I(1994)DMC238, AIR 1993 BOMBAY 61, 1992 BOM CJ 993, (1993) 1 HINDULR 117, (1992) MAH LJ 1566, (1993) 1 CIVLJ 799, (1993) 2 CURCC 2, (1994) 1 DMC 238, (1993) MARRILJ 264, (1992) 3 BOM CR 474", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 1992, "Relief Status": "nullity", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: I(1994)DMC238, AIR 1993 BOMBAY 61, 1992 BOM CJ 993, (1993) 1 HINDULR 117, (1992) MAH LJ 1566, (1993) 1 CIVLJ 799, (1993) 2 CURCC 2, (1994) 1 DMC 238, (1993) MARRILJ 264, (1992) 3 BOM CR 474", "Kanoon Doc ID": "848450", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/848450/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "L.Stella vs V.Ponnusamy on 11 September, 2015", "Case Number": "C.M.A.No.1974 of 2015", "Judgment Date": "2015-09-11", "Judges": "S.Manikumar, J., M.Venugopal, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Family Courts Act, 1984", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 19, Section 2, Section 22, Section 3", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "[Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Appellant/Respondent has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the Order dated 06.02.2015 in DOP.No.122 of 2008 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Coimbatore. 2.The Learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Coimbatore while passing the Impugned Order in D.O.P. No.122 of 2008 (filed by the Petitioner/Husband) on 06.02.2015 at Paragraph No.12 had interalia observed that the failure of the respondent (Appellant) to perform the duty of a wife, is proved to have caused cruelty which is harmful to the Petitioner (Respondent/Husband). Thus, the above said fact fits into the ground for dissolution of marriage adumbrated under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 and resultantly allowed the Petition by dissolving the marriage solemnized between the parties that took place on 18.03.1991 and accordingly granted a decree for divorce.", "Fact/ Respondent": "[Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Appellant/Respondent has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the Order dated 06.02.2015 in DOP.No.122 of 2008 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Coimbatore.", "Issues": "31.Undoubtedly, the term of 'Desertion' is a matter to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a given case. To put it succinctly, an inference of 'Desertion' may be drawn by a Court of Law from certain facts which may not in another case be capable of leading to the same inference; ie., to mention, the facts have to be necessarily viewed as to the purpose which is established by those acts or by conduct and expression of intention, both anterior and subsequent to the real acts of separation. If there is a separation, the main issue that crops up for rumination is whether the Act is attributable to an animus deserendi? The act of Desertion starts when the factum of separation and the animus deserendi co-exists. However, it is not necessary that the two should start at the same time, as opined by this Court. 32. In regard...", "Petitioner Argument": "4.The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Respondent (wife) contends that the order of the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Coimbatore in D.O.P. No.22 of 2008 dated 06.02.2015 is against facts and evidence. 6.The Learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds to take a plea that the Learned Trial Judge had failed to appreciate that once the parties to the marriage performed the marriage and submit to the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 , their marital relationship and their marital rights are governed by the said Act and as such, the parties are bound to seek redressal only under the said Act. 7.The Learned Counsel for Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that the Appellant had filed the S.M.O.P No.192 of 2000 seeking the relief of 'Restitution of Conjugal Rights' on the file of Family Court and the same was allowed. Further more, the Respondent/Husband had filed S.M.O.P.No.339 of 1998, seeking a relief of Divorce on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore and the same was dismissed as not pressed. In fact, these two aforesaid Petitions...", "Respondent Argument": "10.Conversely, it is contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Husband that the trial court came to the conclusion that the Appellant/Wife had deserted the Respondent/Husband from 30.03.1992 and further that, she treated him cruelly and consequently granted the relief of divorce in his favour and the same need not to be interfered with by this Court sitting in Appellate Jurisdiction. 11.Admittedly, the Appellant/Wife is Christian and that the Respondent/Husband is Hindu. At the time of marriage on 18.03.1991, the Appellant/Wife was a widow. Further, the Respondent/Husband at the time of his marriage was serving as a clerk in the Postal Department and subsequently he retired voluntarily and is receiving monthly pension. 12.The main grievance of the Respondent/Husband is that the Appellant/Respondent left the marital home and went to her mother's place and when he went there to bring his wife, her family members used abusive language and ill-treated him. Apart from that, the Appellant had failed to prepare food and look after him as dutiful wife. Also that the Appellant had not visited him when he was admitted into...", "Factors to be Considered": "23.Suffice it for this Court to point out that the Appellant/Wife had not mentioned the date of demand of dowry and also she had not proved satisfactorily in regard to allegation the the Respondent /Husband drove her away to obtain money from her parents as dowry. Dealing with the plea of the Appellant that the D.O.P. No.22 of 2008 filed by the Respondent/Husband under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 is per se not maintainable because of the reason that the Respondent/Husband had got married in terms of Special Marriage Act, 1954 , it is to be pointed out that the ingredients of Section 11 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 does not prevent the Respondent/Husband from seeking a relief by projecting a petition for divorce in terms of the relevant provisions of ' The Divorce Act ' (4 of 1869) in the considered opinion of this Court. 24. It is to be borne in mind that ' The Divorce Act, 1869 ' does not require that parties marriage ought to have been solemnized in any particular form. It would suffice if one of the parties is a Christian when the petition was filed. 25.In reality, Section 2 of...", "Decision": "39.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Resultantly, the Order passed by the Learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, in D.O.P. No.122 of 2008 dated 06.02.2015 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Appeal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/52032345/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 328)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2015, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "52032345", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/52032345/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court of India", "Case Title": "Ms. Jordan Diengdeh vs S.S. Chopra on 10 May, 1985", "Case Number": "Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2047 of 1985", "Judgment Date": "1985-05-10", "Judges": "Reddy, O. Chinnappa, J., R.B Misra, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 125, Section 13, Section 18, Section 19, Section 2, Section 22, Section 23, Section 24, Section 25, Section 27, Section 28, Section 30, Section 31, Section 32, Section 34, Section 4, Section 488, Section 5", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Nullity Sec19; Adultery; Desertion; Venereal Disease; Unsound Mind; Leprosy", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "The facts of the case are somewhat novel and peculiar. The wife, who is the petitioner before us claims to belong to the 'Khasi Tribe' of Meghalaya, who was born and brought up as a Presbytarian Christian at Shilong. She is now a member of the Indian Foreign Service. The husband is a Sikh. They were married under the Indian Christen Marriage Act, 1872. The marriage was performed on October 14, 1975. The judicial separation was filed in 1980 under sections 18 , 19 and 20 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The prayer for declaration no nullity of marriage was rejected by a learned single judge of the High Court, but a decree for judicial separation was granted on the ground of cruelty. On appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the judgment of the learned single judge. The wife has filed this petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court. She seeks a declaration of nullity of marriage. The ground on which the declaration was sought in the courts below and the ground on which it is now sought is the impotence of the husband in that though the husband is of achieving 707 erection and penetration, he ejaculates prematurely before the wife has an orgasm, leaving the wife totally unsatisfied...", "Fact/ Respondent": "The facts of the case are somewhat novel and peculiar. The wife, who is the petitioner before us claims to belong to the 'Khasi Tribe' of Meghalaya, who was born and brought up as a Presbytarian Christian at Shilong. She is now a member of the Indian Foreign Service. The husband is a Sikh. They were married under the Indian Christen Marriage Act, 1872. The marriage was performed on October 14, 1975. The judicial separation was filed in 1980 under sections 18 , 19 and 20 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The prayer for declaration no nullity of marriage was rejected by a learned single judge of the High Court, but a decree for judicial separation was granted on the ground of cruelty. On appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the judgment of the learned single judge. The wife has filed this petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court. She seeks a declaration of nullity of marriage. The ground on which the declaration was sought in the courts below and the ground on which it is now sought is the impotence of the husband in that though the husband is...", "Issues": "(2) that the parties are within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity (whether natural or legal) or affinity; (3) that either party was a lunatic or idiot at the time of the marriage; (4) that the former husband or wife of either party was living at the time of the marriage and the marriage with such former husband or wife was then in fore.\" (iv) that her marriage (whether consummated or not) was solemnized before she attained the age of fifteen years and she has repudiated the marriage after attaining that age but before attaining the age of eighteen years.\"", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "We may add that under strict Hanafi Law, there was no provision enabling a Muslim women to obtain a decree dissolving her marriage on the failure of the husband to maintain her or on his deserting her or maltreating her and it was the absence of such a provision entailing 'inspeakable misery in innumerable Muslim women' that was responsible for the dissolution of the Muslims Marriages Act, 1939 . (See Statements of Objects and Reasons of that Act). If the legislature could so alter the Hanafi Law, we fail to understand the hallabalcoo about the recent judgment of this court in the case of 717 Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum & Ors. interpreting the provisions of sec. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Muslim Law. it is also necessary to add that Mohammedan Law provides for a decree for divorce known as Khula and mubara' at by agreement of parties.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/569459/ | 1985 AIR 935, 1985 SCR SUPL. (1) 704, AIR 1985 SUPREME COURT 935, (1985) 9 DRJ 164, 1985 ALL CJ 669, (1985) 2 CURCC 509, (1985) 2 DMC 42, (1985) MATLR 279, 1985 (3) SCC 62", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; nullity_sec19; adultery; desertion; venereal_disease; unsound_mind; leprosy", "Judgment Year": 1985, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 935, 1985 SCR SUPL. (1) 704, AIR 1985 SUPREME COURT 935, (1985) 9 DRJ 164, 1985 ALL CJ 669, (1985) 2 CURCC 509, (1985) 2 DMC 42, (1985) MATLR 279, 1985 (3) SCC 62", "Kanoon Doc ID": "569459", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/569459/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Joseph John Carvalho vs Leila Joseph Carvalho on 21 August, 1992", "Case Number": "Petition No. 3758 of 1989", "Judgment Date": "1992-08-21", "Judges": "V.P. Tipnis, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 3, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. The petitioner-husband filed M.J. Petition No. 3758 of 1989 on the Original Side of this Court seeking a declaration and decree of nullity of the marriage between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife solemnised on 19th January, 1986. The respondent-wife is the cousin of the petitioner husband. 3. Broadly, the case of the petitioner is that not only he was forced to accept the proposal to marry the respondent but even the respondent was unwilling to marry and her consent was obtained by force by the mother of the respondent. After the engagement, the petitioner went to Dubai from where he wrote many letters to the respondent but she never replied. Even after his return to India from Dubai, despite his efforts, the wife did not respond. Thereafter, the marriage was solemnised on 19th January, 1986. After the marriage, the petitioner tried to have sexual relationship with the respondent, but the respondent did not respond. Ultimately, the respondent told the petitioner not to have any sexual relations. The respondent told the petitioner that she was forced to marry him. The respondent threatened the petitioner that if he tried to have sex with her, she would commit suicide. The petitioner has stated that the marriage was never consummated. The petitioner again went to Saudi Arabia for about a year. During this...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The petitioner-husband filed M.J. Petition No. 3758 of 1989 on the Original Side of this Court seeking a declaration and decree of nullity of the marriage between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife solemnised on 19th January, 1986. The respondent-wife is the cousin of the petitioner husband.", "Issues": "7. The learned District Judge framed the issue as to whether the petitioner proves that the consent of the respondent was Obtained by force and against her wish and on the basis of evidence on record, answered that issue in the affirmative. He accepted the evidence of the petitioner and Father Rodrigues. He came to the conclusion that the marriage was performed with- out free consent of the respondent-wife and was performed by force against her wish. Thus, fraud was committed. Ultimately, by his judgment and decree dated 15th January, 1991, the learned District Judge declared the marriage to be null and void. The said judgment and decree of the learned District Judge has come up before us for confirmation.", "Petitioner Argument": "3. Broadly, the case of the petitioner is that not only he was forced to accept the proposal to marry the respondent but even the respondent was unwilling to marry and her consent was obtained by force by the mother of the respondent. After the engagement, the petitioner went to Dubai from where he wrote many letters to the respondent but she never replied. Even after his return to India from Dubai, despite his efforts, the wife did not respond. Thereafter, the marriage was solemnised on 19th January, 1986. After the marriage, the petitioner tried to have sexual relationship with the respondent, but the respondent did not respond. Ultimately, the respondent told the petitioner not to have any sexual relations. The respondent told the petitioner that she was forced to marry him. The respondent threatened the petitioner that if he tried to have sex with her, she would commit suicide. The petitioner has stated that the marriage was never consummated. The petitioner again went to Saudi Arabia for about a year. During this period also, despite many letters, he did...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "16. We have referred, in detail, the case of the petitioner and the evidence recorded in the matter. After having gone through the same minutely, we are of the opinion that the petitioner-husband is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground that the consent of the respondent-wife was obtained by force. Accordingly, we declare that the marriage between the petitioner Joseph Carvalho and the respondent Leila Joseph Carvalho performed on 19th January, 1986 at St. Thomas Church at Sandor, Vasai, be and is hereby declared null and void and annulled. A decree ofnullity be drawn up.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/804380/ | (1992)94BOMLR958, II(1992)DMC524", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 1992, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1992)94BOMLR958, II(1992)DMC524", "Kanoon Doc ID": "804380", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/804380/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Ms. Saramma Ninan vs Mr. Ninan John & Others on 19 February, 2001", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2001-02-19", "Judges": "Arijit Pasayat, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 113, Section 20", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. When the matter was taken up we wanted to find out from the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as to how vires of certain provisions of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (in short the 'Act') can be decided in an original petition filed under Section 10 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to order XXVIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908(in short the 'Code') and Section 113 thereof. Reference was also made to Article 228 of the Constitution of India, 1950(in short the 'Constitution'). Reference was also made to a decision of the Apex Court in Ganga Pratap v. Allahabad Bank Ltd. , to contend that it is not impermissible to decide the vires. In the proceedings at hand. Reference was also made to decisions of Kerala and Bombay High Court in Ammini E.J. v. Union of India , and Pragati Varghes & Ors v. Cyril Varghes & Ors. (II ) 1997 DMC 407 respectively to urge that vires questions were considered and decided in similar proceedings. Suits involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution or as to the validity of any statutory instrument.", "Fact/ Respondent": "4. Application of Order to appeals - In the application of this Order to appeals the word \"defendant\" shall be held to include a respondent and the word \"Suit\" an appeal.\"", "Issues": "2. Court may add Government as party - The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order that the Central Government or a state Government shall be added as a defendant in any suit involving any such question as is referred to in clause (1) of Article 132 , read with Article 147 , of the Constitution, if the Attorney General for India or the Attorney-General of the State as the case may be, whether upon receipt of notice under rule 1, or otherwise, applies for such addition and the Court is satisfied that such addition is necessary or desirable for the satisfactory determination of the question of law involved. 2A. Power of Court to add Government or other authority as a defendant in a suit relating to the validity of any statutory instrument - The Court may, at any stage of the proceedings in any suit involving any...", "Petitioner Argument": "3. The provisions referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner read as follows: ORDER XXVIIA, CPC Suits involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution or as to the validity of any statutory instrument. 1. Notice to the Attorney General or the Advocate General- In any suit in which it appears to the Court that any such question as is referred to in clause (I) of Article 132 , read with Article 147 of the constitution, is involved, the court shall not proceed to determine that question until after notice has been given to the Attorney General for India if the question of law concerns the Central Government and to the Advocate General of the State if the question of law concerns a State Government. 1A. Procedure in suits involving validity or any statutory instrument - In any suit in which it appears to the Court that any question as to the validity of any statutory instrument, not being a question of the nature mentioned in rule 1, is involved the Court shall not...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Constitutional Doctrine: Gender equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21; severance of discriminatory conditions requiring Christian wives to prove adultery coupled with cruelty/desertion (Ammini E.J. / Pragati Varghese).", "Decision": "7. Validity of the provisions as challenged in the petition under Section 10 of the Act cannot be adjudicated in the said petition. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the matter has to be placed before the learned Single Judge for disposal of the matrimonial case on 26th March, 2001.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/636765/ | 2001IVAD(DELHI)439, 91(2001)DLT60, II(2001)DMC43", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity", "Judgment Year": 2001, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2001IVAD(DELHI)439, 91(2001)DLT60, II(2001)DMC43", "Kanoon Doc ID": "636765", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/636765/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Rajesh Premchand Suryawanshi vs Ujwala Rajesh Suryawanshi on 28 April, 2000", "Case Number": "Petition No. 3 of 1997", "Judgment Date": "2000-04-28", "Judges": "B.B. Vagyani, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 17, Section 28, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. This is a Reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Divorce Act for the sake of brevity), for confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage made by the Additional District Judge/ Ahmednagar. The learned Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar passed the decree for dissolution of marriage on 23.3.1999 and after expiry of statutory period of six months, as contemplated in Proviso to Section 17 of the Divorce Act, the said decree is placed before us for confirmation. Few facts relevant for the purpose of digesting the point involved in the matter of confirmation of divorce decree, are these. 3. The original petitioner Rajesh and original respondent Ujwala profess Christian religion. Petitioner Rajesh married to respondent Ujwala on 31.5.1995 as per Christian religious rites. The marriage took place at Ahmednagar. After solemnization of the marriage, respondent Ujwala lived with the petitioner Rajesh as his wife at Ahmednagar. The respondent Ujwala stayed with the petitioner Rajesh for short duration. During this short period, the parties did not pull on well. There used to be quarrels in-between them. The respondent wife told on the face of petitioner Rajesh that she did not want to stay with him. She was arrogant. She did not perform her domestic duties. The respondent wife insulted the petitioner husband...", "Fact/ Respondent": "3. The original petitioner Rajesh and original respondent Ujwala profess Christian religion. Petitioner Rajesh married to respondent Ujwala on 31.5.1995 as per Christian religious rites. The marriage took place at Ahmednagar. After solemnization of the marriage, respondent Ujwala lived with the petitioner Rajesh as his wife at Ahmednagar. The respondent Ujwala stayed with the petitioner Rajesh for short duration. During this short period, the parties did not pull on well. There used to be quarrels in-between them. The respondent wife told on the face of petitioner Rajesh that she did not want to stay with him. She was arrogant. She did not perform her domestic duties. The respondent wife insulted the petitioner husband in filthy language. The respondent wife left the matrimonial home and went to her mother. She compelled the petitioner husband to leave his own house and to reside with her at her mother's place. The petitioner was expecting sea-change in the attitude of respondent wife. But even at her mother's place, the petitioner husband did not see any change in her attitude. All the while, the respondent wife picked up quarrels with the petitioner husband and insulted him like anything. During this period, the respondent wife gave...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (desertion) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "1. Heard Mr. D.B. Arole, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The respondent, though duly served with notice of Reference is absent.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "10. We gave anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate Mr. D.B. Arole for the petitioner husband. At the very outset, we express our disagreement for the simple reason that in case of husband the provisions of Divorce Act do not contemplate dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion. The ground of desertion for the purpose of decree for dissolution of marriage is unknown to the Divorce Act . Admittedly, the petitioner husband has sought relief of dissolution of marriage under Section 10 of the Divorce Act. Section 10 of the Divorce Act reads as under : \" Section 10 . When husband may petition for dissolution.- Any husband may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court, praying that his marriage may be dissolved on the ground that his wife has, since the solemnization thereof, been guilty of adultery...\" 11. From careful perusal of the language of Section 10 of the Divorce Act, it is abundantly made clear that the husband may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court for grant of decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. No ground other than...", "Decision": "19. In the result, we refuse to bestow our confirmation on the decree of divorce passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar. We, therefore, reject the Reference and dismiss the original Marriage Petition No. 3 of 1997 with", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155134/ | I(2002)DMC536, AIR 2000 BOMBAY 369, 2000 A I H C 4122, (2001) 2 HINDULR 412, (2000) 4 CIVLJ 292, (2002) 1 DMC 536, (2000) 3 MAH LJ 822, (2001) 1 MARRILJ 86, (2000) 3 ALLMR 554 (BOM), (2000) BOM CR 377, 2000 (3) BOM LR 339, 2000 BOM LR 3 339", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion", "Judgment Year": 2000, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: I(2002)DMC536, AIR 2000 BOMBAY 369, 2000 A I H C 4122, (2001) 2 HINDULR 412, (2000) 4 CIVLJ 292, (2002) 1 DMC 536, (2000) 3 MAH LJ 822, (2001) 1 MARRILJ 86, (2000) 3 ALLMR 554 (BOM), (2000) BOM CR 377, 2000 (3) BOM LR 339, 2000 BOM LR 3 339", "Kanoon Doc ID": "155134", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155134/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Smt.J.H.Veronica @ J.H. Manila vs Mr.D.Anil Kumar Son Of Late Doreraja on 24 March, 2022", "Case Number": "MFA No.103466 OF 2017", "Judgment Date": "2022-03-24", "Judges": "S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, J., K.S. Hemalekha, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 16, Section 2, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. The present appeal is filed by the estranged wife assailing the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2017 passed in MC No.163/2016 on the file of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari ('Family Court', for short), whereby the learned Judge dismissed the petition filed by the wife under Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 (for short, 'Act'). 2. Parties herein are referred to as wife and husband for the sake of convenience.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The present appeal is filed by the estranged wife assailing the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2017 passed in MC No.163/2016 on the file of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari ('Family Court', for short), whereby the learned Judge dismissed the petition filed by the wife under Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 (for short, 'Act').", "Issues": "5. The Family Court on the basis of the pleadings framed following points for consideration; POINTS 1. Whether the petitioner/ wife proves that the respondent/ husband has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with respondent ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce as prayed for? 3. What Order ? 6. The wife in order to substantiate her case examined herself as PW.1 and one witness as PW.2 and got marked 22 documents at Ex.P.1 to 22. On the other hand, the respondent examined himself as RW.1 and one witness as RW.2 and got marked Ex.R.1. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant the points that arises for consideration are; POINTS 1. Whether the application I.A. No.2/2019 seeking for additional documents needs...", "Petitioner Argument": "10. In addition to the various contentions urged in the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that during the pendency of this appeal, the husband has repeatedly assaulted the wife and the complaint was also registered before the Women's Police Station, Ballari and on such complainant, the Jurisdictional Police has warned the husband and he has given an undertaking that he will not harm or cause any injury to 7 the wife. On this ground, the learned counsel for the appellant has filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC seeking to produce certain additional documents in order to substantiate that the wife is subjected to cruelty by the husband even during the pendency of the appeal. The affidavit accompanying the application for production of documents reads as under; 1. I state that, believing he giving the undertaking, I went back to stay with him but, unfortunately it was repeated and on 08.01.2016 he assaulted me and tried to kill me by throttling my neck. 2. I state that, in the apprehension of the acts...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring the family, including battering, sexual abuse of female children in the household, dowry related violence, marital rape, female genital mutilation and other traditional practices harmful to women. . .'' In the case of, \" Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University \", (1996) 3 SCC 545: (AIR 1996 SC 1011), the Supreme Court, in its recent decision, has held, as under (atp. 1020 of AIR): \" Human Rights are derived from the dignity and worth inherent in the human person. Human rights and fundamental freedoms have been reiterated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are inter dependent and have mutual reinforcement. The human rights for women including girl child are, therefore, inalienable, integral and individual part of the universal human rights. The full development of personality and fundamental freedoms and equal participation by women in political, social and economic and cultural life are concomitants for national development, social and family stability and growth - cultural, social and economical. All forms of discrimination on grounds of gender is violative of fundamental freedoms and human rights. 24.A. Being a matter relating to dissolution of marriage among Christians...", "Decision": "iii) Petition filed under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act is hereby allowed and the marriage solemnized on 08.02.2011 is dissolved.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/135035113/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; adultery", "Judgment Year": 2022, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "135035113", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/135035113/", "Chunks Indexed": 18 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Dexter S. Anthony vs June P. Anthony And Anr. on 21 November, 1984", "Case Number": "No. 388 of 1984", "Judgment Date": "1984-11-21", "Judges": "R. Sengottuvelan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 2, Section 3, Section 4, Section 6, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The reference in the above Diary No. 388 of 1984 raises an interesting question relating to the matrimonial jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner presented an application under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act for the relief of divorce of the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent. In paragraph 6 of the application it is stated as follows: After the marriage the petitioner and the respondent lived and cohabitated as husband and wife first at Little Mount, Saidapet, Madras, for five years, and then at Gunidy, Madras, for three years and lastly at Kennedy Valley, Moosaranpet, Madras-600 091, until February, 1983, when the respondent left the petitioner in the following circumstances.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The reference in the above Diary No. 388 of 1984 raises an interesting question relating to the matrimonial jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner presented an application under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act for the relief of divorce of the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent. In paragraph 6 of the application it is stated as follows:", "Issues": "On the question whether the District Courts should be allowed a jurisdiction in divorce cases, there was a difference of opinion. The main reason why the Select Committee had given this jurisdiction was that the refusal of it would amount to a denial of relief to large classes of persons affected by the Bill. It would be a mere mockery of Europeans and East Indians in distant cities, and Native Christians in mofussil villages, to tell them to come to the High Courts in the Presidency towns for judgments of divorce. It is however said that the District Courts are not equal to those duties. That argument is one which should be looked upon with great distrust. If it be established that certain new legal rights and remedies should be created for the benefit of any class of Her Majesty's subjects, and the Indian Courts are incompetent to administer them,...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "10. For the above reasons I am not inclined to agree with Balasubrahmanyan, J. in his conclusion that in cases of applications under Sections 10 , 18 and 23 both the High Court and the District Court concerned are vested with the concurrent jurisdiction. The contention that this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction had been negatived by Sadasivam, J. in O.M.S.No. 13 of 1963, Sethuraman, J. in Diary No. 1680 of 1974 and Fakir Mohammed, J. in O.M.S.No. l of 1978. The learned Judges in the abovesaid three cases have taken into consideration the proviso to Clause 35 of the Letters Patent and the definition of 'Court' occurring in Section 3(4) of the Act and negatived the plea that this Court is to exercise concurrent jurisdiction along with the District Court concerned in matters arising under Sections 10 , 18 and 23 . I am inclined to agree with the preponderence of Judicial opinion in this regard and hold that in view of the fact that the petitioner and the respondent have last resided within the jurisdiction of the District...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1664293/ | (1985)2MLJ200", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 1984, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1985)2MLJ200", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1664293", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1664293/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "P.L.Shaju vs Anitha on 9 October, 2007", "Case Number": "Mat.Appeal.No. 108 of 2008", "Judgment Date": "2007-10-09", "Judges": "V.K.Mohanan, J., K.Harilal, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 18, Section 3", "Legal Topics": "Non Consummation; Nullity Sec19; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.No.529 of 2003 on the files of the Family Court, Thrissur. He is the husband of the respondent herein. The above O.P. was filed under Sec.10(vii) and (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 on the ground that the respondent has wilfully refused to consummate the marriage and the marriage has, therefore, not been consummated and the non-consummation of the marriage amounted to an act of cruelty to him also. Both parties are Roman Catholic in Christian Religion. Their marriage was solemnized on 19/1/2000 in accordance with the religious customary rites and ceremonies. At the time of marriage, the appellant was working in a construction company in Mat. Appeal No. 108 of 2008 -: 2 :- Sharjah. 28 days after the marriage, he returned to Sharjah for joining duty. Thereafter, he came back to India on leave on 11/4/2001 and returned to Sharjah on 1/7/2001. Again, he came on leave to India on 11/9/2002 and returned to Sharjah on 20/10/2002. Then, he again, came on leave to India on 9/4/2003 and this petition was filed on 11/6/2003. Though three years have been elapsed since the solemnization of the marriage and he came on leave twice and cohabited as husband and wife for a substantial period, the respondent had been wilfully refusing to consummate the marriage...", "Fact/ Respondent": "The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.No.529 of 2003 on the files of the Family Court, Thrissur. He is the husband of the respondent herein. The above O.P. was filed under Sec.10(vii) and (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 on the ground that the respondent has wilfully refused to consummate the marriage and the marriage has, therefore, not been consummated and the non-consummation of the marriage amounted to an act of cruelty to him also. Both parties are Roman Catholic in Christian Religion. Their marriage was solemnized on 19/1/2000 in accordance with the religious customary rites and ceremonies. At the time of marriage, the appellant was working in a construction company in Mat. Appeal No. 108 of 2008 -: 2 :- Sharjah. 28 days after the marriage, he returned to Sharjah for joining duty. Thereafter, he came back to India on leave on 11/4/2001 and returned to Sharjah on 1/7/2001. Again, he came on leave to India on 11/9/2002 and returned to Sharjah on 20/10/2002. Then, he again, came on leave to India on 9/4/2003 and this petition was filed on 11/6/2003. Though three years have been elapsed since the solemnization of the marriage and he came on leave twice...", "Issues": "8. In view of the rival contentions raised at the Bar, the point to be considered is, whether the appellant had succeeded in proving that the respondent had wilfully refused to Mat. Appeal No. 108 of 2008 -: 8 :- consummate the marriage with him and as a result of that, the marriage has not been consummated?", "Petitioner Argument": "5. We have heard Sri. Dilip J. Akkara, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. M.S. Narayanan, the learned counsel or the respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant advanced arguments challenging the findings whereby the court below dismissed the Original Petition. He fervently attacked the finding that the marriage had been consummated. According to him, the said finding is contrary to the admissions in the pleadings of the respondent. The respondent, in her pleadings, made a complaint admitting imminent ejaculation of the appellant during the course of intercourse. That admission would amount to an approval of the appellant's case that the marriage has not been consummated so far. But the learned Family Court Judge failed to appreciate the said admission well Mat. Appeal No. 108 of 2008 -: 6 :- inferable from the pleadings in its correct perspective. The learned counsel further drew our attention to Exts.A3 and A4 medical reports and contends that the said reports obviously proved that the appellant is a physically and sexually quite normal man having capacity to have sexual intercourse. So,...", "Respondent Argument": "7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent advanced arguments to justify the findings of the court below whereby the Original Petition was dismissed. The learned counsel drew our attention to the respondent's pleadings and contended that in the written statement she has emphatically denied the non-consummation due to his wilful refusal alleged by the appellant. It is true that she made an allegation of imminent ejaculation against the appellant. But the non- consummation alleged by the appellant and imminent ejaculation alleged by the respondent are entirely different and Mat. Appeal No. 108 of 2008 -: 7 :- distinct. The non-consummation cannot be presumed or inferred from the respondent's allegation of imminent ejaculation in view of her oral evidence. He further invited our attention to her oral evidence during the course of cross- examination and pointed out that she unequivocally deposed that the effective and successful intercourse had been effected thrice and emphatically denied the question suggesting that effective intercourse had never been taken place during the period of cohabitation. He pointed out that if the marriage had been...", "Factors to be Considered": "18. More importantly, one of the basic principles of civil law is that the plaintiff must plead and prove his case. He has to stand on his own legs of pleadings. Certainly, he can make use of the inconsistency in the pleadings of the defendant to get assurance of case pleaded by him. In the instant case, it is pertinent to note that appellant has no case that he is suffering from imminent ejaculation and thereby the marriage has not been consummated. If material facts constituting cause of action are not averred in the plaint, the suit must fail. In H. D. Mat. Appeal No. 108 of 2008 -: 15 :- Vashishta v. M/s. Glaxo Laboratories (I.) (P.) Ltd. , (AIR 1979 S.C. 134), no case can be decided on the grounds or facts outside the pleadings. ( Trojan and Co., v. Nagappa - AIR 1953 S.C. 235). Plaintiff/petitioner cannot be permitted to take up a case which is wholly inconsistent with what was pleaded earlier (GS Mahalaxmi v. Shah Ranchhoddas - AIR 1970 S.C. 2025). Cardinal Rule of Law is that evidence is to be given only on plea properly raised in the pleadings and not in contradiction to...", "Decision": "Hence this Mat. Appeal is dismissed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140046761/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Non Consummation", "All Grounds": "non_consummation; nullity_sec19; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2007, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "140046761", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140046761/", "Chunks Indexed": 18 }, { "Court": "Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)", "Case Title": "N. Sarada Mani vs G. Alexander And Anr. on 21 October, 1997", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1997-10-21", "Judges": "P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 20", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is an application filed by the wife under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') seeking divorce on the ground that her husband, the first respondent, is living in adultery with the second respondent and that he treated her with cruelty, beating her and threatening to kill her. The first respondent-husband, while admitting his marriage with the petitioner on 28-6-1989, denied that he received any dowry nor treated the petitioner with any cruelty. He also further denied that he had any illicit intimacy with the second respondent. He alleges that the petitioner herself deserted him two years back. Of course, he does not oppose the petition for divorce, but rests con tended by saying that because of the suspicious nature of the petitioner, he got vexed and therefore, he also prays the Court to pass a decree for divorce declaring dissolution of marriage between them. After filing the counter, he remained ex parte during the course of the trial. 2. The second respondent in her counter-affidavit states that she is a married woman living with her husband in 257, Housing Board Colony at Rajahmundry. The allegation that when the first respondent took the petitioner after marriage to his house in Hyderabad, to her surprise and dismay, she found the second respondent living in...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is an application filed by the wife under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') seeking divorce on the ground that her husband, the first respondent, is living in adultery with the second respondent and that he treated her with cruelty, beating her and threatening to kill her. The first respondent-husband, while admitting his marriage with the petitioner on 28-6-1989, denied that he received any dowry nor treated the petitioner with any cruelty. He also further denied that he had any illicit intimacy with the second respondent. He alleges that the petitioner herself deserted him two years back. Of course, he does not oppose the petition for divorce, but rests con tended by saying that because of the suspicious nature of the petitioner, he got vexed and therefore, he also prays the Court to pass a decree for divorce declaring dissolution of marriage between them. After filing the counter, he remained ex parte during the course of the trial.", "Issues": "12. Argumentum inconvenienti, principle of hardship, absurdity, have no application, while interpreting the statutes. But, however the cardinal principle is that the statute should be interpreted in such a way as to avoid absurdity and to have harmonious effect. The Court must construe a section, unless it is impossible to do so to make it workable rather than make it meaningless. Thus, an attempt must always be made to reconcile the relevant provision as to advance the remedy by the statute. Therefore, where the literal meaning of the words in a statutory provision, would manifestly defeat its object by making a part of it meaningless and ineffective, it is legitimate and even necessary to adopt the liberal construction so as to give meaning to all parts of the provisions and to make whole of it effective and operativer Especially in cases of Pre-constitutional statutes. Courts are to find and follow...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "7. We are aware that it is well settled principle of law that while resorting to interpreting some of the provisions of a statute, Courts should be loath and adopt a construction which tends to make any part of the statute otious. Courts should always strive for arriving at a balanced view by adopting the rule of liberal construction so as to ensure its full meaning to all parts of the provision and make as far as possible the whole of it effective and operative. The Courts also would not usually disperse or restructure the Section unless it is essential or it is the only rational method by which the whole of it can be given its full meaning and content. Even when there is causes omissus, it is for the Parliament than Courts to remedy the defect. But, when bad and defective draftsmanship is noticed by the Court very often, it becomes imperative for the Court to probe into the Objects and Reasons and the intention of the Legislature to give effect to the provision instead of declaring it.as illegal or unconstitutional. There is a growing necessity for this attitude in changed times to cope up with the aspirations...", "Decision": "15. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the grounds which are available to the wife under Section 10 should also be made available to the husband in a petition filed by him seeking divorce and the Parliament should immediately take note of the discrimination writ large :between the grounds available to the wife and the husband in a petition for divorce. It is for the Parliament to take note of this anamoly and fill-in the void by suitable legislation. A pre-constitution discrimination by the provision in Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, it is rightly held by the Full Bench in Youth Welfare Federation case (supra), cannot survive the test of equality between men and women as envisaged under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. Unless special provision is made for men and women as contemplated under Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India and which passes the test of reasonableness for survival it is irresistible that men and women have to be provided similar grounds for dissolution of marriage except one which is...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/850953/ | AIR1998AP157, 1997(6)ALT270, AIR 1998 ANDHRA PRADESH 157, (1998) 1 MARRILJ 159, (1997) 6 ANDH LT 270, (1998) 1 APLJ 445, (1997) 6 ANDHLD 740", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1997, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1998AP157, 1997(6)ALT270, AIR 1998 ANDHRA PRADESH 157, (1998) 1 MARRILJ 159, (1997) 6 ANDH LT 270, (1998) 1 APLJ 445, (1997) 6 ANDHLD 740", "Kanoon Doc ID": "850953", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/850953/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Punjab-Haryana High Court", "Case Title": "Lorna vs Alison Leen And Anr. on 10 January, 2003", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2003-01-10", "Judges": "J.S. Khehar, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty; Wife Specific", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The petitioner Lorna wife of Alison Leen filed a petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the dissolution of her marriage with Alison Leen. There is no dispute that the petitioner Lorna as well as her husband Alison Leen are Christians and as such their marriage could only be dissolved under the provisions of the Act. In order to substantiate her claim for dissolution of marriage, Lorna accused her husband of being guilty of adultery coupled with cruelty as well as for having committed sodomy with her. It is obvious from a perusal of the Section 10 of the Act that the petitioner had based her claim for dissolution of marriage on two separate and distinct pleas available to her under Section 10 of the Act. 2. In the petition filed by Lorna, she asserted that she married Alison Leen (respondent No. 1) in a Church at Ambala Cantt. on 5.1.1994. After her marriage she commenced to reside with respondent No. 1 at Delhi in a joint family. The said joint family comprised of, the family of A. Leen (father of Alison Leen respondent No. 1), the family of Alison Leen (respondent No. 1) and the family of Michael Leen (brother of respondent No. 1). In the petition for...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The petitioner Lorna wife of Alison Leen filed a petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the dissolution of her marriage with Alison Leen. There is no dispute that the petitioner Lorna as well as her husband Alison Leen are Christians and as such their marriage could only be dissolved under the provisions of the Act. In order to substantiate her claim for dissolution of marriage, Lorna accused her husband of being guilty of adultery coupled with cruelty as well as for having committed sodomy with her. It is obvious from a perusal of the Section 10 of the Act that the petitioner had based her claim for dissolution of marriage on two separate and distinct pleas available to her under Section 10 of the Act.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "2. In the petition filed by Lorna, she asserted that she married Alison Leen (respondent No. 1) in a Church at Ambala Cantt. on 5.1.1994. After her marriage she commenced to reside with respondent No. 1 at Delhi in a joint family. The said joint family comprised of, the family of A. Leen (father of Alison Leen respondent No. 1), the family of Alison Leen (respondent No. 1) and the family of Michael Leen (brother of respondent No. 1). In the petition for dissolution of marriage, Lorna impleaded Meryelen Leen (wife of the younger brother of Alison Leen i.e. wife of Micheal Leen as respondent No. 2). The case set up by the petitioner is that her husband Alison Leen had developed an illicit relationship with the wife of his younger brother i.e. with Meryelen Leen. It is claimed that even the father of Alison Leen confirmed to the petitioner that the younger son of Micheal Leen born to Meryelen Leen was from the loins of respondent No. 1. It is alleged that on account of protestations, made by the...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "10. The point which we wish to make is in respect of the propriety of the procedure prescribed in Section 17 of the Act requiring the confirmation of a decree of divorce passed by a Distt. Judge, by a bench of the High Court comprising of at least three judges. Had it not been for the requirement of confirmation envisaged under Section 17 of the Act, the instant petition for dissolution of marriage filed by Lorna would have at tained finality as far back as on 5.2.1996 when the Distt. Judge, Ambala accepted the petition filed by Lorna. The requirement of confirmation of the decree under Section 17 of the Act delayed the culmination of the adjudication of the matter for about seven years. It needs to be noticed that a Dist. Judge is competent to pass a decree of dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , which does not require confirmation by the High Court. In fact, the Distt. Judge while exercising criminal jurisdiction as a Sessions Judge can pass orders of conviction under various penal...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/294953/ | (2003)135PLR52", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty; wife_specific", "Judgment Year": 2003, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (2003)135PLR52", "Kanoon Doc ID": "294953", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/294953/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "M.T. Carunya vs S. Joseph Chellappa on 15 September, 1995", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1995-09-15", "Judges": "Srinivasan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 22, Section 3, Section 32, Section 4, Section 479, Section 488, Section 494, Section 497, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The wife is the petitioner. She has sought divorce on the ground that the husband is guilty of bigamy with adultery. The husband remained ex-parte. The wife has given evidence deposing that the husband has married another woman. The learned District Judge, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the wife, granted a decree for divorce. The said decree has come up before us for confirmation. 2. The amicus curiae, appointed for the respondent has raised a contention that there is no allegation in the original petition or proof in the evidence of any adultery on the part of the husband. According to him, the evidence makes out only bigamy and not bigamy with adultery. For this purpose, he places reliance on the definition of adultery in Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. Under that Section, the necessary ingredient is that the woman concerned is the wife of another man. According to learned Counsel, in this case, the husband is only having, ifatall,intercoursewithawomanwhomhehas married and she not being the wife of another man, he is not guilty of adultery as defined by Indian Penal Code .", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The wife is the petitioner. She has sought divorce on the ground that the husband is guilty of bigamy with adultery. The husband remained ex-parte. The wife has given evidence deposing that the husband has married another woman. The learned District Judge, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the wife, granted a decree for divorce. The said decree has come up before us for confirmation.", "Issues": "\"Bigamy was defined as the marriage of any person during the life of the former husband or wife, whether the second marriage shall have taken place within His Majesty's dominion or elsewhere.\" The learned Judge also referred to the following passage in Rattigan on Law of Divorce in India at p. 24, which read : \"19. .......In Webster's New English Dictionary, 1888, the following meaning is given : violation of marriage bed; voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with one of the opposite sex, whether unmarried or married to another; (the former case being technically designated single, the latter double adultery).\" The same meaning is given in Fowler's Concise Oxford Dictionary :", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "12. Applying the above principles of law, we find that once it is proved beyond doubt that the husband has married another woman and is continuously living with her, thereby the husband is guilty of bigamy with adultery. There is no evidence to the contra. Husband has not chosen to cross examine the wife of her deposition. The view taken by the District Judge that the wife is entitled to a decree of divorce is fully justified and we are upholding the same. Hence, the decree passed by the District Judge is confirmed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/260116/ | I(1996)DMC562, (1996)IMLJ409", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 8, 9)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1995, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: I(1996)DMC562, (1996)IMLJ409", "Kanoon Doc ID": "260116", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/260116/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Mary Latha Regini vs Maria James on 9 January, 2026", "Case Number": "I.D.O.P.No.86 of 2018", "Judgment Date": "2026-01-09", "Judges": "P.Velmurugan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Family Courts Act, 1984; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 19, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019 made in I.D.O.P. No.86 of 2018 on the file of the learned Family Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, whereby the marriage between the appellant and the respondent solemnised on 08.05.2003 was dissolved under Section 10(ix)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, on the ground of cruelty. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the at Nagercoil, in I.D.O.P. No.86 of 2018, by which the respondent– husband’s petition under Section 10(ix)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, came to be allowed and the marital tie between the parties was severed. The wife, who was the respondent before the learned Family Court, is the appellant before this Court.", "Fact/ Respondent": "This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019 made in I.D.O.P. No.86 of 2018 on the file of the learned Family Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, whereby the marriage between the appellant and the respondent solemnised on 08.05.2003 was dissolved under Section 10(ix)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, on the ground of cruelty.", "Issues": "3. The appeal raises, in essence, the recurring question as to when a spouse’s protest, suspicion and complaint regarding the conduct and association of the other spouse crosses the line and becomes “cruelty” in law, and equally, whether such protest, if founded upon some admitted factual substratum, can at all be branded as reckless and unfounded so as to furnish a ground for divorce. Case of the Husband before the learned Family Court: 13. Before the learned Family Court, the husband examined himself as P.W.1 and produced Exs.P1 to P5. The wife examined herself as R.W.1 and produced Exs.R1 to R4. The learned Family Court framed issues, inter alia, as to (i) whether the husband had proved cruelty, (ii) whether he had proved desertion, and (iii) whether he was entitled to a decree of divorce and consequential reliefs. 14. Ultimately, while holding that desertion was not proved, the learned Family...", "Petitioner Argument": "5. According to the husband, though the marriage subsisted in form, the appellant-wife never showed compassion, understanding, true love or affection. It is alleged that she persistently humiliated him, both at home and in public, including in the presence of neighbours, strangers and colleagues, by levelling wild accusations of adultery, and sodomy with young children, without any foundation. The husband would allege that these accusations were figments of imagination, for which she refused to correct herself despite his exhortations. 6. The husband further alleged that after the appellant took employment at Vaniyakudi, she gradually withdrew from the matrimonial home and ultimately left in the year 2004 along with her personal belongings and the minor children, ceased to discharge marital obligations, never cooked or cared for him, and refused to return to the matrimonial home, thereby causing mental cruelty and desertion. On these allegations, the husband approached the learned Family Court seeking dissolution of the marriage on the twin grounds of cruelty and desertion. 4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/02/2026 06:05:06 pm ) C.M.A.(MD)No.606 of 2021 Case of the Wife before...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "21. The pivot of the learned Family Court’s finding on cruelty is that the wife allegedly levelled baseless imputations of immoral/unnatural conduct and undesirable association with the young man Ajith and, without any foundational material, branded the 6 AIR 1981 SC 1972 12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/02/2026 06:05:06 pm ) C.M.A.(MD)No.606 of 2021 husband as one having sexual relations with young boys. Proceeding on that premise, the learned Family Court held that such aspersions constituted grave mental cruelty. 22. However, a careful reading of the cross-examination of R.W.1 (wife) and P.W.1 (husband), which has been extracted in the lower Court judgment, presents a more nuanced picture. R.W.1, in her cross- examination, has consistently deposed that the husband and the boy Ajith used to go together wherever they went. The husband used to visit a certain house at Kootumangalam frequently and return late in the night. The husband admitted the said Ajith in a school at Pallam as the guardian of that boy. She approached the village elders and the Village President, and the President warned the husband and Ajith’s family. She had been raising these issues not only at home, but also before the schools where they worked and...", "Decision": "43. The judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019 passed in I.D.O.P. No.86 of 2018 on the file of the learned Family Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, in so far as it grants a decree for dissolution of marriage between the appellant and the respondent, are hereby set aside.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190233259/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 364)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "190233259", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190233259/", "Chunks Indexed": 14 }, { "Court": "Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)", "Case Title": "Amarthala Hemalatha vs Dasari Balu Rajendra Varaprasad on 5 March, 1990", "Case Number": "O.P. No. 88/82", "Judgment Date": "1990-03-05", "Judges": "Jagannadha Rao, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 13, Section 14, Section 17, Section 22, Section 24, Section 25, Section 26, Section 27, Section 28, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Adultery; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree for Judicial Separation Granted", "Fact/ Petitioner": "This reference application has come before us under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act 1869 (hereinafter called the Act) for confirmation of the order of lower Court in regard to the dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. 3. It is true that under Section 13(1)(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 as well as under Sec.27(1)(i) of the Special Marriage Act 1954 parties to the marriage become entitled to a decree for divorce if they have not resumed cohabitation for a specified period after the passing of a decree for judicial separation. We have to decide whether the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 contains any such provision and if it does not, whether S. 7 of the Act which permits recourse to certain principles of English law to be applied in India, permits the application of current English statute law in India..", "Fact/ Respondent": "This reference application has come before us under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act 1869 (hereinafter called the Act) for confirmation of the order of lower Court in regard to the dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent.", "Issues": "4. The point therefore arises whether the matter arising under the Indian Divorce Act 1869 the District Court could pass a decree for divorce, subject to confirmation of the High Court, at the instance of the wife merely because there has not been resumption of cohabitation for more than two years after the husband obtained adecree for judicial separation? 5. As the parties were unrepresented we requested Sri C. Sadasiva Reddy to assist the Court as amicus curiae. It may be noted that earlier under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1950, in England a party could obtain diverge, if, for three years after the decree for judicial separation there had been no resumption of cohabitation between the wife and the husband. The said provisions have been further liberalised in the Matrimonial \"Causes Act 1973 as stated above. But the question is whether Sec. 7 of the Act permits resort to the...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "22. For the aforesaid reasons, we refuse to confirm the decree for dissolution of the marriage on the grounds mentioned in the O.P. but we however pass only a decree of Judicial separation. The petitioner may however pursue her remedies for divorce in accordance with S. 10 of the Act. The reference is disposed of accordingly.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/672495/ | AIR1990AP220, II(1991)DMC194, AIR 1990 ANDHRA PRADESH 220", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; adultery; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1990, "Relief Status": "judicial_separation", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1990AP220, II(1991)DMC194, AIR 1990 ANDHRA PRADESH 220", "Kanoon Doc ID": "672495", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/672495/", "Chunks Indexed": 15 }, { "Court": "Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati", "Case Title": "Dr. G.M. Pradeep Kumar, Kadapa District vs Smt. Uma Maheswari, Proddatur on 2 January, 2025", "Case Number": "C.M.A.NO.650 OF 2008", "Judgment Date": "2025-01-02", "Judges": "Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty; Adultery", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "- (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel for the 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/husband, challenging the dismissal of the petition for divorce under Section 10 4 C.M.A.NO.650 OF 2008) of the Indian Divorce Act,1869 (in short „the Act‟) by order, dated 17.04.2008 passed in D.O.P.No.349 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/husband, challenging the dismissal of the petition for divorce under Section 10 4 C.M.A.NO.650 OF 2008) of the Indian Divorce Act,1869 (in short „the Act‟) by order, dated 17.04.2008 passed in D.O.P.No.349 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa.", "Issues": "8. Now the point that arises for determination is :-", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "1 (RNT,J & CGR,J C.M.A.NO.650 OF 2008) * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI *THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN + CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 650 OF 2008 % 02.01.2025 # Dr. G.M. Pradeep Kumar, Kadapa District ......Petitioner And: $ Smt Uma Maheswari Proddatur ....Respondent. !Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy ^Counsel for the respondent : Sri Nagaraju Naguru Head Note: ? Cases referred: NIL 2 (RNT,J & CGR,J C.M.A.NO.650 OF 2008) HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI **** CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 650 OF 2008 DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 02.01.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair Yes/No copy of the Judgment? ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN,J 3 (RNT,J & CGR,J C.M.A.NO.650 OF 2008) APHC010310802008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3509] (Special...", "Factors to be Considered": "\"Whether divorce can be sought on the ground of 'cruelty' or/and 'desertion' under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act or only on the ground of adultery ?\" 9. Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act reads as under :- \"10. Grounds for dissolution of marriage.--(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001 (51 of 2001), may, on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent- (i) has committed adultery; or (ii) has ceased to be Christian by conversion to another religion; or (iii) has been incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of not less than two years 6 (RNT,J & CGR,J C.M.A.NO.650 OF 2008) immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or ¹[(iv) x x x x] (v) has, for a period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form; or (vi) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally...", "Decision": "12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The order, dated 17.04.2008 passed in D.O.P.No.349 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Court for fresh consideration of the petition for divorce, with due notice to the respondent/wife, in accordance with law, within a period of one (01) year from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18226488/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty; adultery", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "18226488", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18226488/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Susanta Kumar Mitra vs Sm. Himangshu Prova Mitra on 24 May, 1963", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1963-05-24", "Judges": "P.B. Mukharji, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. These proceedings have come up before us for confirmation under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. The learned Judge decreed the suit ex parte without costs subject to confirmation by this Court. The petition was by the husband against the wife for dissolution of the marriage. 2. The petitioner examined himself and called his mother as a witness. On that evidence the learned Judge gave the decree as aforesaid.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. These proceedings have come up before us for confirmation under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. The learned Judge decreed the suit ex parte without costs subject to confirmation by this Court. The petition was by the husband against the wife for dissolution of the marriage.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "3. The learned Judge treats this petition as one under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act on the ground of adultery coupled with desertion without reasonable excuse for more than two years. Unfortunately he has failed to notice that the word \"adultery\" was not even alleged in the petition. Paragraph 5 of the petition says that \"the respondent used to bring people into the house and used to pass nights with them\". That, in our opinion. Is not enough assertion and allegation of the actual act of adultery. Adultery must at least be averred and alleged in the petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act and reasonably proved. In fact the petitioner in his evidence also uses the same expression, namely, \"my wife used to bring young men into the house and spend nights with them.\" It is true that towards the end of his evidence he says that he had not condoned the \"adultery\" and that his application was not collusive. But then before any question of condonation of adultery arises it must first at least...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50670/ | AIR1964CAL33, 68CWN683, AIR 1964 CALCUTTA 33", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1963, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1964CAL33, 68CWN683, AIR 1964 CALCUTTA 33", "Kanoon Doc ID": "50670", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50670/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "M. Barnard vs G.H. Barnard on 31 January, 1928", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1928-01-31", "Judges": "Costello, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 176, Section 2, Section 3, Section 4, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a petition by Margaret Barnard praying for a dissolution of her marriage with the respondent George Henry Barnard on the ground of his adultery with a woman unknown on 17th November 1927. The petitioner was married to the respondent on 18fch October 1917 according to the rights of the Christian Church at the Wesleyan Churoh at Jhansi. At the time of the marriage the respondent was domiciled in England and before her marriage the petitioner was also domiciled in England and after the marriage they retained their English domicile. It was duly averred in the petition that the respondent at the time of the presentation of the petition was domiciled in England. It may therefore be taken that when this petition was filed both the parties to the marriage were domiciled in England. Both the parties to the marriage profess the Christian religion. It appears from the evidence of the petitioner that after her marriage she and the respondent lived and cohabited together first of all at Jhansi and afterwards at No. 5, Carnac Street, Calcutta and finally at No. 9 Rawdon Street in Calcutta, and therefore the place where the parties last resided together was within the jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The suit was brought under the Statute 16 and 17, Geo. V. Ch. 40,...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a petition by Margaret Barnard praying for a dissolution of her marriage with the respondent George Henry Barnard on the ground of his adultery with a woman unknown on 17th November 1927. The petitioner was married to the respondent on 18fch October 1917 according to the rights of the Christian Church at the Wesleyan Churoh at Jhansi. At the time of the marriage the respondent was domiciled in England and before her marriage the petitioner was also domiciled in England and after the marriage they retained their English domicile. It was duly averred in the petition that the respondent at the time of the presentation of the petition was domiciled in England. It may therefore be taken that when this petition was filed both the parties to the marriage were domiciled in England. Both the parties to the marriage profess the Christian religion. It appears from the evidence of the petitioner that after her marriage she and the respondent lived and cohabited together first of all at Jhansi and afterwards at No. 5, Carnac Street, Calcutta and finally at No. 9 Rawdon Street in Calcutta, and therefore the place where the parties last resided together was within...", "Issues": "4. At the end of the first day's hearing I was some what dubious as to whether or not adultery on the part of the respondent has been sufficiently established. At that stage of the case the evidence merely came to this : that the respondent on the evening of 17th November 1927 had come to the Continental Hotel in Calcutta and had there entered in the Registration Book the names \"Mr. and Mrs. Barnard\" and the evidence of a clerk from the hotel indicated that the respondent stayed for the night at that hotel with a lady who was not the petitioner. The khansama from the hotel in question was called to say that on the next morning, somewhere about 9-30, he was summoned to room No. 77 (which was the number of the room set against the names of Mr. and Mrs. Barnard) and that there he found...", "Petitioner Argument": "5. Counsel for the petitioner-invited me to infer from those facts alone that the respondent had in fact committed adultery, but I was inclined to take the view that had the case stopped at that point the matter would have fallen within the decision of Lord Merivale in the case of Farnham v. Farnham (1925) 41 T.L.R. 543. There the learned President said: It was impossible to make a decree on the case as first presented to me. It came before the Court as if a married man who wished to he divorced had only to go to an hotel with a woman to achieve that end, and that, if he did so, the Court was of necessity obliged to grant a decree. If the Court were so to hold it would be the greatest possible encouragement to collusive proceedings. Divorce by consent is not part of the law in England. 6. In that case the learned President gave an opportunity to the petitioner in the case to call further evidence and following that precedent I allowed the petitioner in...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "32. I accordingly pronounce a decree for dissolution of marriage of the petitioner and respondent. There will be the usual decree nisi with costs against the respondent and also an order that the respondent shall pay to the petitioner alimony at the rate of Rs. 250 per mensem pending further order.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/106077/ | AIR1928CAL657, AIR 1928 CALCUTTA 657", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1928, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1928CAL657, AIR 1928 CALCUTTA 657", "Kanoon Doc ID": "106077", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/106077/", "Chunks Indexed": 16 }, { "Court": "Patna High Court", "Case Title": "Anita Ruby Paul vs Sandeep Paul And Anr. on 22 August, 1996", "Case Number": "O.P. No. 1", "Judgment Date": "1996-08-22", "Judges": "P.K. Deb, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion; Adultery; Constitutional Validity", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The petitioner, Anita Ruby Paul and the Opposite party No. 1, Sandeep Paul, both the Christians and they were married to each other on negotiation of both the families and marriage was solemnised on 22.2.1990 at All Saints Church Chaibasa. At the time of marriage, the petitioner Anita Ruby Paul was 25 years of old while the respondent No. 1 Sandeep Paul was 26 years of age. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of marriage, the petitioner's parents spent a huge amount and gifted many domestic articles for her use in Sasural, such as Double Bed, Dressing Table, Big Iron Trunk, Television, Mixy, Gas Oven, Dinner set and clothes etc. After the marriage, the petitioner went to her Sasural situated at Lucknow alongwith all her articles as mentioned above on 24.2.1990. Over had above the above articles, it is stated that the petitioner was given a cash of Rs, 20, 000/- to purchase Godrej Steel Almirah, Refrigerator and Sofa Set and the said cash was taken away by Opposite party No. 1, but the articles were never purchased. The started living together as husband and wife in the Sasural of the petitioner at Lucknow in the joint family alongwith parents of the O.P. No. 1. But soon after the petitioner was meeted with torture...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The petitioner, Anita Ruby Paul and the Opposite party No. 1, Sandeep Paul, both the Christians and they were married to each other on negotiation of both the families and marriage was solemnised on 22.2.1990 at All Saints Church Chaibasa. At the time of marriage, the petitioner Anita Ruby Paul was 25 years of old while the respondent No. 1 Sandeep Paul was 26 years of age. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of marriage, the petitioner's parents spent a huge amount and gifted many domestic articles for her use in Sasural, such as Double Bed, Dressing Table, Big Iron Trunk, Television, Mixy, Gas Oven, Dinner set and clothes etc. After the marriage, the petitioner went to her Sasural situated at Lucknow alongwith all her articles as mentioned above on 24.2.1990. Over had above the above articles, it is stated that the petitioner was given a cash of Rs, 20, 000/- to purchase Godrej Steel Almirah, Refrigerator and Sofa Set and the said cash was taken away by Opposite party No. 1, but the articles were never purchased. The started living together as husband and wife in the Sasural of the petitioner at Lucknow...", "Issues": "4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were named by this Court vide order dated 6.2.1996: (i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether the allegation of desertion as made by the applicant-wife is true? (iii) Whether the Opposite-party was living in adultery with Seema Srivastava and as such committed cruelty on the applicant-wife? (iv) What relief, if any, is the applicant entitled to? 5. For an on behalf of the petitioner, four witnesses have been examined including the petitioner herself and her brother Dr. Michad Lakra. Two other witnesses have been examined, who happened to be the friend of PW-2 who ad visited the house of PW-2 when allegedly the O.P. No. 1 appeared there and begged apology of his misdoings against the petitioner, Anita Ruby Paul. 6. For and on behalf of the Opposite party No. 1, three witnesses have...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion. | Constitutional Doctrine: Gender equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21; severance of discriminatory conditions requiring Christian wives to prove adultery coupled with cruelty/desertion (Ammini E.J. / Pragati Varghese).", "Decision": "19. In the present case, in the above context, I find that although a joint petition has been filed withdrawing their various allegations against each other but they remained adamant to their attitude of dissolution of marriage and to some extent cruelty to each other. I have already mentioned above that desertion is there from both the sides. It may be in larger degree by the petitioner and lesser degree by the Opposite party but the fact remains that both the spouses have withdrawn themselves from the Society of each other intentionally and wilfully resulting in breaking of the marriage tie for all practical purposes. I have already mentioned that despite the joint petition, the petitioner and the Opposite party No. 1 could prove the ground of desertion against each other and to some extent cruelty to each other and when the grounds of desertion and cruelty remained, although, not available independently without the charge of adultery, yet on discriminatory ground as contained under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, I held that present case is a fit one...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1489194/ | 1997(1)BLJR618", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion; adultery; constitutional_validity", "Judgment Year": 1996, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1997(1)BLJR618", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1489194", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1489194/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Debra Clare Seymour vs Pradeep Arnold Seymour on 1 April, 2002", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2002-04-01", "Judges": "J.D. Kapoor, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Adultery; Constitutional Validity; Desertion", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The parties are Christians. The petitioner wife had initially sought a decree for judicial separation on the ground of cruelty but subsequently converted it into a petition for dissolution of marriage though under Section 10 of the India Divorce Act, 1869, a Christian wife subjected to cruelty cannot seek divorce on the ground of cruelty alone unless it is accompanied with the ground of adultery whereas a Christian husband can dissolve the marriage on the ground of adultery alone. Relevant extracts of Section 10 are as under:- \"10. When husband may petition for dissolution Any husband may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court, praying that his marriage may be dissolved on the ground that his wife has, since the solemnization thereof, been guilty of adultery.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The parties are Christians. The petitioner wife had initially sought a decree for judicial separation on the ground of cruelty but subsequently converted it into a petition for dissolution of marriage though under Section 10 of the India Divorce Act, 1869, a Christian wife subjected to cruelty cannot seek divorce on the ground of cruelty alone unless it is accompanied with the ground of adultery whereas a Christian husband can dissolve the marriage on the ground of adultery alone. Relevant extracts of Section 10 are as under:-", "Issues": "18. Even the Supreme Court in Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane has unequivocally stated that cruelty charged must be of such a character as to cause in mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent. It was also pointed out that it was not necessary as is the requirement of English Law that the cruelty must be of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb or health or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. Harm or injury to health, reputation, the working character or the like would be an important consideration in determining whether the conduct of the respondent amounts to cruelty or not. 19. The Supreme Court also laid down the tests though these cannot be put in straight-jacket, to determine whether cruelty is...", "Petitioner Argument": "6. Case of the petitioner lies in moderate compass. The parties entered into the wedlock on 6th August, 1977 in the Catholic Church at Gole Dak Khana, New Delhi. After the marriage the petitioner stayed in Delhi while the respondent went to Chandigarh which was his place of business where he had an Intercom's Agency. The petitioner being unemployed was totally dependant upon the respondent. After waiting for the respondent to make arrangement for her stay at Chandigarh the petitioner went to Chandigarh and found the respondent occupying a huge Bungalow and sharing the same with his friend, though he had been representing to the petitioner that he was looking for house for her. It is alleged that shortly after the marriage the respondent had shown utter careless attitude towards his responsibilities and duties. 7. From the wedlock one male child was borne on 2nd June, 1978 in Chandigarh. It is alleged that no money for household expenses was given by the respondent to the petitioner nor any toys or clothes were bought by the respondent for their son. Even...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion. | Constitutional Doctrine: Gender equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21; severance of discriminatory conditions requiring Christian wives to prove adultery coupled with cruelty/desertion (Ammini E.J. / Pragati Varghese).", "Decision": "22. As a consequence the petition is allowed and marriage is dissolved. A decree of divorce in hereby passed", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/657513/ | 2002IVAD(DELHI)499, 98(2002)DLT34, II(2002)DMC144, 2002(63)DRJ375", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; adultery; constitutional_validity; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2002, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2002IVAD(DELHI)499, 98(2002)DLT34, II(2002)DMC144, 2002(63)DRJ375", "Kanoon Doc ID": "657513", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/657513/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Patna High Court", "Case Title": "Walter Ekka vs Jyoti Ekka on 8 December, 1993", "Case Number": "Suit No. 36 of 1987", "Judgment Date": "1993-12-08", "Judges": "G.C. Bharuka, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Nullity Sec19; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This reference is under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter the Act only) for confirmation of the decree of nullity of marriage dated 18-2-1991 made by the 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 36 of 1987. The aforesaid Title Suit had been filed by Walter Ekka (petitioner) inter alia, praying therein that his marriage with Jyoti Ekka (Opposite party) may be declared as null and void. The Opposite party (wife) in spite of service of notice on her as also publication of the same is local newspaper has not opted to contest the proceeding either in the trial court or before this Court. 2. I may first record the relevant facts pleaded by the petitioner for seeking the intended relief. The petitioner and the Opposite party both of whom are of Roman Catholic faith got married on 5th June, 1985, in Roman Catholic Church, Doranda. After marriage on 5th June, 1985, though the Opposite party came to the residence of the petitioner but showed a complete indifference towards the petitioner and only after 5 days she went back to her parent's house. When the petitioner, his mother and other family members went to her mother\"s house for persuading her to come back they were insulted and humiliated by use of abusive language....", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This reference is under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter the Act only) for confirmation of the decree of nullity of marriage dated 18-2-1991 made by the 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 36 of 1987. The aforesaid Title Suit had been filed by Walter Ekka (petitioner) inter alia, praying therein that his marriage with Jyoti Ekka (Opposite party) may be declared as null and void. The Opposite party (wife) in spite of service of notice on her as also publication of the same is local newspaper has not opted to contest the proceeding either in the trial court or before this Court.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "8. Though I share the view expressed by Mr. Dayal for making of effective provisions to give relief to a husband like the petitioner, who is in constant mental torture at the instance of or because of the behaviour of deterrent and uncompromising wife, but as held by the Supreme Court, I, in my judicial capacity, am unable to provide any remedy and the lead has to be taken by the Legislature. Despite my all sympathy towards the petitioner. I find myself unable to confirm the decree of dissolution as passed by the trial Court.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/367787/ | 1995(1)BLJR423", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; nullity_sec19; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1993, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1995(1)BLJR423", "Kanoon Doc ID": "367787", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/367787/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Jacob Mathew vs Mrs. Maya Philip Alias Annama And Anr. on 15 September, 1998", "Case Number": "O.P. No. 99/ 96", "Judgment Date": "1998-09-15", "Judges": "K.A. Mohammed Shafi, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14, Section 15, Section 19, Section 23, Section 25, Section 3, Section 34, Section 4, Section 43, Section 497, Section 5, Section 825", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This petition is filed by a Christian husband under Sections 10 and 34 of the Indian Divorce Act for dissolution of his marriage with the 1st respondent on the ground of her adultery after the marriage and for compensation of Rs. 2.5 lakhs as damages from the 2nd respondent for the adultery committed by him. 2. The petitioner has also filed C.M.P. 12768/ 97 for custody of the minor child from the 1st respondent.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This petition is filed by a Christian husband under Sections 10 and 34 of the Indian Divorce Act for dissolution of his marriage with the 1st respondent on the ground of her adultery after the marriage and for compensation of Rs. 2.5 lakhs as damages from the 2nd respondent for the adultery committed by him.", "Issues": "11. The issues that arise for consideration in this O.P. are : (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to dissolution of his marriage with the 1st respondent on the ground of adultery with the 2nd respondent. (2) Whether the 1st respondent is entitled to a decree for dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner on the ground of cruelty. (3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any and what damages from the 2nd respondent. (4) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the custody of the minor child.", "Petitioner Argument": "16. The petitioner has contended that after the 1st respondent deserted him on 5-1-1992 illicit intimacy developed between the respondents and they are living in adultery and they are living together as husband and wife fully conscious of the fact that the marriage between the 1st respondent and the petitioner is subsisting and the 2nd respondent has got his wife and two children living. Apart from stating that the petitioner was informed through third parties, the names of the persons through whom the petitioner was allegedly informed about the proposed marriage between the respondents are not mentioned in the counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent in Para 5 it is stated that before deciding to marry the 1st respondent he had approached the petitioner on more than one occasion through persons known to all the parties to know about the response of the petitioner to the proposal and he learnt through those persons that the petitioner has absolutely no objection to his marrying the 1st respondent and in fact he welcomed it. It is also stated that...", "Respondent Argument": "5. The respondents resisted the O.P. by filing separate counter-affidavits. The 1st respondent has contended as follows. The continued harassment and cruelty to which the 1st respondent was subjected to by the petitioner and his mother is the reason for the difference of opinion that arose between the petitioner and the 1st respondent which ultimately became irreconcilable. Being the only child of the mother, she had an all pervasive influence and hold on the petitioner which overwhelmed all other considerations including his duties as husband. The mother of the petitioner had been interfering and influencing the normal personal and marital affairs of the petitioner and the 1st respondent. When difference of opinion arose between them, the petitioner always sided with his mother and both of them used to abuse and humilitate her. The petitioner occasionally assaulted the 1st respondent from Kadalikkad as well as from Ernakulam. When the physical and mental cruelty assumed unbearable proportions the 1st respondent had to leave the petitioner for good. The Ecclesiastical Tribunal found the contentions of the 1st respondent true and declared her marriage...", "Factors to be Considered": "Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner need only to establish by preponderance of probabilities that he has not condoned or connived at the adulterous living between the respondents.", "Decision": "78. In the result, on the basis of my findings in the issues, this O.P. is allowed in part. The marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent is dissolved on the ground of adultery of the 1st respondent with the 2nd respondent. The claim for damages made by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent and the prayer for decree for dissolution of the marriage made by the 1st respondent against the petitioner on the ground of cruelty are disallowed. The claim for custody of the minor child made by the petitioner is disallowed. The petitioner will be entitled to meet the minor child as and when he requires at the mutual consent and pre-arranged place, date and time. The petitioner is also entitled to short custody of the child during vacations of the school. The petitioner is also entitled to move the appropriate Court for custody of the child when conditions are changed in his favour after befriending with the child. The parties are also entitled to approach this Court for any appropriate direction, if and when necessary. Considering...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1129437/ | AIR1999KER192, AIR 1999 KERALA 192, (1999) 2 MARRILJ 574 (1999) MATLR 409, (1999) MATLR 409", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 1998, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1999KER192, AIR 1999 KERALA 192, (1999) 2 MARRILJ 574 (1999) MATLR 409, (1999) MATLR 409", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1129437", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1129437/", "Chunks Indexed": 36 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Ramesh Ramanlal Saraiya vs Kusum Madgaokar on 6 April, 1948", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1948-04-06", "Judges": "M.C. Chagla, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 100, Section 16, Section 17, Section 19, Section 2, Section 20, Section 22, Section 36, Section 37, Section 45, Section 7, Section 87", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19; Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Coyajee. The respondent, who is the wife, filed a petition against her husband for a declaration that the marriage between them was null and void on the ground of the impotency of her husband. The husband filed a counter petition also praying for a decree of nullity on the ground that the wife suffered from impotency. Mr. Justice Coyajee decreed the wife's petition and gave her a decree for nullity of marriage. The petition of the husband was dismissed. Having granted the decree Mr. Justice Coyajee proceeded to pass the order which is the subject of this appeal, viz. to order an inquiry for the purpose of fixing the amount of permanent alimony which should be given to the wife. It was contended before Mr. Justice Coyajee that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant permanent alimony to the wife in a case where a decree for nullity was passed. Mr. Justice Coyajee rejected that contention and held that the Court had jurisdiction and the necessary inquiry should be-made for the purposes of fixing the amount. Before us also Mr. Taraporewala has contended that the Court has no jurisdiction to grant permanent alimony to the wife in a suit where a decree is passed for nullity of marriage. 2....", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Coyajee. The respondent, who is the wife, filed a petition against her husband for a declaration that the marriage between them was null and void on the ground of the impotency of her husband. The husband filed a counter petition also praying for a decree of nullity on the ground that the wife suffered from impotency. Mr. Justice Coyajee decreed the wife's petition and gave her a decree for nullity of marriage. The petition of the husband was dismissed. Having granted the decree Mr. Justice Coyajee proceeded to pass the order which is the subject of this appeal, viz. to order an inquiry for the purpose of fixing the amount of permanent alimony which should be given to the wife. It was contended before Mr. Justice Coyajee that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant permanent alimony to the wife in a case where a decree for nullity was passed. Mr. Justice Coyajee rejected that contention and held that the Court had jurisdiction and the necessary inquiry should be-made for the purposes of fixing the amount. Before us also Mr. Taraporewala has contended that the Court has no jurisdiction...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (nullity sec19) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "39. I am, therefore, of opinion that this Court has power to grant permanent alimony after a decree for nullity of marriage has been passed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1618971/ | (1948)50BOMLR426, AIR 1949 BOMBAY 1", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19; adultery", "Judgment Year": 1948, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1948)50BOMLR426, AIR 1949 BOMBAY 1", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1618971", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1618971/", "Chunks Indexed": 21 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "(Against The Judgment And Decree Dated ... vs Mrs. Premlata Murmu on 3 November, 2025", "Case Number": "2025:JHHC:33098-DB", "Judgment Date": "2025-11-03", "Judges": "Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J., Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 498A", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree Sanjay Kumar Singh No. 1, learned Principal Judge, Family FIRST APPEAL NO. 161 OF 2023 1 Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:33098-DB Court, Dumka in Original Suit No. 116/2019 whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the appellant under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 has been dismissed. 4. The plaintiff (appellant herein) had preferred a suit under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of his marriage with the defendant no. 1 (respondent no. 1 herein) in which inter alia, it has been stated that the marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized with the defendant no. 1 on 19.02.1996 as per Christian rites and customs at village Gulamsuli, District-", "Fact/ Respondent": "4. The plaintiff (appellant herein) had preferred a suit under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of his marriage with the defendant no. 1 (respondent no. 1 herein) in which inter alia, it has been stated that the marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized with the defendant no. 1 on 19.02.1996 as per Christian rites and customs at village Gulamsuli, District-", "Issues": "7. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication. I. Is the suit maintainable in its present form? II. Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit? III. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e., alleged adulterers and in absence of, the suit is liable to be dismissed? Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:33098-DB IV. Whether the defendant is residing separately from the plaintiff since 2004 having no cohabitation and thereby causing cruelty to the plaintiff? V. Whether the defendant deserted the plaintiff since 28.05.2019 without any sufficient cause and the defendant has deserted the plaintiff for continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the petition? VI. Whether the defendant is leading adulterous life with another person other than her husband, namely, Debasis Baskey, Bachan Pandey and Amit Singh? VII. Is the plaintiff entitled for decree of...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "18. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove, do not find any reasons to interfere in the impugned judgement and decree dated 09.06.2023 (decree signed on FIRST APPEAL NO. 161 OF 2023 12 Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:33098-DB 17.06.2023) passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh No. 1, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in Original Suit No. 116/2019 and consequently, we dismiss this appeal. 19. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 3rd Day of November, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R. FIRST APPEAL NO. 161 OF 2023 13", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86433026/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "86433026", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86433026/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "A. George Cornelius vs Elizabeth Dopti Samadanam on 4 August, 1969", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1969-08-04", "Judges": "Palaniswamy, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 16, Section 27, Section 33, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This suit filed by the husband under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (Act IV of 1869) hereinafter referred to as the Act raises an Important question about the scope of Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner married the respondent on 16th September 1935. He has alleged that after the marriage they lived together for some time when the respondent gave birth to three children, that all the three children are married, that in or about May 1952 when the couple were living at Bhuvanagiri the respondent deserted the petitioner against his will and without reasonable cause and went away, that the enquiries made by the petitioner about the respondent proved futile and that Inasmuch as the respondent's whereabouts are not known from 1952, it should be presumed that she is dead. The petitioner prays that a decree for dissolution of the marriage may, therefore be granted. The respondent could not be served in person and service was effected by substituted service. 2. The question for consideration is whether upon the presumption which the petitioner wants to draw as regards the death of the respondent, dissolution of the marriage can be decreed under Section 10 of the Act. Section 10 , which provides for dissolution of marriage, consists of two parts. The first part deals with...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This suit filed by the husband under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (Act IV of 1869) hereinafter referred to as the Act raises an Important question about the scope of Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner married the respondent on 16th September 1935. He has alleged that after the marriage they lived together for some time when the respondent gave birth to three children, that all the three children are married, that in or about May 1952 when the couple were living at Bhuvanagiri the respondent deserted the petitioner against his will and without reasonable cause and went away, that the enquiries made by the petitioner about the respondent proved futile and that Inasmuch as the respondent's whereabouts are not known from 1952, it should be presumed that she is dead. The petitioner prays that a decree for dissolution of the marriage may, therefore be granted. The respondent could not be served in person and service was effected by substituted service.", "Issues": "5. The position is no doubt anomalous. Whereas persons seeking relief under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , have among other grounds the right to ask for divorce on the ground that the other party to the marriage is not heard of for seven years or more, and should be presumed to be dead, persons seeking divorce under the Act in question are not entitled to urge that ground for no obvious reason. It is for the Legislature to consider whether the Act should not be suitably amended so that the law may be uniform.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "Provided that nothing in this section shall deprive the said Courts of jurisdiction in a case where the parties to a marriage professed the Christian religion at the tune of the occurrence of the facts on which the claim to relief is founded,\" Though this Act was passed in the year 1869 and has been amended several times, no additional ground for dissolution of marriage was provided in Section 10 in any of those amendments. Contrast with this position, some enactments made by the Indian Legislature for dissolution of marriage may be adverted to. Section 27(h) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, provides for a decree for dissolution on the ground that the respondent has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of the respondent if the respondent had been alive. To the same effect is Section 33(1)(vii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, providing for a decree for dissolution if the husband or the wife is not heard of for a decree for...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1597988/ | AIR1970MAD240", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 18); Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1969, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1970MAD240", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1597988", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1597988/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Gujarat High Court", "Case Title": "Kanku D/O Dhulabhai Dahyabhai vs Khristi Shanabhai Fulabhai on 3 May, 1963", "Case Number": "Divorce Suit No. 1 of 1961", "Judgment Date": "1963-05-03", "Judges": "N.M. Miabhoy, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 18, Section 19, Section 2, Section 20, Section 21, Section 37, Section 4, Section 45, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. A decree has been passed by the learned District Judge, Kaira at Nadiad, in Divorce Suit No. 1 of 1961 on 1st September 1961, by which the learned Judge has declared the marriage between the petitioner Kanku and the respondent Shanabhai null and void, subject to the declaration being confirmed by this Court under Section 20 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (hereafter called 'the Act'). The learned District Judge by his letter, dated 1st March 1962, has sent the proceedings in the suit to this Court for confirmation. The petition, which was numbered in the District Court as Suit No. 1 of 19 1, was made by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act. It is common ground that the petitioner and the respondent were married about 14 years ago under Hindu marriage rites. The petitioner first filed Suit No. 4 of 1960 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadiad, under the Hindu Marriage Act , 19SS, for dissolution of that marriage on the ground that the husband had changed his religion and had become a Christian since the celebration of the marriage. The respondent defended that action on the ground that the petitioner and the respondent were Christians by birth and that, therefore, that Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the suit...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. A decree has been passed by the learned District Judge, Kaira at Nadiad, in Divorce Suit No. 1 of 1961 on 1st September 1961, by which the learned Judge has declared the marriage between the petitioner Kanku and the respondent Shanabhai null and void, subject to the declaration being confirmed by this Court under Section 20 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (hereafter called 'the Act'). The learned District Judge by his letter, dated 1st March 1962, has sent the proceedings in the suit to this Court for confirmation. The petition, which was numbered in the District Court as Suit No. 1 of 19 1, was made by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act. It is common ground that the petitioner and the respondent were married about 14 years ago under Hindu marriage rites. The petitioner first filed Suit No. 4 of 1960 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadiad, under the Hindu Marriage Act , 19SS, for dissolution of that marriage on the ground that the husband had changed his religion and had become a Christian since the celebration of the marriage. The respondent defended that action on the ground that the petitioner...", "Issues": "(2) that the parties are within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity (whether natural or legal) or affinity; (3) that either party was a lunatic or idiot at the time of the marriage; (4) that the former husband or wife of either party was living at the time of the marriage, and the marriage with such former husband or wife was then in force. Nothing in this section shall affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to make decrees of nullity of marriage on the ground that the consent of either party was obtained by force or fraud\". (2) that the parties are within the prohibited degrees of consangunity (whether natural or legal) or affinity, (3) that either party was a lunatic or idiot at the time of the marriage; (4) that the former husband or wife of either party was living at the time of the marriage, and the marriage...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "A decree for dissolution is the relief which a Court grants on certain grounds. The grounds are mentioned in Section 10 of the Divorce Act. It may be I am not deciding this question that under Section 7 it would not be open to the Court to add to or change those grounds. But it is entjrly a different thing to say that once a decree for dissolution is passed or a decree for nullity is passed the Court is not entitled to grant the same relief which the Court in England can grant or would grant; and the subsequent legislation makes this position clear. A declaratory Act was passed in 1940. That was done for removal of doubts, and it was provided that in considering what were the grounds on which a decree for the dissolution of any marriage may be granted by the High Court in England and what were the principles and rules on which, in the exercise of its jurisdiction to make decrees for the dissolution of a marriage, and, as incidental thereto, to make orders...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1208421/ | (1968)9GLR511", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 1963, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1968)9GLR511", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1208421", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1208421/", "Chunks Indexed": 27 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Grace Jayamani vs E.P. Peter on 17 July, 1981", "Case Number": "Matrimonial Case No. 3 of 1979", "Judgment Date": "1981-07-17", "Judges": "Sabhahit, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 22, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Wife Specific; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. Smt. Grace Jayamani presented a petition to the District Judge. Dakshina Kannada. Mangalore. under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act for dissolution of the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent, Sri E. P. Peter and for grant of a decree of divorce. She averred in the petition thus: The petitioner and the respondent belong to Protestant Christian community and profess the said religion. They were married on 4-11-1971 at Shanthi Cathedral, Balmatta, Mangalore, according to the customs prevailing in their community. From the date of the marriage, according to the petitioner, her life with the respondent has been one of misery, brutality and cruelty. The Respondent, husband has been forcing her for sexual intercourse in an unnatural way. His treatment to her is one of brutality. Even when she was suffering from fever and even during the menstrual periods, respondent would not give her any respite with repeated acts of sex all through the night. Whenever she refused the demands in sexuality of the respondent, she was beaten. In the circumstances, she had no alternative except to approach the Court of the District Judge for judicial separation under S. 22 of the Act.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. Smt. Grace Jayamani presented a petition to the District Judge. Dakshina Kannada. Mangalore. under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act for dissolution of the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent, Sri E. P. Peter and for grant of a decree of divorce. She averred in the petition thus:", "Issues": "(i) Whether the provisions of the Act apply to the petitioner and the respondent? (ii) Whether the petitioner and the respondent reside or last resided together within the jurisdiction of this Court? (iv) Whether there is no collusion between the petitioner and respondent? (v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the decree of dissolution of her marriage with the respondent? 5. During the hearing, the petitioner examined herself as P. W. 1 and examined her father Wilfred Ammanna as P. W. 2 and she got marked Exhibit P. 1, true copy of the Marriage Certificate and Exhibit P. 2. Certified copy of the order dated 29-1-1977 for judicial separation passed in M. C. No. 3/1976 by the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada. As against that, the respondent did not enter the Box nor did he examine any witness on his behalf. The learned District Judge assessing the evidence on record held...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear.", "Decision": "15. In the result, the decree for dissolution of the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent is hereby confirmed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1600938/ | AIR1982KANT46, ILR1982KAR196, AIR 1982 KARNATAKA 46, ILR (1982) 1 KANT 196", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Wife Specific", "All Grounds": "wife_specific; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1981, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1982KANT46, ILR1982KAR196, AIR 1982 KARNATAKA 46, ILR (1982) 1 KANT 196", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1600938", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1600938/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "Smt. Rima Das vs Pradeep Kumar Das on 24 June, 2025", "Case Number": "2025:JHHC:16813-DB", "Judgment Date": "2025-06-24", "Judges": "Sujit Narayan Prasad, J., Rajesh Kumar, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 19, Section 3, Section 7, Section 96", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 06.07.2020 and Decree dated 15.07.2020 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 344 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under Section 10(ix)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 by the appellant/ defendant seeking a decree of divorce against his wife, has been allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the divorce petition by the respondent/ plaintiff needs to be referred herein as under:", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 06.07.2020 and Decree dated 15.07.2020 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 344 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under Section 10(ix)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 by the appellant/ defendant seeking a decree of divorce against his wife, has been allowed.", "Issues": "(ii) Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the defendant has deserted the plaintiff prior to two years from the date of filing of this suit? (iv) Whether the plaintiff has suffered cruelty from the hand of the defendant? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion? 5 F.A. No. 76 of 2020 2025:JHHC:16813-DB (vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any other relief or reliefs claimed in the suit? 5. The issue of cruelty has been answered in favour of the respondent- husband and accordingly, the judgment of dissolution of marriage has been passed and decree for the same has been prepared in favour of the respondent-husband which is the subject matter of the present appeal. Submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant: 6. It has been contended on behalf...", "Petitioner Argument": "9. It is submitted that the appellant has never ever given any harmful medicine in his food to the respondent/husband to cause him physical harm, rather the same has been alleged without any basis only because the Respondent/Husband wants divorce from the appellant/wife. 10. Further it is submitted that the appellant had good relationship with her husband and both were living happily but she came to know that the Respondent/Husband is having illicit relationship with one lady namely Shruti Chawla, who is a teacher in Beldih Church School and always interfered in the family matter. The said Shruti Chawla has started exploiting and blackmailing the respondent/ husband on the basis of some photographs. This fact was informed to her by her husband, thereafter she has reported the matter to Mahila Thana, Sakchi, Jamshedpur where Shruti Chawla was noticed to appear and Shruti Chawla has given an undertaking before police not to create trouble to the respondent. The learned Family Court has not considered that the appellant/wife has filed 17 photographs which have been marked as 'X' and 'Y' Series to...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "37. Since the \"desertion\" as a ground has also been pleaded by the respondent husband before the learned family Judge, as such definition of \"desertion\" is required to be referred herein as defined under the explanation part of Section 13 which means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage. 38. Rayden on Divorce which is a standard work on the subject at p. 128 (6th Edn.) has summarised the case-law on the subject in these terms: \"Desertion is the separation of one spouse from the other, with an intention on the part of the deserting spouse of bringing cohabitation permanently to an end without reasonable cause and without the consent of the other spouse; but the physical act of departure by one spouse does not necessarily make that spouse the deserting party.\" The legal position has been admirably summarised in paras- 453 and 454 at pp. 241 to 243 of Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Edn.), Vol. 12, in the following words: \"In its essence desertion...", "Decision": "71. In the result, First Appeal No. 76 of 2020 is allowed. Decree accordingly.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188011628/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "188011628", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188011628/", "Chunks Indexed": 14 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Leena Monteiro vs Alwyn D Cruz on 21 June, 2022", "Case Number": "M.F.A. NO.4795 OF 2020", "Judgment Date": "2022-06-21", "Judges": "Alok Aradhe, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "This appeal under Section 55(1) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) arises out of judgment dated 22.06.2020, by which petition filed by the appellant under Section 10 of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, has been dismissed. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal in nutshell are that the appellant and the respondent were married on 17.05.1999 at Chikkamagalur. Out of the wedlock, a girl child was born on 06.10.2001. On 08.06.2017, the appellant filed a petition under 3 Section 10 of the Act. It was pleaded that family of the respondent has financial issues, which led to fights and arguments between parents, siblings and children. The respondent was unable to take care of the financial needs of the appellant. She therefore, decided to take up a job. It was averred that in order to support the respondent, she moved to UAE in 2008 and started working in Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank in October 2008. The appellant thereafter started paying of the debts of the family of the respondent and brought some agricultural properties in the name of respondent. However, despite the effort put in by the appellant, the respondent failed to be financially independent and instead of taking care of financial needs of the...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal in nutshell are that the appellant and the respondent were married on 17.05.1999 at Chikkamagalur. Out of the wedlock, a girl child was born on 06.10.2001. On 08.06.2017, the appellant filed a petition under 3 Section 10 of the Act. It was pleaded that family of the respondent has financial issues, which led to fights and arguments between parents, siblings and children. The respondent was unable to take care of the financial needs of the appellant. She therefore, decided to take up a job. It was averred that in order to support the respondent, she moved to UAE in 2008 and started working in Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank in October 2008. The appellant thereafter started paying of the debts of the family of the respondent and brought some agricultural properties in the name of respondent. However, despite the effort put in by the appellant, the respondent failed to be financially independent and instead of taking care of financial needs of the appellant was dependant on her.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "8. Learned counsel for the appellant while inviting the attention of this Court to the averments made in the petition as well as the examination in 6 chief of the appellant submitted that the appellant had proved that the Respondent had subjected the appellant to cruelty. It ought to have been appreciated by the Family Court that the Respondent despite service of notice did not appear before the Family Court and had not entered the witness box. It is also submitted that no evidence in rebuttal was led and therefore, the version of the appellant ought to have been accepted. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent has supported the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "9. We have considered the arguments advanced on both the side and have perused the record. It is trite law that standard of proof in a case of matrimonial dispute pertaining to cruelty cannot be said to be applicable as is applicable in case of trial in the Code of Criminal Procedure . However, the parties to the dispute is required to describe the measure and 7 standard of cruelty and to lead cogent evidence to succeed in the plea of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. [See: 'MAYADEVI vs. JAGDISH PRASAD , AIR 2007 SC 1426]. 10. In celebrated case of 'DASTANE VS. DASTANE ', AIR 1975 SC 1534, the Supreme Court while dealing with cruelty as a ground for divorce has held that in a case for divorce on the ground of cruelty, the conduct charged as cruelty is to be of such a character so as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent. It was further held that it was not necessary that cruelty must be of such nature as to cause danger to life limb...", "Decision": "In the result, the appeal is allowed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110604638/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2022, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "110604638", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110604638/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Katherine vs Mr. Samuel Denial @ Chand on 6 August, 2001", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2001-08-06", "Judges": "A.K. Sikri, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree for Judicial Separation Granted", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act (for short 'Act') or in the alternative for judicial separation under Sections 22 and 23 of the Act. The petitioner is the wife of respondent who are Christians by religion. It is stated in the petition that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 20th October, 1993 at Sacred Heart Cathedral, Delhi in accordance with the Christian Marriage Laws, customs and ceremonies. They do not have any children out of their wedlock. The status, age and place of residence of the petitioner and the respondent before marriage and at the time of presentation of petition are as under: ---------------------------------------------------- Before Marriage Christian 20 yrs. Type-II Christian 27 yrs. D-4/391 Bachelor Qtr.11 Sultanpuri Jalvihar Delhi Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act (for short 'Act') or in the alternative for judicial separation under Sections 22 and 23 of the Act. The petitioner is the wife of respondent who are Christians by religion. It is stated in the petition that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 20th October, 1993 at Sacred Heart Cathedral, Delhi in accordance with the Christian Marriage Laws, customs and ceremonies. They do not have any children out of their wedlock. The status, age and place of residence of the petitioner and the respondent before marriage and at the time of presentation of petition are as under:", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "3. In so far as judicial separation is concerned, the main ground on which it is ought is that the petitioner was treated with cruelty by the respondent. Although certain allegations of adultery are also made, learned counsel for the petitioner is not pressing that ground. 4. It may be mentioned at this stage that after the summons in this petition were served upon the respondent although respondent appeared and filed the written statement. He stopped appearing thereafter. The respondent was accordingly proceeded ex-parte by order dated 12th October, 2000 and the petitioner was permitted to lead evidence by way of affidavit. The affidavit already filed by the petitioner was accepted and the matter listed for final disposal. 5. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the respondent started torturing her for dowry since the time the petitioner came to live with him. However, in several manners the petitioner was physically and mentally tortured by respondent. It is also stated that the petitioner suffered in silence without any complaints with the full hope that her patience...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear.", "Decision": "7. This petition is accordingly allowed. Decree for judicial separation on the ground of cruelty is passed under Sections 22 and 23 of the Act. Decree be drawn accordingly.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1000354/ | 94(2001)DLT371, II(2001)DMC697", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2001, "Relief Status": "judicial_separation", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 94(2001)DLT371, II(2001)DMC697", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1000354", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1000354/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Sebastian Joseph M vs Lija P.Sebastian on 17 October, 2025", "Case Number": "2025:KER:77683", "Judgment Date": "2025-10-17", "Judges": "Devan Ramachandran, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. The appellant alleges that his wife has had an adulterous relationship with the 2 nd respondent, as also with another person - who, in fact, testified as PW2; and hence that he is entitled to a decree for divorce on the ground of adultery. 3. The learned Family Court took the matter to trial and recorded the deposition of 2025:KER:77683 MAT.APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2023 -4- the appellant as PW1, as also that of PW2 and PW3; while, the 1st respondent offered testimony as RW1. The Court also marked Exts.A1 to A3 documents produced by the appellant, but did not admit Ext.A4 series pen drives into evidence. It, after evaluation of the evidence on record, dismissed the Original Petition, finding the allegations to be unproved.", "Fact/ Respondent": "The appellant filed OP No.835/2018 before the learned Family Court, Kannur, seeking divorce from the 1st respondent herein, namely his wife, invoking the provisions of Section 10(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 ('Act', for short).", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "The summation of our findings and observations above is inevitable that this Appeal lacks merit; and we consequently, dismiss it with costs to the 1st respondent.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/93957062/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "93957062", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/93957062/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)", "Case Title": "M. Esthar Rani vs M. Devadanam on 27 July, 1987", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1987-07-27", "Judges": "K. Bhaskaran, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. An application under S. 10 , Divorce Act, (,the Act) for a decree dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has been disposed of by the learned District Judge without adverting to the, pleadings, appreciating the evidence or stating the ground on which the decree for dissolution of marriage had been granted. For the sake of precision, we would quote the whole of the order: \"P. W. 1 examined, Petitioner's advocate represents. Petitioner's side evidence is closed. I am satisfied from the, evidence of P. W. 1 which remained unchallenged and as there is no evidence to the contra that the divorce prayed for should be granted. Hence this petition is allowed, but in the circumstances without costs, subject to confirmation by the High Court\".", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. An application under S. 10 , Divorce Act, (,the Act) for a decree dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has been disposed of by the learned District Judge without adverting to the, pleadings, appreciating the evidence or stating the ground on which the decree for dissolution of marriage had been granted. For the sake of precision, we would quote the whole of the order:", "Issues": "3. The first and foremost duty of a District Judge dealing with an application for dissolution of marriage is to address himself to the grounds on which the relief could be granted under S. 10 of the Act. Secondly, he should find out whether the necessary averments are made in the application, and, if. so, whether they are supported by acceptable and credible evidence. Thirdly, it is also his duty to see whether the proceedings (are?) vitiated by collusion between the parties, Fourthly, it is his further duty to see whether the alleged adulterer is made co- respondent where the petitioner is the husband, in compliance with the provisions of S. 11 of the Act. 4. It is noted that very often some of the District Judges adopt shortcuts without taking pains to ascertain at least whether the ground, if any, alleged is one on which a decree for dissolution...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "5. The position being as stated above, we decline to confirm the decree for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent granted by the court below. We, however, feel that justice should not be the casualty on account of failure on the part of the parties to raise the necessary pleadings or adduce sufficient evidence or failure on the part of the District Judge to properly apply his mind to all relevant and essential aspects of the matter. In that view, we would remand the matter to the court below so that the parties may amend the pleadings, if so advised, and adduce further evidence, if any to substantiate their respective contentions. If an application for this purpose is made the learned Judge would look into the matter and pass appropriate orders. If the pleadings are amended and further evidence if any, is adduced, the learned Judge would address himself to the grounds available in S.10 of the Act and dispose of the matter in accordance with law after properly considering the pleadings and evidence on record.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1342943/ | AIR1988AP1, AIR 1988 ANDHRA PRADESH 1, (1987) 2 ANDHLT 628, (1987) 2 LS 221, (1987) 2 APLJ 343, (1988) 1 HINDULR 438, (1988) 1 DMC 4, (1988) MATLR 14, (1988) 1 CURCC 658", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 1987, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1988AP1, AIR 1988 ANDHRA PRADESH 1, (1987) 2 ANDHLT 628, (1987) 2 LS 221, (1987) 2 APLJ 343, (1988) 1 HINDULR 438, (1988) 1 DMC 4, (1988) MATLR 14, (1988) 1 CURCC 658", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1342943", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1342943/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Orissa High Court", "Case Title": "Pabitra Swal Singh vs Manikya Devi on 24 August, 1993", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1993-08-24", "Judges": "S.C. Mohapatra, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Application for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act having been dismissed, this appeal has been preferred. 2. Case of plaintiff is that he and respondent remained together for some time at the intervention of gentlemen. During that period, they had sexual relationship. At the instance of one Nityananda Jena, an influencial man of the locality, the marriage register was signed by both of them in the house of the appellant though it is required to be signed either in the house of the bride or in the Church. However, parties resided as husband and wife and had the reputation as such. Since the marriage was not in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Christians Marriage Act , it is not valid. When it was found that respondent was leaving the house of the plaintiff in odd hours of night in the company of bad elements and continued to ill-treat the plaintiff falsely alleging that plaintiff had illicit relationship with one P. Kaliamma Dolai, she left the house of the plaintiff sometime in 1976 and did not return to the matrimonial home in spite of several requests of the plaintiff. Accordingly, application was filed for dissolution of marriage and divorce. Respondent on the other hand stated that plaintiff is...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. Case of plaintiff is that he and respondent remained together for some time at the intervention of gentlemen. During that period, they had sexual relationship. At the instance of one Nityananda Jena, an influencial man of the locality, the marriage register was signed by both of them in the house of the appellant though it is required to be signed either in the house of the bride or in the Church. However, parties resided as husband and wife and had the reputation as such. Since the marriage was not in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Christians Marriage Act , it is not valid. When it was found that respondent was leaving the house of the plaintiff in odd hours of night in the company of bad elements and continued to ill-treat the plaintiff falsely alleging that plaintiff had illicit relationship with one P. Kaliamma Dolai, she left the house of the plaintiff sometime in 1976 and did not return to the matrimonial home in spite of several requests of the plaintiff. Accordingly, application was filed for dissolution of marriage and divorce. Respondent on the other hand stated that plaintiff is a Christian and she is an adivasi...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "1. Application for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act having been dismissed, this appeal has been preferred.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1255526/ | I(1994)DMC16", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1993, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: I(1994)DMC16", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1255526", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1255526/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Punjab-Haryana High Court", "Case Title": "Romy vs Stephan on 6 March, 2017", "Case Number": "No. 835 of 2016", "Judgment Date": "2017-03-06", "Judges": "Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 24", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Applicant, by way of instant transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ' CPC '), seeks transfer of the petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 ('the Act' for short), bearing DMC/0013/2016 titled as Stephan Vs. Romy, filed by respondent husband from Gurdaspur to Fazilka. It has gone undisputed between the parties that applicant-wife is staying with her parents at her parental village in District Fazilka. Respondent-husband is not paying any amount of maintenance to the 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2017 21:27:25 ::: TA No. 835 of 2016 2 applicant. Since applicant-wife is not having any regular source of income, she is dependent on her parents. Distance between Gurdaspur and Fazilka is more than 150 Kms. Other litigations between the parties, at the instance of the applicant-wife, are also pending at Abohar, District Fazilka.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Applicant, by way of instant transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ' CPC '), seeks transfer of the petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 ('the Act' for short), bearing DMC/0013/2016 titled as Stephan Vs. Romy, filed by respondent husband from Gurdaspur to Fazilka.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "\"Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a strait-jacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by Courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to plaintiff or defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; interest of justice demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no...", "Decision": "6.3.2017 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) AK Sharma JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No 7 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2017 21:27:26 :::", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163313563/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2017, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "163313563", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163313563/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Mrs. Hazel Arnone vs George Thomas Robert Arnone And Anr. on 10 August, 1965", "Case Number": "Ref. No. 3 of 1958", "Judgment Date": "1965-08-10", "Judges": "M.S. Menon, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 02, Section 10, Section 12, Section 17, Section 17A, Section 193, Section 30, Section 4, Section 44, Section 45, Section 47, Section 51, Section 5T, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The petitioner is the wife of the first respondent She seeks a dissolution of her marriage under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. 2. Under Section 10 a wife can present a petition praying that her marriage should be dissolved on the ground that, since the solemnization thereof, her husband Las been guilty of adultery coupled with desertion, without reasonable excuse for two years or upwards. The petition is based on that ground, and has been allowed by the District Court of Kozhi-kode, subject to confirmation by this Court of the decree for dissolution as required by Section 17 of the Act.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The petitioner is the wife of the first respondent She seeks a dissolution of her marriage under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "\"By Section 7 of the Act courts in India are required In give relief on principles and rules which arc as nearly as may be conformable to the principles and rules on which the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in England Cur the lime being acts and gives relief. One of these principles is thay a decree for dissolution of marriage cannot be made merely on admission and without recording evidence The Court (below) in fact has treated the proceedings as a civil suit which could be compromised.\"", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/746672/ | AIR1966KER34, AIR 1966 KERALA 34, ILR (1965) 2 KER 339, 1966 KER LJ 29, 1965 KER LT 915", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1965, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1966KER34, AIR 1966 KERALA 34, ILR (1965) 2 KER 339, 1966 KER LJ 29, 1965 KER LT 915", "Kanoon Doc ID": "746672", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/746672/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Maria Soosai vs Clara Mary on 22 August, 1994", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1994-08-22", "Judges": "Srinivasan., J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 16, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 4, Section 45, Section 5, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Decree of Nullity Adjudicated", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This case raises an interesting question of law. The original petition is one filed under Section 4 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, by the husband for a decree declaring that the alleged marriage between him and the respondent is null and void and consequently, the respondent is not his legally wedded wife. In the petition, it is stated that he was having intimacy with the respondent for a few months and in order to compel him to marry her, the respondent's parents and relatives, with the help of the Police, by force got executed a deed of marriage on paper bearing Rs. 2.50 stamp on the 27th October, 1988 and got it registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Andimadam. According to the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 , a Christian marriage can be solemnized only in any of the modes prescribed in Section 5 of the said Act. No formality or ceremony was gone through and only an agreement was executed as stated earlier and that too, under compulsion. The registration of the document would not amount to registration of the marriage and therefore, the marriage is null and void. 2. The respondent remained ex parte and the petitioner gave evidence in support of the allegation made in the petition. He has...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This case raises an interesting question of law. The original petition is one filed under Section 4 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, by the husband for a decree declaring that the alleged marriage between him and the respondent is null and void and consequently, the respondent is not his legally wedded wife. In the petition, it is stated that he was having intimacy with the respondent for a few months and in order to compel him to marry her, the respondent's parents and relatives, with the help of the Police, by force got executed a deed of marriage on paper bearing Rs. 2.50 stamp on the 27th October, 1988 and got it registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Andimadam. According to the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 , a Christian marriage can be solemnized only in any of the modes prescribed in Section 5 of the said Act. No formality or ceremony was gone through and only an agreement was executed as stated earlier and that too, under compulsion. The registration of the document would not amount to registration of the marriage and therefore, the marriage is null and void.", "Issues": "11. As the section refers to the principles and rules on which the court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in England for the time being acts and gives relief; it is necessary to refer to the English law on the subject and at the same time, we must bear in mind that the law in England cannot be imported into the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act if it is contrary to the provisions of the said Act. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition at page 258 in paragraph 529 it is stated that no action or other proceeding is open to objection on the ground that a merely declaratory judgment or order is sought thereby and the High Court may make binding declarations of right whether or not any consequential relief is or could be claimed. In para. 531 it is stated that if anyone persistently and falsely...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "Section 7 of the Act did not confer any additional jurisdiction but merely provided what principles and rules were to be followed, when a suit was properly entertained. The grounds on which a suit can be entertained under the Divorce Act are indicated in Section 19 . The principles and the rules which are to be followed may, under Section 7 , be as nearly as may be conformable to the principles and rules on which the Courts in England Act.'' Perhaps in 1934, when the case was decided, there was no provision in the English law conferring jurisdiction to grant a decree for nullity of marriage on a statutory ground and, therefore, the matter was not discussed in that light. However, we are not in agreement with the observation of the learned Judge that Section 7 does not confer any additional jurisdiction. In our judgment, insofar as Section 7 enacts that action is to be taken on English principles and rules by the Indian court and not merely in the matter of granting of relief, that section lays down...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/490849/ | (1995)1MLJ282", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 1994, "Relief Status": "nullity", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1995)1MLJ282", "Kanoon Doc ID": "490849", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/490849/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Peter Messtas vs Mrs. Jennifer Messias on 25 February, 2003", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2003-02-25", "Judges": "S.P. Khare, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 22, Section 23, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is an appeal by the husband under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment and decree by which his application under Section 23 of the Act for \"judicial separation\" has been rejected. 2. It is not in dispute that plaintiff Peter Messias and defendant Mrs. Jennifer Messias are Christians, the plaintiff is Chargeman Grade-I (Technical) in Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur (a Govt. of India Undertaking) and the defendant is a Teacher in English and Music in St. Joseph's Convent Girls' Higher Secondary School, Jabalpur holding M.A. degree in English Literature; the plaintiff is an accomplished musician playing guitar and the defendant is fond of playing piano; it is this \"common bond of music\" that brought them together and after their courtship for 8 years they married at Jabalpur on 31-5-1980; unfortunately they have no issue out of this wedlock; they lived together in Flat No. 19, L.I.C., M.P. Housing Board Colony, South Civil Lines, Jabalpur; the present petition was filed on 7-5-1992; the plaintiff has purchased Flat No. 101-A, Amba Apartment, South Civil Lines, Jabalpur on 25-9-1994 and the defendant has also purchased a separate house in June, 1994 and she is living there; the efforts of the trial Court and this Court to bring reconciliation between...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is an appeal by the husband under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment and decree by which his application under Section 23 of the Act for \"judicial separation\" has been rejected.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "11. The word cruelty has been used in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and that has been judicially interpreted in several decisions of the Supreme Court. In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat , AIR 1994 SC 710, it has been held that \"Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which...", "Decision": "17. In the result this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court are set aside. The marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is hereby dissolved on the ground provided in Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act as amended in 2001. The parties will bear their own costs in the trial Court and also in this appeal.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/750960/ | AIR2003MP214, AIR 2003 MADHYA PRADESH 214, (2003) 1 MPHT 134, (2003) 1 MPLJ 99, (2003) 2 JAB LJ 390, (2003) 2 MPLJ 371, (2003) 3 CIVLJ 570", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2003, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR2003MP214, AIR 2003 MADHYA PRADESH 214, (2003) 1 MPHT 134, (2003) 1 MPLJ 99, (2003) 2 JAB LJ 390, (2003) 2 MPLJ 371, (2003) 3 CIVLJ 570", "Kanoon Doc ID": "750960", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/750960/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Shri P.G.Raju vs Smt Salamma on 19 January, 2023", "Case Number": "MFA No. 2800 of 2017", "Judgment Date": "2023-01-19", "Judges": "Alok Aradhe, J., S Vishwajith Shetty, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Family Courts Act, 1984", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 19, Section 2, Section 27, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "This Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is filed by the appellant-husband assailing the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2017 passed in M.C.No.2987/2013 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore dismissing his petition filed under Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1869') wherein he had sought the relief of dissolution of the marriage that was solemnized between the parties on 23.10.1989, by a decree of divorce. 3. Brief facts as revealed from the records that may be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized on 23.10.1989 at St. Joseph's Church, Calicut, Kerala in the presence of their family members. The parties knew each other even before their marriage and it was a love cum arranged marriage. The appellant was working at Durgapur, West Bengal at the time of marriage. Immediately after the marriage, the couple left to Durgapur and started residing there. The respondent conceived while she was in Durgapura and when -3- MFA No. 2800 of 2017 she was in her fifth month of pregnancy she had returned to her parent's house. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent started doubting his fidelity and therefore, she insisted that he should...", "Fact/ Respondent": "This Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is filed by the appellant-husband assailing the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2017 passed in M.C.No.2987/2013 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore dismissing his petition filed under Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1869') wherein he had sought the relief of dissolution of the marriage that was solemnized between the parties on 23.10.1989, by a decree of divorce.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record. She submits that -6- MFA No. 2800 of 2017 the respondent was in habit of making baseless allegations against the appellant alleging that he had extra marital relationship with various ladies. She submits that the appellant was not respected in his house and the respondent was in a habit of abusing him in public which resulted in lowering his image in neighbourhood. She also submits that the respondent had filed false criminal cases against the appellant and she had also filed a suit in O.S.No.44/2013 in respect of the property which belonged to the appellant. She submits that the appellant was ill-treated by the respondent in his house and as a result, he suffered health problems and ultimately he also suffered a heart attack and therefore, he apprehended it was not safe for him to continue the relationship with the respondent. In support of her contention, she has relied upon the judgment of Kerala High Court...", "Respondent Argument": "7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant has failed to prove the allegation of cruelty against the respondent and therefore, the Family Court -7- MFA No. 2800 of 2017 was justified in dismissing the petition. He submits that mere wear and tear in the family life cannot be construed as cruelty for the purpose of granting a decree of divorce. He submits that the material on record would go to show that the appellant had treated the respondent with cruelty and not vice-versa. He submits that the appellant had not taken care of his wife and children and the respondent was burdened with the educational expense of the children who are now practicing advocacates. He also submits that first son is now married. He also submits that merely for the reason that parties are residing separately for the last many year, the same cannot be a ground for granting decree of divorce and accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. We have carefully considered the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and...", "Factors to be Considered": "10. It is trite law that unsubstantiated accusation, unfounded allegations and character assassination by one spouse as against the other spouse would amount to mental cruelty. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Mary Marget (supra) which arose from a petition filed under Section 10 of the Divorce Act alleging cruelty, at paragraph Nos.10 and 27 has observed as follows:- MFA No. 2800 of 2017 \"10. In matrimonial life, cruelty can be defined in many ways. It has many perspectives which depend upon the socio- economic status and circumstances of parties to the marriage. It varies from person to person. It also varies with time, place, economic status and other circumstances. Cruelty can be physical and mental. Physical cruelty provides more of a direct evidence, that it can be perceptible when compared to mental cruelty. Mental cruelty can be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case, whereas physical cruelty can be drawn from the conduct of one spouse towards other spouse which endangers the other spouse's physical health. It is true that, mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for...", "Decision": "The judgment and decree dated 22.03.2017 passed in M.C.No.2987/2013 by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Bengaluru is set-aside and consequently, the petition filed by the appellant/husband in M.C.No.2987/2013 under Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 is allowed and the marriage between the parties that was solemnized on 23.10.1989 stands dissolved by a decree of divorce.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16674075/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 2023, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "16674075", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16674075/", "Chunks Indexed": 13 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Ruth vs Dr. M. Danial on 29 November, 1993", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1993-11-29", "Judges": "Raveendran, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 15, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This Reference arises out of a decree-nisi granted by the Additional District Judge, Mandya on 10.9.1992, in M.C.No. 1/1991, a petition presented under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 ('Act' for short) by a Christian wife against the husband. Petitioner and respondent were married on 9.5.1974 and there are two children out of the wedlock. 2. Petitioner sought dissolution of marriage alleging cruelty by the husband and also alleging that there was no cohabitation for more than two years between them. The respondent filed objections denying cruelty as alleged by the petitioner. On the other hand, he contended that petitioner was having illicit intimacy with someone and was leading an adulterous life. He did not name the alleged adulterer, but merely described him as a Political personality of the locality stating that his name could not be mentioned on account of his 'threatening and powerful nature'. On the above allegations, the respondent stated that he had no objection for dissolution of the marriage, so as to safeguard the interest of himself and his children.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This Reference arises out of a decree-nisi granted by the Additional District Judge, Mandya on 10.9.1992, in M.C.No. 1/1991, a petition presented under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 ('Act' for short) by a Christian wife against the husband. Petitioner and respondent were married on 9.5.1974 and there are two children out of the wedlock.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "8. In a petition by wife, mere cruelty or desertion cannot be a ground for dissolution of marriage unless such cruelty or desertion is coupled with adultery on the part of the husband. Neither in the petition nor in her evidence, the petitioner has alleged or made out, any adultery on the part of the respondent-husband. Hence the trial Court rightly held that petition for dissolution filed by the wife is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.", "Respondent Argument": "17. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the matter be remitted back instead of driving the respondent to a fresh proceedings which will be time consuming. We, therefore, remit the matter to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. The petitioner and the respondent will be entitled to place such additional material as may be advised and the respondent may also, if he is so advised, seek the impleading of the alleged adulterer a co-respondent to the proceedings.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "18. Having regard to the fact that the petition is already three years old, the trial Judge is directed to dispose of the matter within four months from the date of receipt of the papers and copy of this order.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1195642/ | ILR1994KAR4, 1994(2)KARLJ347, 1995 A I H C 849, (1994) 1 HINDULR 340, (1994) 2 KANT LJ 347, (1994) MARRILJ 393, (1994) MATLR 137", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1993, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: ILR1994KAR4, 1994(2)KARLJ347, 1995 A I H C 849, (1994) 1 HINDULR 340, (1994) 2 KANT LJ 347, (1994) MARRILJ 393, (1994) MATLR 137", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1195642", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1195642/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Christinamary Stella vs Vijay Siddharaj And Anr. on 7 September, 1978", "Case Number": "No. 9401 of 1978", "Judgment Date": "1978-09-07", "Judges": "Ramaprasada Rao, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 3, Section 47", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This case comes up before us for confirmation of the order passed by the District Judge, Pudukottai, who allowed the petition filed by the first wife and dissolved the marriage as between the petitioner and the first respondent on the ground that the first respondent contracted a second marriage with the second respondent after the solemnisation of the first marriage and that the first respondent deserted the petitioner and is permanently living with the second respondent and had a child through her also. The facts, as disclosed in the petition, are that the first respondent married the petitioner on 19-2-1973 in the Sacred Heart Church, Pudukottai. and the marriage solemnisation certificate though not filed in the trial court, has been filed in this court which we marked as Ex. C. 1. having thus married the petitioner on 19-2-1973, it appears that the first respondent married again, 20 days thereafter on 11-3-1973, the second respondent and was not frequenting the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that after the first respondent took the second respondent as his wife without her knowledge and consent, the first respondent suppressed such an act of adultery and neglected the petitioner also for a considerable length of time. They petitioner's further case is that by mistake she did not add in the original pleadings...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This case comes up before us for confirmation of the order passed by the District Judge, Pudukottai, who allowed the petition filed by the first wife and dissolved the marriage as between the petitioner and the first respondent on the ground that the first respondent contracted a second marriage with the second respondent after the solemnisation of the first marriage and that the first respondent deserted the petitioner and is permanently living with the second respondent and had a child through her also. The facts, as disclosed in the petition, are that the first respondent married the petitioner on 19-2-1973 in the Sacred Heart Church, Pudukottai. and the marriage solemnisation certificate though not filed in the trial court, has been filed in this court which we marked as Ex. C. 1. having thus married the petitioner on 19-2-1973, it appears that the first respondent married again, 20 days thereafter on 11-3-1973, the second respondent and was not frequenting the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that after the first respondent took the second respondent as his wife without her knowledge and consent, the first respondent suppressed such an act of adultery and neglected the petitioner also for a...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "5. The only other ground of attack by the learned counsel for the first respondent is that the allegation as to collusion has not been expressly mentioned and that such a reference as to collusion is the sine qua non for the grant of relief under the Indian Divorce Act . No doubt, the language of S. 47 of the Divorce Act says that every petition under the Act for a decree for dissolution of marriage, or of nullity of marriage, or of judicial separation shall state that there is not any collusion or connivance between the petitioner and the other party to the marriage. Rightly, therefore, an accent is given to the verb \"shall\" appearing in S. 47 and the contention of Mrs. Rajendran is that in the absence of compliance with the imperative guideline set in S. 47 , the petition has to fail. We are of the view that the use of the word \"shall\" in Section 47 ought not to be understood in such a rigid manner. Collusion as between the two spouses in order to...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105078/ | AIR1979MAD100", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 1978, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1979MAD100", "Kanoon Doc ID": "105078", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105078/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "S.Rinu vs Nil on 18 June, 2026", "Case Number": "CMA No. 1213 of 2026", "Judgment Date": "2026-06-18", "Judges": "C.V. Karthikeyan, J., K.Rajasekar, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 19", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "The Appeal has been filed by the petitioners / appellants challenging the Family Court, Chennai, by which order, the petition seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 10(A) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, was dismissed. 2. The marriage between the petitioners / appellants has been solemnised on 12.06.2024 at CSI Christ Church, Kodungaiyur, Chennai. The reception was held on 12.06.2024 at GPL Mahal Raj Mahal, Perambur – Red Hills High Road, Chennai. It had been contended that the appellants got separated on and from 13.06.2024 and they have been living separately on and from that day. The mediation efforts had failed. Therefore, a petition has been filed before the Family Court, Chennai for dissolution of marriage under Section 10(A) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The Court had examined the provisions under Section 10(A) and stated that one of the mandatory condition that the parties should live separately for more than two years had not been complied with on the date when the matter was adjudicated and they were not living separately for more than two years. Hence, the Petition was dismissed.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The marriage between the petitioners / appellants has been solemnised on 12.06.2024 at CSI Christ Church, Kodungaiyur, Chennai. The reception was held on 12.06.2024 at GPL Mahal Raj Mahal, Perambur – Red Hills High Road, Chennai. It had been contended that the appellants got separated on and from 13.06.2024 and they have been living separately on and from that day. The mediation efforts had failed. Therefore, a petition has been filed before the Family Court, Chennai for dissolution of marriage under Section 10(A) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The Court had examined the provisions under Section 10(A) and stated that one of the mandatory condition that the parties should live separately for more than two years had not been complied with on the date when the matter was adjudicated and they were not living separately for more than two years. Hence, the Petition was dismissed.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "4. The learned counsel for the appellants also affirmed the said fact. 5. Even otherwise, we note that, as on date, the mandatory period of two years has expired from the date of separation. The appellants have taken a conscious decision to dissolve their marriage. We are also satisfied that there is no possibility for re-union and every attempt of reunion has failed. The parties are firm that they will not rejoin in the marital life. Hence, we would allow this Appeal and direct dissolution of marriage solemnised between the appellants on 12.06.2024 at CSI Christ Church, Kodungaiyur, Chennai. __________ Page3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 1213 of 2026 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J. GSK 6. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed. No costs. (C.V.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 18-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GSK To V Additional Family Court, Chennai. CMA No. 1213 of 2026", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "(C.V.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 18-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GSK To V Additional Family Court, Chennai.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14646681/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "14646681", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14646681/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "James K.Avaran vs Jancy Ritamma George @ Jancy Avarah on 5 June, 2009", "Case Number": "Mat.Appeal.No. 364 of 2007", "Judgment Date": "2009-06-05", "Judges": "Basant, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Family Courts Act, 1984", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 19, Section 2", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act is directed against an order passed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act dissolving the marriage between the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife on the ground of cruelty. 3. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. Allegations of mental and physical cruelty are raised by the wife. It is alleged that the husband has been tormenting the wife perpetually raising allegations of unchaste and adulterous conduct. It is further alleged that physical cruelty was also inflicted on the wife by the husband while they were residing together raising such allegations.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act is directed against an order passed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act dissolving the marriage between the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife on the ground of cruelty.", "Issues": "\"Domicile is a mixed question of law and fact and there is perhaps no chapter in the law that has from such extensive discussion received less satisfactory settlement. This is no doubt attributable to the nature of the subject, including as it does, inquiry into the animus of persons who have either died without leaving any clear record of their intentions, but allowing them to be collected by inference from acts often equivocal, or who, being alive and interested, have a natural tendency to give their bygone feelings a tone and colour suggested by their present inclinations. The traditional statement that, to establish domicile, there must be a present intention of permanent residence merely means that so far as the mind of the person at the relevant time was concerned, he possessed the requisite intention. The relevant time varies with the nature of the inquiry. It may be past or...", "Petitioner Argument": "3. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. Allegations of mental and physical cruelty are raised by the wife. It is alleged that the husband has been tormenting the wife perpetually raising allegations of unchaste and adulterous conduct. It is further alleged that physical cruelty was also inflicted on the wife by the husband while they were residing together raising such allegations. 4. The matrimonial discord has a long history behind it. Sans unnecessary details, crucial skeletal facts can be narrated thus: 5. The marriage took place on 26-11-1989. The marriage MAT.A.364/2007 -3- was solemnized in accordance with the Christian religious rites at Thrissur District in Kerala. The wife was employed as a Nurse in the Indian Army at that time. The wife went to Switzerland on 5-9-1990. The brother of the husband was employed and living there at that time. Long later, the husband who was a lawyer practising in Kerala also left for Switzerland and joined the wife on 13-11-1993. Matrimonial discord developed and admittedly separate residence commenced on 17-8-2002. There were certain proceedings initiated before the...", "Respondent Argument": "32. Counsel for the respondent/wife has placed before us materials to show that suggestion of the High Court of Madras in paragraph 5 of that decision is being pursued by the Law Commission to avoid unnecessary hardship and difficulty, if any court were to take a technical and literal view of the expression - 39. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the doctrine of revival applies and even assuming that the wife has chosen to condone such reckless allegations made earlier, the repetition of such allegations after the alleged event of condonation must give rise to a revived cause of action. We MAT.A.364/2007 -37- agree with the learned counsel for the respondent.", "Factors to be Considered": "6. The wife claimed divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act on the ground of cruelty. As stated earlier, she alleged that the husband has been guilty of mental cruelty he having incessantly raised false allegations of unchaste and adulterous behaviour. He had also assaulted her physically and verbally. These acts of his amounted to matrimonial cruelty, it was alleged. The claim for divorce was made on the plank of these allegations of matrimonial cruelty. 7. The husband entered appearance and resisted the claim for divorce. It would appear that the husband is not in principle against the dissolution of the marriage. He denies the allegations of cruelty but asserts unambiguously that the wife has been MAT.A.364/2007 -5- guilty of adultery and unchaste behaviour as also licentious conduct even before and after the marriage. Specific allegations to that effect are raised in the objections filed. However, the husband asserted that he was also interested in getting the matrimonial tie dissolved. But according to him not the courts in India but the Courts in Switzerland alone have jurisdiction to entertain such plea for divorce. He also wants divorce, which is not in dispute. According to him, the parties were...", "Decision": "42. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/93629/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; adultery", "Judgment Year": 2009, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "93629", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/93629/", "Chunks Indexed": 17 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Robert Sebastian vs Linet Suba Also Known As Linet Suba ... on 2 July, 1992", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1992-07-02", "Judges": "Sreedharan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 34, Section 366, Section 55, Section 97", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a reference made by the District Court, Kollam, under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\". Court below, by order dated 4-7-1991, dissolved the marriage between the petitioner/husband and first respondent/wife. It also directed second respondent, the adulterer, to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner. 2. Husband moved a petition under Sections 10 and 34 of the Act, alleging as follows:-- Marriage of the petitioner with the first respondent was solemnised on 9th July, 1981 at the Immaculate Conception Church, Pullichira. At the time of the marriage, petitioner was employed in Abudhabi. After 21 days of cohabitation, he returned to Abudhabi on 28th July, 1981. He returned on leave on 5th October, 1982 and stayed with the first respondent till 16th November, 1983. A male child was born through the wedlock on 25th July, 1983. Later he stayed with the first respondent from 28th March, 1984 to 2nd May, 1984. Thereafter, he could return to India only in September, 1989. On 29-3-1990, petitioner's cousin brother informed him over the phone that first respondent and the child are missing. Father of the first respondent sent letters to the petitioner informing that first respondent and the child are missing. Petitioner's father lodged a complaint with the police on...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a reference made by the District Court, Kollam, under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\". Court below, by order dated 4-7-1991, dissolved the marriage between the petitioner/husband and first respondent/wife. It also directed second respondent, the adulterer, to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner.", "Issues": "14. A marriage udambadi was executed between the first respondent and the second respondent in the Sub-Registrar's Office, Varkala. The first respondent has alleged in her objection that the said agreement has been cancelled. Learned counsel representing the second respondent stated before Court that his client is not having any contact whatsoever with the first respondent at present. We enquired with the counsel representing the petitioner/husband as to whether he is having any objection in directing the amount of damages awarded to the husband to be given to the first respondent/wife. Learned counsel fairly and rightly submitted that petitioner has no objection in allowing first respondent to get the amount from the second respondent. Taking note of this fact and the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we order that Rs. 25,000/- directed to be paid by the second respondent as damages will be paid by him to the...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "15. We confirm the decree of divorce passed by the Court below and the reference is disposed of accordingly.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/604178/ | AIR1992KER412, II(1992)DMC345, AIR 1992 KERALA 412, (1992) 2 KER LT 107, ILR(KER) 1992 (3) KER 20, (1992) 2 DMC 345, (1992) 2 KER LJ 69, (1993) MARRILJ 121, (1993) MATLR 11, (1993) 1 CIVLJ 159", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1992, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1992KER412, II(1992)DMC345, AIR 1992 KERALA 412, (1992) 2 KER LT 107, ILR(KER) 1992 (3) KER 20, (1992) 2 DMC 345, (1992) 2 KER LJ 69, (1993) MARRILJ 121, (1993) MATLR 11, (1993) 1 CIVLJ 159", "Kanoon Doc ID": "604178", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/604178/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Mr Vimalanathan Sigamani T vs Mrs Melo Kamalam on 22 October, 2024", "Case Number": "2024:KHC:42501-DB", "Judgment Date": "2024-10-22", "Judges": "Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J., Umesh M Adiga, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 498A, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR) This appeal is by the petitioner in M.C.3492/2011 on the file of IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, who initiated action for dissolution of his marriage with respondent/wife, by invoking section 10(x) of Indian Divorce Act. Since the Family Court by its filed this appeal. 2. The appellant and the respondent are Christians, their marriage was solemnized on 04.01.2002 at Church of South India (CSI), Karungal, Tamil Nadu. In the wedlock, they begot two sons. The appellant was doing business in Computers at Chennai at the time when he married the respondent, and in the year 2004, he and the respondent shifted their residence to Bengaluru as he secured an employment in Bengaluru.", "Fact/ Respondent": "(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR) This appeal is by the petitioner in M.C.3492/2011 on the file of IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, who initiated action for dissolution of his marriage with respondent/wife, by invoking section 10(x) of Indian Divorce Act. Since the Family Court by its filed this appeal.", "Issues": "(ii) Whether application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC can be allowed? 9. Before reappraisal of the case, it may be stated that in matrimonial cases, where suppression and exaggeration of events is common place, evidence cannot - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:42501-DB MFA No. 5891 of 2019 be appreciated in the way it is appreciated in other civil cases; Euclid formula cannot be applied; there is nothing wrong in traversing beyond pleadings. Comprehensive approach is needed, documents for every allegation cannot be expected, in fact it is impossible to produce document for every allegation. The Family Court has observed that in regard to allegation of pouring hot water on the appellant, he should have produced some materials to substantiate that allegation. It is observed that medical documents could have been produced. It is to be stated here that the respondent does not dispute the fact of appellant sustaining burns,...", "Petitioner Argument": "7. We have heard Sri Abhinav Ramanand, learned counsel for the appellant. The respondent appeared in person and put forth her contentions. They also filed their written arguments. 8. The points arising for discussion are : (i) Has the Family Court erred in drawing a conclusion that the appellant has failed to establish the allegations amounting to cruelty meted out to him by the respondent?", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "19. Perusal of judgment in C.C.36006/2011 shows that the respondent alleged harassment on her by the appellant and therefore he was tried for the offence under section 498A of IPC. In that case respondent adduced evidence as PW3 and deposed in examination chief that there was demand for dowry. In the cross examination she was confronted with a letter written by her to the investigating officer that her husband had not demanded for dowry. Adverting to this letter and other evidence, the criminal court found the respondent an untrustworthy - 18 - NC: 2024:KHC:42501-DB MFA No. 5891 of 2019 witness and thereby acquitted the appellant. This judgment reflects more on the conduct and attitude of the respondent than any other document. 20. Out of many decisions cited by the appellant's counsel, only one judgment may be referred here as it suffices the situation. In A.Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur [(2005) 2 SCC 22 : 2004 SCC Online SC 1523], the meaning of the word 'cruelty' is explained. It is held. \"10. The expression \"cruelty\" has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as willful...", "Decision": "NC: 2024:KHC:42501-DB MFA No. 5891 of 2019 04.01.2002 is dissolved and decree of divorce is granted.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/98359440/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2024, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "98359440", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/98359440/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Ronald Lawrence Pereira vs Flory Pereira And Benny Gonsalves on 5 December, 1991", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1991-12-05", "Judges": "I.G. Shah, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The Petitioner, who is a husband of the Respondent has filed this Petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act to claim dissolution of the marriage and Rs. 8,000/- by way of damages from the co-respondent. 3. The Petitioner examined himself and has deposed that his marriage with the respondent took place on 15th November, 1969, as per Christian rites. He deposed that the respondent is also Christian. He produced in support of his contention an extract of the Marriage Certificate issued by the Church. In view of this, the Petitioner is able to establish that he is legally married husband of the Respondent. He also further deposed that after residing with the Respondent after their marriage four issues were born to them. The eldest daughter, however, is married and there are two other daughters and the son who are minors. He also deposed that in August 1984, he secured a job in Kuwait as a carpenter and, therefore, he went to Kuwait. On 5th August, 1987, he returned from Kuwait for a short vacation and at that time he noticed that the respondent was having an affair with the co-respondent. The respondent also admitted the said relationship of her with the co-respondent. He also claims that the respondent actually requested him to give a consent in writing...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The Petitioner, who is a husband of the Respondent has filed this Petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act to claim dissolution of the marriage and Rs. 8,000/- by way of damages from the co-respondent.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "6. In the result, the marriage of the Petitioner with the Respondent is dissolved. The Respondent and the Co-Respondent are ordered to pay costs of Rs. one thousand of this Petition to the Petitioner. No order is passed in respect of the claim of damages.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1568567/ | II(1994)DMC618", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 1991, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: II(1994)DMC618", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1568567", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1568567/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Punjab-Haryana High Court", "Case Title": "Anju Masih vs Prince Procha on 16 January, 2017", "Case Number": "Transfer Application No.561 of 2016", "Judgment Date": "2017-01-16", "Judges": "Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 151, Section 24", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Applicant-wife, by way of instant transfer application under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeks transfer of petition under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869, titled as \"Prince Procha vs. Anju Masih\" filed by the respondent-husband from Amritsar to Panipat. husband is not paying any amount of maintenance to the wife. Distance between Panipat and Amritsar is more than 400 km.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Applicant-wife, by way of instant transfer application under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeks transfer of petition under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869, titled as \"Prince Procha vs. Anju Masih\" filed by the respondent-husband from Amritsar to Panipat.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "January 16, 2017 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) seema JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2017 18:46:37 :::", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/166851357/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2017, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "166851357", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/166851357/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Johnsi Amalarani vs S.Arul Prakash on 19 July, 2016", "Case Number": "I.D.O.P.No.25 of 2016", "Judgment Date": "2016-07-19", "Judges": "K.Kalyanasundaram, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 24", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to withdraw the application in I.D.O.P.No.25 of 2016 from the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruchirappalli and transfer the same to the District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai to be tried along with I.D.O.P.No.23 of 2015. 3. It is further submitted that earlier, the respondent filed I.D.O.P.No.103 of 2013 before the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Thiruchirappalli against the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was transferred from the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Thiruchirappalli to the District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai in Tr.C.M.P.No.74 of 2014 filed by the petitioner. While so, the respondent has now filed I.D.O.P.No.25 of 2016 before the District and Sessions Court, Thiruchirappalli under Section 10(VII) , 10(IX) and 10(X) of Indian Divorce Act.", "Fact/ Respondent": "3. It is further submitted that earlier, the respondent filed I.D.O.P.No.103 of 2013 before the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Thiruchirappalli against the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was transferred from the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Thiruchirappalli to the District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai in Tr.C.M.P.No.74 of 2014 filed by the petitioner. While so, the respondent has now filed I.D.O.P.No.25 of 2016 before the District and Sessions Court, Thiruchirappalli under Section 10(VII) , 10(IX) and 10(X) of Indian Divorce Act.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "2. Mr.P.Mahendran, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent and she is a permanent resident of Karaikudi. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 11.11.2012, as per the Christian Rites and Customs. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has been blessed with twins and both of them are in the custody of the petitioner, that after the petitioner left from the matrimonial house due to harassment met by her, she is now residing with her aged parents and she could not travel for more than 80 Kilometers to defend the case filed by her husband. 5. Despite service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel and contest the petition. 6. It is settled law and in the cases arise out matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife shall be given preference. 7. In such view of the matter, this petition is allowed and the petition in I.D.O.P.No.25 of 2016 is ordered to...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "7. In such view of the matter, this petition is allowed and the petition in I.D.O.P.No.25 of 2016 is ordered to be withdrawn from the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruchirappalli and transferred to the file of the District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai for joint trial along with I.D.O.P.No.23 of 2015.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103985033/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2016, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "103985033", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103985033/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "D. Thomas vs Tara on 28 November, 1977", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1977-11-28", "Judges": "Ramarrasada Rao, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The husband went to court seeking for a divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act on the ground that the defendant was unfaithful to him from December 1972 and that she was guilty of adultery. In the pleadings, the plaintiff as husband has set out in the various paragraphs the illegal conduct of the defendant and her illicit connections with the various named persons. In fact, he would allege that he had to leave the residence along with his children to his uncle's house unable to bear the misconduct of the defendant. He so separated himself from her on 13-1-1973. He says that the defendant is living the life of a prostitute and would add that she is living as the mistress of one Murali. In general, the case of the plaintiff-husband is that the defendant was leading an adulterous life with men known and unkonwn. He did not, however, make the adulterers as parties to this suit. The defendant's case was that she led such a life because of her husband himself and that on many occasions she refused to succumb to the invitation of the plaintiff to commit such indecent acts and that this is the reason for the suit. 2. We are not inclined at this stage to go into the merits of this...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The husband went to court seeking for a divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act on the ground that the defendant was unfaithful to him from December 1972 and that she was guilty of adultery. In the pleadings, the plaintiff as husband has set out in the various paragraphs the illegal conduct of the defendant and her illicit connections with the various named persons. In fact, he would allege that he had to leave the residence along with his children to his uncle's house unable to bear the misconduct of the defendant. He so separated himself from her on 13-1-1973. He says that the defendant is living the life of a prostitute and would add that she is living as the mistress of one Murali. In general, the case of the plaintiff-husband is that the defendant was leading an adulterous life with men known and unkonwn. He did not, however, make the adulterers as parties to this suit. The defendant's case was that she led such a life because of her husband himself and that on many occasions she refused to succumb to the invitation of the plaintiff to commit such indecent acts and that this is...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "3. We record with appreciation the services rendered by the amicus curiae.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/824406/ | AIR1978MAD415, AIR 1978 MADRAS 415, 1991 MADLW 528", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1977, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1978MAD415, AIR 1978 MADRAS 415, 1991 MADLW 528", "Kanoon Doc ID": "824406", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/824406/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Mrs Olivia D Souza vs Mr Prakash Peedikayil on 10 January, 2019", "Case Number": "PETITION NO.82 OF 2018", "Judgment Date": "2019-01-10", "Judges": "Alok, J., and, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 125, Section 24", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. The civil petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally. 3. This petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) has been filed by the wife seeking transfer of the proceedings instituted by the respondent under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) from Bengaluru to Karwar. From the pleadings of the petition, 3 it is evident that the petitioner-wife is the resident of Karwar and has instituted the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 seeking maintenance against the respondent at Karwar. Admittedly, the respondent has appeared in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code and has contested the proceedings.", "Fact/ Respondent": "3. This petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) has been filed by the wife seeking transfer of the proceedings instituted by the respondent under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) from Bengaluru to Karwar. From the pleadings of the petition, 3 it is evident that the petitioner-wife is the resident of Karwar and has instituted the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 seeking maintenance against the respondent at Karwar. Admittedly, the respondent has appeared in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code and has contested the proceedings.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Mr. V.S. Biju, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The civil petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "Accordingly, the petition is allowed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18406917/ | AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 311", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2019, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 311", "Kanoon Doc ID": "18406917", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18406917/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Smt. Praveen Rodney vs Sanjeev Kumar Rodney on 24 May, 2022", "Case Number": "Matrimonial Case No.409 of 2020", "Judgment Date": "2022-05-24", "Judges": "ble Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "With aforesaid direction, the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is finally disposed of.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Respondent contested the petition, denying allegations of unclear under Section 10 and submitting that no statutory grounds exist for dissolving the marriage.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Heard Mr. Azhar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "With aforesaid direction, the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is finally disposed of.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73336891/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2022, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "73336891", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73336891/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Lalit Lazarus vs Smt. Lavina Lazarus And Anr. on 24 November, 1978", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1978-11-24", "Judges": "C.P. Sen, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. The parties in this proceeding are Christians. The petitioner's case is that he is employed as Director-cum-Psychologist in the Educational and Vocational Guidance Centre run by E.L. Church at Chhindwara. The respondent No. 1 Lavina Lazarus was married to the petitioner according to the Christian rites at Indore in Dec. 1971. After the marriage the respondent No. 1 lived with the petitioner and his family members at Chhindwara for a few days, Thereafter at the instigation of the parents of the respondent No. 1 she started demanding that the petitioner should break relations with his family members and reside separately with her. When the petitioner did not agree with this, she reacted violently and held out the threat that either she would commit suicide or poison the petitioner and his family members. In a meeting of the Church Council, Chhindwara, convened on 2-9-1972 Lavina Lazarus was asked to improve her behaviour. She, however, left for Indore, She again visited Chhindwara from time to time on 13-10-1972, 23-10-1972 and 31-10-1972. On the first occasion she was accompanied by her parents and on the subsequent occasions accompanied by certain rowdy elements of Indore who indulged in acts of violence at Chhindwara. On 17-3-1973 at about 3 a. m. the respondent No. 1 along with same other persons from Indore came to...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The parties in this proceeding are Christians. The petitioner's case is that he is employed as Director-cum-Psychologist in the Educational and Vocational Guidance Centre run by E.L. Church at Chhindwara. The respondent No. 1 Lavina Lazarus was married to the petitioner according to the Christian rites at Indore in Dec. 1971. After the marriage the respondent No. 1 lived with the petitioner and his family members at Chhindwara for a few days, Thereafter at the instigation of the parents of the respondent No. 1 she started demanding that the petitioner should break relations with his family members and reside separately with her. When the petitioner did not agree with this, she reacted violently and held out the threat that either she would commit suicide or poison the petitioner and his family members. In a meeting of the Church Council, Chhindwara, convened on 2-9-1972 Lavina Lazarus was asked to improve her behaviour. She, however, left for Indore, She again visited Chhindwara from time to time on 13-10-1972, 23-10-1972 and 31-10-1972. On the first occasion she was accompanied by her parents and on the subsequent occasions accompanied by certain rowdy elements of Indore who indulged in acts of violence at Chhindwara....", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "8. Accordingly, the decree nisi is made absolute granting a decree for divorce to the petitioner under Section 10 of the Act. In the circumstances of the case,", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/517848/ | AIR1979MP70, AIR 1979 MADHYA PRADESH 70, (1979) MPLJ 184, (1979) JAB LJ 299, (1979) MATLR 239", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1978, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1979MP70, AIR 1979 MADHYA PRADESH 70, (1979) MPLJ 184, (1979) JAB LJ 299, (1979) MATLR 239", "Kanoon Doc ID": "517848", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/517848/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "M. Clarance vs M. Raicheal And Anr. on 11 April, 1963", "Case Number": "No. 38 of 1962", "Judgment Date": "1963-04-11", "Judges": "N. Sreenivasa Rau, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 16, Section 17, Section 19, Section 3, Section 31", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. I agree with the conclusions arrayed at by my learned brother Mir Iqbal Husain, J., on all the questions arising in this case and with the proposed order dismissing the petition. As some of the points involved are of great importance, I am adding the following observations: 2. The question of jurisdiction of the Court in which the petition was filed is one of some difficulty. It may also be mentioned that the petition itself does not contain any averment as to the place of residence of either party with reference to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Petitioner (husband) is, however, described as residing at Vaniambadi in North Arcot District, Madras State, and Respondent-I (wife) is stated to be a school mistress in Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court, Bangalore, to which the petition was present.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The question of jurisdiction of the Court in which the petition was filed is one of some difficulty. It may also be mentioned that the petition itself does not contain any averment as to the place of residence of either party with reference to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Petitioner (husband) is, however, described as residing at Vaniambadi in North Arcot District, Madras State, and Respondent-I (wife) is stated to be a school mistress in Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court, Bangalore, to which the petition was present.", "Issues": "4. There appears to be some difference of opinion among the High Courts as to whether the word 'together' qualifies only the words 'last resided' or it also qualifies the word 'reside'. While some High Courts have held that even in the case of invoking the Court's jurisdiction on the ground that the husband and the wife are residing within the jurisdiction of the Court at the time of the presentation of the petition it is necessary that they should be residing 'together', other High' Courts have held that it is enough that both of them are residing within the jurisdiction of the Court, though it may be that they are residing separately. It is, however, unnecessary to express any view on this point, since it is beyond question in this case that the petitioner (husband) was not residing within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Bangalore, at the time...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "42. The above discussion leads us to only one result viz., that the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is so ordered. No costs. 43. Petition dismissed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/818267/ | AIR1964KANT67, AIR1964MYS67, ILR1963KAR788, (1963)2MYSLJ", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1963, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1964KANT67, AIR1964MYS67, ILR1963KAR788, (1963)2MYSLJ", "Kanoon Doc ID": "818267", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/818267/", "Chunks Indexed": 22 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Manju Padayatti vs Midhun Jose on 6 November, 2014", "Case Number": "Mat.Appeal.No. 68 of 2015", "Judgment Date": "2014-11-06", "Judges": "C.K.Abdul Rehim, J., Shaji P.Chaly, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Special Marriage Act, 1954", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 22, Section 27", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Above Matrimonial Appeals arise from a common of 2012 respectively. O.P.No.2205 of 2012 is filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage under Sec.27 of the Special Marriage Act r/w Sec.10 of Indian Divorce Act, which was dismissed by the Family Court. O.P.No.1369 of 2014 was filed by the respondent under Sec.22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which was allowed by the Family Court. O.P.No.2204 of 2012 was filed by the appellant seeking realization of an amount of Rs.35,06,524/- with 12% interest from the date of suit till realization, which was partly allowed by the Family Court by granting a decree to the appellant for an amount of Rs.40,000/- with 6% interest p.a. from 17.11.2011 till its realization. The Family Court has disposed of the aforesaid Mat. Appeal No.68/2015 & conn. cases 2 Original Petitions by its common judgment since the subject matter of the cases are intrinsically connected. Therefore, we also propose to dispose of the same by a common judgment. In order to dispose of the appeals, the facts recited in Mat. Appeal No.81 of 2015 is narrated and the facts in all the appeals are almost similar and common and therefore separate narration of facts are not required. If at all the same is required, it will be stated wherever it...", "Fact/ Respondent": "Above Matrimonial Appeals arise from a common of 2012 respectively. O.P.No.2205 of 2012 is filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage under Sec.27 of the Special Marriage Act r/w Sec.10 of Indian Divorce Act, which was dismissed by the Family Court. O.P.No.1369 of 2014 was filed by the respondent under Sec.22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which was allowed by the Family Court. O.P.No.2204 of 2012 was filed by the appellant seeking realization of an amount of Rs.35,06,524/- with 12% interest from the date of suit till realization, which was partly allowed by the Family Court by granting a decree to the appellant for an amount of Rs.40,000/- with 6% interest p.a. from 17.11.2011 till its realization. The Family Court has disposed of the aforesaid Mat. Appeal No.68/2015 & conn. cases 2 Original Petitions by its common judgment since the subject matter of the cases are intrinsically connected. Therefore, we also propose to dispose of the same by a common judgment. In order to dispose of the appeals, the facts recited in Mat. Appeal No.81 of 2015 is narrated and the facts in all the appeals are almost similar and common and therefore...", "Issues": "12. From the pleadings, the Family Court has raised two points for determination: (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty? and (2) Relief and costs? 13. In Mat. Appeal No.68 of 2015, the appellant is challenging the judgment of the Family Court granting the decree sought for by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. The contentions of the respondent therein are that, there are no serious matrimonial disputes existing by and between the appellant and the respondent, that the respondent has taken all the contentions raised by him under his objection in O.P.No.2205 of 2012. That apart it is contended that, the father of the appellant was instrumental in causing disruption to the matrimonial harmony and peace of the appellant and the respondent. It is also contended that the respondent, his friends and well-wishers had requested the appellant to...", "Petitioner Argument": "3. At the time of marriage, the respondent was working at IBM India Projects Ltd., at Bangalore as a Software Engineer and he was deputed for an assignment to Finland, a country in Western Europe. On 25.07.2011, the respondent along with the appellant went to Finland to take up his assignment. It is contended by the appellant that during the Mat. Appeal No.68/2015 & conn. cases 3 short period of the parties united as man and wife, appellant found that respondent was a chronic drunkard and behaved in a very abnormal manner, under intoxication. That apart, it is contended that, the respondent was not at all interested in maintaining a cordial and amicable marital relationship with the appellant and the appellant stated several incidents in the Original Petition pointing out the abnormal and unusual behaviour from a highly educated person and he fails to discharge his duties as a husband. The attitude and behaviour of the respondent was unbecoming of a lovable husband, which under the ordinary circumstances would compel the life partner to leave the matrimonial home to join...", "Respondent Argument": "11. The respondent entered appearance and filed objection. According to the appellant, the denial made in the objections was not in accordance with law, by extracting the averment in its entirety and denying the same in one sentence \"are utter false and hence denied by the respondent\". After extracting the contentions of the appellant in the Original Petition and after denying the same, the respondent has stated that the father of the appellant had desired for marital alliance of his daughter with the respondent for the reason that he had a decent job and was about to pursue his employment in Finland. That apart, it is stated that, since his father-in-law found that the assignment in Finland was terminated, he became furious. He wanted his daughter to go to the parental house as a sequel to parting company with the respondent. It is contended that the father of the appellant acted as a hindrance to their marital relationship. It is also contended by the respondent that the parties do not have any serious differences, but it is only the father...", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear.", "Decision": "40. In the result, Matrimonial Appeal Nos.68 of 2015 and 81 of 2015 are allowed and Matrimonial Appeal No.103 of 2015 is dismissed, subject to the clarification with respect to the interest awarded by the court below.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173272640/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2014, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "173272640", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173272640/", "Chunks Indexed": 12 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Shaji Sebastian vs Julie Joseph on 29 January, 2026", "Case Number": "2026:KER:6855", "Judgment Date": "2026-01-29", "Judges": "Sathish Ninan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 27, Section 3, Section 37", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty; Adultery", "Outcome": "Partly_Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "These appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the Family Court, Muvattupuzha. O.P. No. 573/2012 was instituted by the husband seeking dissolution of marriage, while O.P. No. 574/2012 was filed by the wife seeking return of gold ornaments and money, along with past maintenance. 2. By the impugned common judgment, the Family Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and also allowed the wife's claim for return of gold and money, as well as maintenance. Though the husband succeeded in obtaining a decree of divorce, he has preferred these appeals insofar as the Family Court declined to grant divorce on the additional grounds of adultery and cruelty urged by him, and also challenging the decree granting the Mat.Appeal Nos.537/2014, 538/2014 5 2026:KER:6855 aforesaid reliefs to the wife.", "Fact/ Respondent": "These appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the Family Court, Muvattupuzha. O.P. No. 573/2012 was instituted by the husband seeking dissolution of marriage, while O.P. No. 574/2012 was filed by the wife seeking return of gold ornaments and money, along with past maintenance.", "Issues": "9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, though an appeal was preferred against the order in the divorce petition to the extent it declined to grant divorce on the grounds of cruelty and adultery, the appellant is now satisfied with the decree granted on the ground of desertion. In view of the said submission, we do not propose to examine the question whether the grounds of cruelty and adultery were established. It was further submitted that the appellant does not intend to oppose the direction in the judgment for payment of past maintenance to the child. 10. Thus, the points that arise for consideration are as Mat.Appeal Nos.537/2014, 538/2014 8 2026:KER:6855 follows: (1) Is the respondent entitled to get the gold ornaments and money claimed in the petition? (2) Is the respondent entitled to get past maintenance? 11. It is not in dispute that...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "8. We have heard Sri.M.P.Ramnath, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.N.K.Subramaniam, the learned counsel for the respondent.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "In the result, Mat.Appeal No.537/2014 is dismissed. Mat.Appeal No.538/2014 is partly allowed and the direction to pay past maintenance to the wife is set aside. The impugned judgment is upheld in other respects.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118606983/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty; adultery", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "118606983", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118606983/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Muncherji Cursetji Khambata vs Jessie Grant Khambata on 20 April, 1934", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1934-04-20", "Judges": "Blackwell, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 2, Section 3, Section 4, Section 41, Section 42, Section 43, Section 60, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. In this case the petitioner sues for a divorce by reason of the respondent's alleged adultery and cruelty. Among other defences, the respondent pleads that a previous marriage of the petitioner with one Gulam Mahomed Ebrahim has never been dissolved or annulled by any Court of competent jurisdiction and is still subsisting. The question, whether the first marriage had been validly dissolved before the marriage in suit took place, was tried as a preliminary issue. The learned Chief Justice answered that issue in the affirmative, and this is an appeal from his decision. 2. The issue was tried upon an agreed statement of facts. From this it appears that on December 4, 1906, the petitioner, who was domiciled in Scotland, married at the General Registry Office in Edinburgh Gulam Mahomed Ebrahim, who was a Sunni Mahomedan domiciled in India (which includes not only British India, but the various Native States). In 1912, the petitioner became a convert to the Mahomedan religion, and continued to profess that religion up to the middle of April, 1923. Between the years 1914 and 1933 Gulam Mahomed Ebrahim permanently resided at Secunderabad, and is still permanently residing there. On June 27, 1922, Ebrahim pronounced talak against the petitioner in accordance with Mahomedan law. On April 10, 1923, the petitioner obtained a declaration from the...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. In this case the petitioner sues for a divorce by reason of the respondent's alleged adultery and cruelty. Among other defences, the respondent pleads that a previous marriage of the petitioner with one Gulam Mahomed Ebrahim has never been dissolved or annulled by any Court of competent jurisdiction and is still subsisting. The question, whether the first marriage had been validly dissolved before the marriage in suit took place, was tried as a preliminary issue. The learned Chief Justice answered that issue in the affirmative, and this is an appeal from his decision.", "Issues": "1. In this case the petitioner sues for a divorce by reason of the respondent's alleged adultery and cruelty. Among other defences, the respondent pleads that a previous marriage of the petitioner with one Gulam Mahomed Ebrahim has never been dissolved or annulled by any Court of competent jurisdiction and is still subsisting. The question, whether the first marriage had been validly dissolved before the marriage in suit took place, was tried as a preliminary issue. The learned Chief Justice answered that issue in the affirmative, and this is an appeal from his decision. 2. The issue was tried upon an agreed statement of facts. From this it appears that on December 4, 1906, the petitioner, who was domiciled in Scotland, married at the General Registry Office in Edinburgh Gulam Mahomed Ebrahim, who was a Sunni Mahomedan domiciled in India (which includes not only British India, but the various Native...", "Petitioner Argument": "25. Even if the law of the domicile were to be applied, therefore, there can be little doubt, in my opinion, that the marriage which these parties contracted must be regarded as a marriage in the Christian sense, a monogamous marriage. It did not seem to me that the learned Counsel for the petitioner seriously disputed this position. According to him the Court is not concerned with any question of monogamy or polygamy in this case. Divorce has nothing to do with the marriage contract. The authorities clearly show that the dissolution of a marriage, and the determination of the manner in which a marriage may be dissolved, are matters for the lex. domicilii. Therefore, he says, all that the Court has to consider in the present case is, whether the lex domicilii permits the husband to divorce his. wife by talak. 28. The learned Counsel for the appellant has naturally relied strongly on Mir-Anwaruddin's case. But there the question for decision was, whether a declaration of divorcement made by a Mahomedan, who had married an English woman before a...", "Respondent Argument": "5. There is no evidence as to what the law of Scotland is in reference to a marriage entered into in Scotland before a Registrar. The learned Chief Justice has assumed for the purposes of his judgment that the Scotch law is the same as the English law. Whether the law is the same or not, I do not know. Before us counsel for the respondent wished to argue that the law was not the same, and that the marriage in Scotland should be regarded as equivalent to a marriage in Mahomedan form, but, in the absence of evidence upon the subject, we declined to allow him to do so, and as the case was argued in the Court below upon the assumption that the law was the same, we have decided this appeal upon that assumption.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "30. For these reasons, I hold that the learned Chief Justice's finding as to the validity of the divorce of the petitioner by her Mahomedan husband should be upheld. As to the other matters, which have been the subject of argument, I agree with my learned brother and have nothing to add.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1334922/ | (1934)36BOMLR1021, AIR 1935 BOMBAY 5", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1934, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1934)36BOMLR1021, AIR 1935 BOMBAY 5", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1334922", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1334922/", "Chunks Indexed": 19 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court of India", "Case Title": "Sharda vs Dharmpal on 28 March, 2003", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2003-03-28", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A, Section 112, Section 114, Section 115, Section 12, Section 13, Section 151, Section 17, Section 185, Section 19, Section 2, Section 20, Section 27, Section 3, Section 32, Section 37, Section 4, Section 41, Section 5, Section 50, Section 53, Section 64, Section 75", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Unsound Mind; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Whether a party to a divorce proceeding can be compelled to a medical examination is the core question involved in this appeal. This question arises out of a judgment dated 17.11.1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1414/99 dismissing an application filed by the appellant herein questioning an order of the Addl. District & Session Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh Camp Sangaria dated 8.10.1999 directing to submit herself to medical examination on the question as to whether she is of unsound mind. 2. The parties herein were married on 26.6.1991 according to the Hindu rites. On or about 3.6.1995, the respondent filed an application for divorce against the appellant under Section 12(1)(b) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He filed an application seeking directions for medical examination of the appellant on 5th May, 1999. The appellant objected thereto inter alia on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to pass such directions. By an order dated 8.10.1999 the said application was allowed directing the appellant to submit herself to the medical examination.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The parties herein were married on 26.6.1991 according to the Hindu rites. On or about 3.6.1995, the respondent filed an application for divorce against the appellant under Section 12(1)(b) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He filed an application seeking directions for medical examination of the appellant on 5th May, 1999. The appellant objected thereto inter alia on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to pass such directions. By an order dated 8.10.1999 the said application was allowed directing the appellant to submit herself to the medical examination.", "Issues": "1. Whether a party to a divorce proceeding can be compelled to a medical examination is the core question involved in this appeal. This question arises out of a judgment dated 17.11.1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1414/99 dismissing an application filed by the appellant herein questioning an order of the Addl. District & Session Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh Camp Sangaria dated 8.10.1999 directing to submit herself to medical examination on the question as to whether she is of unsound mind. (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely,- (a) ..... (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "11. A sound mind indisputably is a key to a happy married life. A party to the marriage must, thus, have normal and sound mind so as to live a happy marital life. A disorder of thought, behavior and mind leading to unsoundness of mind may give rise to a cause of action for filing an application under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The burden of proof of the existence of requisite degree of mental disorder is on the spouse making the claim on that state of fact. 12. The decision rendered by various courts of this country including this Court lead to a conclusion that a decree for divorce in terms of Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act can be granted in the event the unsoundness of mind is held to be not curable. A party may behave strangely or oddly inappropriate and progressive in deterioration in the level of work may lead to a conclusion that he or she suffers from an illness of slow growing developing over years. The disease, however, must be of such a kind that the other spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with him or her. A few strong instances indicating...", "Decision": "87. Subject to the observations made hereinbefore we are of the opinion that the High Court cannot be said to have committed a jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149969440/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; unsound_mind; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 2003, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "149969440", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149969440/", "Chunks Indexed": 41 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court of India", "Case Title": "Navtej Singh Johar vs Union Of India Ministry Of Law And ... on 6 September, 2018", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2018-09-06", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 115, Section 118, Section 120, Section 13, Section 139, Section 14, Section 144, Section 15, Section 16, Section 18, Section 186, Section 198, Section 2, Section 21, Section 21227, Section 22, Section 228, Section 27, Section 3, Section 30, Section 309, Section 32, Section 321, Section 337, Section 375, Section 376, Section 377, Section 4, Section 416, Section 424, Section 44, Section 49, Section 511, Section 515, Section 54, Section 558, Section 586, Section 6, Section 609, Section 620, Section 624, Section 66A, Section 677, Section 744, Section 833", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 76 OF 2016 NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR & ORS. …Petitioner(s) UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE …Respondent(s) WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 572 OF 2016 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 88 OF 2018 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 100 OF 2018 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 101 OF 2018 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 121 OF 2018 Dipak Misra, CJI (for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) CONTENTS S. No(s). Heading Page No(s) Signature Not Verified A. Introduction………………………………………… 3-11 Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR The Reference……………………………………… Date: 2018.09.06 15:12:35 IST Reason: B. 11-15 2 C. Submissions on behalf of the petitioners…… 15-30 D. Submissions on behalf of the respondents and other intervenors.………………………….… 31-44 E. Decisions in Naz Foundation and Suresh Koushal………………..…………………………….. 45-48 F. Other judicial pronouncements on Section 377 IPC ……………………….………………………….. 48-57 G. The Constitution – an organic charter of progressive rights………………………………… 57-64 H. Transformative constitutionalism and the rights of LGBT community………………………. 65-74 I. Constitutional morality and Section 377 IPC…. 74-81 J. Perspective of human dignity…………………… 81-89 K. Sexual orientation…………………………………. 89-96 L. Privacy and its concomitant aspects…………... 96-111 M. Doctrine of progressive realization of rights…………………………………………………. 111-118 N. International perspective…………………………. 118", "Fact/ Respondent": "1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 76 OF 2016 NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR & ORS. …Petitioner(s) UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE …Respondent(s) WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 572 OF 2016 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 88 OF 2018 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 100 OF 2018 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 101 OF 2018 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 121 OF 2018", "Issues": "‗By a metaphor the word intercourse, like the word commerce, is applied to the relations of the sexes. Here also there is the temporary visitation of one organism by a member of the other organisation, for certain clearly defined and limited objects. The primary object of the visiting organisation is to obtain euphoria by means of a detent of the nerves consequent on the sexual crisis. But there is no intercourse unless the visiting member is enveloped at least partially by the visited organism, for intercourse connotes reciprocity.‘ Therefore, to decide whether there is intercourse or not, what is to be considered is whether the visiting organ is enveloped at least partially by the visited organism. In intercourse between the thighs, the visiting male organ is enveloped at least partially by the organism visited, the thighs: the thighs are kept together and tight. 20. Then about penetration. The word ‗penetrate‘...", "Petitioner Argument": "13. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 76 of 2016, Ms. Jayna Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 572 of 2016, Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 88 of 2018, Mr. Anand Grover, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 100 of 2018 and 101 of 2018 and Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 121 of 2018. We have also heard Mr. Ashok Desai, Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Mr. Shyam Divan and Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for various intervenors in the matter. A compilation of written submissions has been filed by the petitioners as well as the intervenors. 14. We have heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing in Interlocutory Application No. 94284 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No....", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Dipak Misra, CJI (for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) CONTENTS S. No(s). Heading Page No(s) Signature Not Verified A. Introduction………………………………………… 3-11 Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR The Reference……………………………………… Date: 2018.09.06 15:12:35 IST Reason: B. 11-15 2 C. Submissions on behalf of the petitioners…… 15-30 D. Submissions on behalf of the respondents and other intervenors.………………………….… 31-44 E. Decisions in Naz Foundation and Suresh Koushal………………..…………………………….. 45-48 F. Other judicial pronouncements on Section 377 IPC ……………………….………………………….. 48-57 G. The Constitution – an organic charter of progressive rights………………………………… 57-64 H. Transformative constitutionalism and the rights of LGBT community………………………. 65-74 I. Constitutional morality and Section 377 IPC…. 74-81 J. Perspective of human dignity…………………… 81-89 K. Sexual orientation…………………………………. 89-96 L. Privacy and its concomitant aspects…………... 96-111 M. Doctrine of progressive realization of rights…………………………………………………. 111-118 N. International perspective…………………………. 118 (i) United States……………………………… 118-122 (ii) Canada…………………………………….. 123-125 (iii) South Africa………………………………. 125 (iv) United Kingdom…………………………. 126-127 (v) Other Courts/Jurisdictions…………….. 127-129 3 O. Comparative analysis of Section 375 and Section 377 IPC………………………………….… 129-140 P. The litmus test for survival of Section 377 IPC…….……………………………………………… 140-156 Q. Conclusions………………………………………… 156-166 A. Introduction Not for nothing, the great German thinker, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, had said, ―I am what I am, so take me...", "Decision": "We allow the writ petition in the above terms.” 4. Despite the fact that no appeal was filed by the Union of India, in appeals filed by private individuals and groups, the 3 Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Koushal and Anr. v. Naz Foundation and Ors. (“Suresh Kumar Koushal” ), (2014) 1 SCC 1, reversed the judgment of the High Court. Reviews that were filed against the aforesaid judgment, including by the Union of India, were dismissed by this Court. 5. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court delivered an important judgment reported as National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (“NALSA”), (2014) 5 SCC 438, which construed Articles 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India as including the right to gender identity and sexual orientation, and held that just like men and women, transgenders could enjoy all the fundamental rights that other citizens of India could enjoy. Thereafter, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (“Puttaswamy” ), (2017) 10 SCC 1, a nine-Judge Bench of this Court unanimously declared that there is a fundamental...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168671544/ | AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 4321, AIR 2018 SC( CRI) 1169, (2018) 4 MAD LJ(CRI) 306, (2018) 4 BOMCR(CRI) 289, (2018) 10 SCALE 386, 2019 (1) SCC (CRI) 1, (2018) 4 CURCRIR 1, (2018) 105 ALLCRIC 258, (2018) 3 ALLCRIR 3234, (2018) 3 CRIMES 233, 2018 (10) SCC 1, 2018 (190) AIC (SOC) 1 (SC), 252 (2018) DLT 1 (CN)(SC), 2018 (3) KCCR SN 325 (SC), 2018 (4) KLT SN 1 (KER), AIRONLINE 2018 SC 146", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2018, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 4321, AIR 2018 SC( CRI) 1169, (2018) 4 MAD LJ(CRI) 306, (2018) 4 BOMCR(CRI) 289, (2018) 10 SCALE 386, 2019 (1) SCC (CRI) 1, (2018) 4 CURCRIR 1, (2018) 105 ALLCRIC 258, (2018) 3 ALLCRIR 3234, (2018) 3 CRIMES 233, 2018 (10) SCC 1, 2018 (190) AIC (SOC) 1 (SC), 252 (2018) DLT 1 (CN)(SC), 2018 (3) KCCR SN 325 (SC), 2018 (4) KLT SN 1 (KER), AIRONLINE 2018 SC 146", "Kanoon Doc ID": "168671544", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168671544/", "Chunks Indexed": 114 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court of India", "Case Title": "Sujata Uday Patil vs Uday Madhukar Patil on 13 December, 2006", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2006-12-13", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 125, Section 13, Section 18, Section 25, Section 28, Section 494", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. These appeals, by the special leave, have been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9.3.2004 of Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) by which the second appeals preferred by the appellant herein were dismissed and the decree of divorce passed by the learned District Judge, Jalgaon, on 12.11.2002 was affirmed. 3. The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was performed on 1.3.1994 and a son Charul @ Chaitanya was born out of the wedlock on 6.2.1995. In the year 1999 the respondent (husband) filed a petition for a decree of divorce against the appellant (wife) under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that the appellant had treated him with cruelty and had also deserted him for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The petition was contested by the appellant on various grounds. The Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) passed a decree for judicial separation on 10.12.2001. The appellant and respondent both preferred appeals against the said decree and the learned District Judge, Jalgaon, by the the appellant and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and dissolved the marriage of the parties by a decree of divorce. He further directed that the respondent shall pay permanent alimony @ Rs.700/- per month...", "Fact/ Respondent": "3. The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was performed on 1.3.1994 and a son Charul @ Chaitanya was born out of the wedlock on 6.2.1995. In the year 1999 the respondent (husband) filed a petition for a decree of divorce against the appellant (wife) under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that the appellant had treated him with cruelty and had also deserted him for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The petition was contested by the appellant on various grounds. The Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) passed a decree for judicial separation on 10.12.2001. The appellant and respondent both preferred appeals against the said decree and the learned District Judge, Jalgaon, by the the appellant and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and dissolved the marriage of the parties by a decree of divorce. He further directed that the respondent shall pay permanent alimony @ Rs.700/- per month to the appellant and @ Rs.500/- per month to the son Charul @ Chaitanya. The second appeals preferred by the appellant against the decree passed by the learned District Judge were...", "Issues": "10. Matrimonial disputes have to be decided by courts in a pragmatic manner keeping in view the ground realities. For this purpose a host of factors have to be taken into consideration and the most important being whether the marriage can be saved and the husband and wife can live together happily and maintain a proper atmosphere at home for the upbringing of their offsprings. This the court has to decide in the fact and circumstances of each case and it is not possible to lay down any fixed standards or even guidelines. 11. In the case in hand it is an established fact that the respondent has married again and has a child from the second wife. In such circumstances even if the decree for divorce granted by the learned District Judge which has been affirmed by the High Court is set aside, as prayed by the appellant herein,...", "Petitioner Argument": "\"4. It is submitted that the petitioner in her application has pointed out that the respondent is holding agricultural land gut No. 34 admeasuring 24 are, gut No. 380/2 admeasuring 96 are and a residential house admeasuring 45/12.5 feet situated at Shevge, Tehsil- Pachora, District Jalgaon. It is submitted that the said properties are joint family properties and same are not the independent properties of the respondent. However, with consent of father and brother towards full and final settlement I am ready to give all the three aforesaid properties to the petitioner and son Charul in lieu of the maintenance subject to withdrawal of all the proceedings and orders obtained by the petitioner against respondent in various courts below.\"", "Respondent Argument": "\"After giving my thoughtful consideration the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and also having gone through the evidence recorded at the trial and findings recorded by the courts below and reasons assigned therefore, I am of the opinion that it was a case where the wife was guilty of deserting the husband without sufficient cause and the desertion was certainly with the intention to put an end to the matrimonial relations. The trial court as well as appellate court have rightly found that the wife was guilty of conduct amounting to cruelty. Here as rightly submitted by Mr. Dixit learned counsel for the respondent, the act of cruelty was pertinent and grave on account of police complaints lodged against the appellant and his father and that too during the period when the marriage of respondents brother was settled. It was in that background that the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home and desertion on her part stood confirmed by the fact that she lived separately for over two years and did not make any efforts to come...", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "11. In the case in hand it is an established fact that the respondent has married again and has a child from the second wife. In such circumstances even if the decree for divorce granted by the learned District Judge which has been affirmed by the High Court is set aside, as prayed by the appellant herein, no useful purpose would be served. The appellant cannot possibly live with the husband in such a scenario nor it will be conducive to the upbringing of her son Charul @ Chaitanya. The learned District Judge has mentioned in the judgment that he made serious efforts for reconciliation and talked to the parties in arriving at an amicable solution but the respondent was reluctant to take back the appellant on account of strained relationship and at the same time the appellant, who refused to give divorce to the respondent, was not firm as to whether their union would bring about happy reunion. He has further mentioned that he suggested to the parties to take some unanimous decision keeping in mind the future of...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/814683/ | 2007 AIR SCW 896, 2006 (13) SCC 272, 2007 (2) AIR BOM R 551, 2007 (2) AIR KAR R 502, (2007) 2 ANDHLD 45, (2007) 2 ALL WC 1421, (2007) 1 ALLCRILR 734, (2007) 3 ALLMR 319 (SC), (2007) 1 DMC 6, (2007) MATLR 139, (2007) 1 CTC 266 (SC), (2007) 2 WLC(SC)CVL 158, (2007) 1 CIVILCOURTC 606, (2007) 1 HINDULR 546, (2007) 1 MARRILJ 255, (2007) 1 RECCIVR 404, (2007) 3 ICC 159, (2007) 51 ALLINDCAS 480 (SC), (2007) 3 ANDH LT 43, 2007 (1) KLT SN 43 (SC), (2007) 1 BOM CR 858, 2007 (2) AIR JHAR R 366, (2007) 66 ALL LR 787, (2007) 3 PUN LR 521, (2006) 13 SCALE 412, (2007) 2 JCR 229 (SC)", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2006, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2007 AIR SCW 896, 2006 (13) SCC 272, 2007 (2) AIR BOM R 551, 2007 (2) AIR KAR R 502, (2007) 2 ANDHLD 45, (2007) 2 ALL WC 1421, (2007) 1 ALLCRILR 734, (2007) 3 ALLMR 319 (SC), (2007) 1 DMC 6, (2007) MATLR 139, (2007) 1 CTC 266 (SC), (2007) 2 WLC(SC)CVL 158, (2007) 1 CIVILCOURTC 606, (2007) 1 HINDULR 546, (2007) 1 MARRILJ 255, (2007) 1 RECCIVR 404, (2007) 3 ICC 159, (2007) 51 ALLINDCAS 480 (SC), (2007) 3 ANDH LT 43, 2007 (1) KLT SN 43 (SC), (2007) 1 BOM CR 858, 2007 (2) AIR JHAR R 366, (2007) 66 ALL LR 787, (2007) 3 PUN LR 521, (2006) 13 SCALE 412, (2007) 2 JCR 229 (SC)", "Kanoon Doc ID": "814683", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/814683/", "Chunks Indexed": 18 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court of India", "Case Title": "Ahmedabad Women Action Group (Awag) & ... vs Union Of India on 24 February, 1997", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1997-02-24", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 18, Section 2, Section 28, Section 3, Section 30, Section 494", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "AHMEDABAD WOMEN ACTION GROUP (AWAG) & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA CJI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR, K. VENKATASWAMIW I T HWRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 196 OF 1996LOK SEVAK SANGH & ORS.V.UNION OF INDIAW I T HWRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 721 OF 1996YOUNG WOMAN CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION (YWCA) & ORS.V.UNION OF INDIA ACT: HEADNOTE: All these Writ Petitions are filed as Public Interest Litigation. In W.P. (C) No. 494/96. the reliefs prayed foe are as follows :", "Fact/ Respondent": "(b) to declare Muslim Personal Law which enables a Muslim male to give unilateral Talaq to his wife without her consent and without resort to judicial process of courts. as void, offending Articles", "Issues": "\"A question has been raised as to whether it is for the Legislature to decide what constitutes social reform. It must not be forgotten that in democracy the Legislature is constituted by the chosen representatives of the people. They are responsible for the welfare of the State and it is for them to lay down the policy that the State should pursue Therefore. It is for them to determine what legislation to put up on the statute bock in order to advance the welfare of the State. \"The next question is whether this Act discriminates against the Hindus in reference to the Christian and the Parsi citizens of this State, in so the specially severe provisions as to punishment and procedure. It is true that whereas under the general criminal law the offence of bigamy is cognizable only on the complaint of the wife, the impugned Act makes it cognizable...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Constitutional Doctrine: Gender equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21; severance of discriminatory conditions requiring Christian wives to prove adultery coupled with cruelty/desertion (Ammini E.J. / Pragati Varghese).", "Decision": "In the result and having regard to the earlier decisions of this Court noticed above, we decline to entertain these writ petitions. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1743680/ | AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3614, 1997 AIR SCW 1620, (1997) 2 SCR 389 (SC), 1997 (2) SCR 389, 1997 (3) SCC 573, (1997) MARRILJ 367, 1997 (2) SCALE 381, 1997 (3) ADSC 181, 1997 (1) UJ (SC) 548, (1997) 3 JT 171 (SC), 1997 (3) JT 171, 1997 UJ(SC) 1 548, (1997) 3 GUJ LR 1882, (1997) 2 HINDULR 258, (1997) 3 SCJ 107, (1997) 2 SCALE 381, (1997) 1 CURCC 470, (1997) 1 MAD LW 688, (1997) 2 DMC 224, (1997) 2 SUPREME 670, 1997 (100) BOM LR 150, 1997 BOM LR 2 150", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity", "Judgment Year": 1997, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3614, 1997 AIR SCW 1620, (1997) 2 SCR 389 (SC), 1997 (2) SCR 389, 1997 (3) SCC 573, (1997) MARRILJ 367, 1997 (2) SCALE 381, 1997 (3) ADSC 181, 1997 (1) UJ (SC) 548, (1997) 3 JT 171 (SC), 1997 (3) JT 171, 1997 UJ(SC) 1 548, (1997) 3 GUJ LR 1882, (1997) 2 HINDULR 258, (1997) 3 SCJ 107, (1997) 2 SCALE 381, (1997) 1 CURCC 470, (1997) 1 MAD LW 688, (1997) 2 DMC 224, (1997) 2 SUPREME 670, 1997 (100) BOM LR 150, 1997 BOM LR 2 150", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1743680", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1743680/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court of India", "Case Title": "Anil Kumar Mahsi vs Union Of India on 20 July, 1994", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1994-07-20", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 377", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Adultery; Desertion; Wife Specific", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J.- The hearing of this petition is confined only to examining the vires of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner was married to Respondent 2, Monika on 8-10-1986 as per the Christian rites in a Methodist Church at Muzaffarpur in Bihar. After marriage, the parties returned to Delhi on 10- 10-1986. Respondent-Monika, however, left the matrimonial home on 26-12-1986, i.e., two months and a fortnight thereafter and never returned to it again. It is not in dispute (respondent-Monika has not filed any counter to the petition) that the parties have been living separately since the day of the desertion by Monika on 26-12-1986 as alleged in the petition. The petitioner further alleges that she has been working as a teacher in St. Mary Girls' High School, Deogarh, Bihar. 2. In spite of notice to respondent-Monika and intimation to her that the petitioner had deposited Rs 3000 for her costs in attending the Court and the assistance of a Senior Advocate, Shri K.K. Venugopal is given to her to conduct her case, she has neither filed counter, nor attended the Court. On 706 the other hand, by a letter of 5-1-1993 she has intimated the Court that she is unable to attend...", "Fact/ Respondent": "The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J.- The hearing of this petition is confined only to examining the vires of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner was married to Respondent 2, Monika on 8-10-1986 as per the Christian rites in a Methodist Church at Muzaffarpur in Bihar. After marriage, the parties returned to Delhi on 10- 10-1986. Respondent-Monika, however, left the matrimonial home on 26-12-1986, i.e., two months and a fortnight thereafter and never returned to it again. It is not in dispute (respondent-Monika has not filed any counter to the petition) that the parties have been living separately since the day of the desertion by Monika on 26-12-1986 as alleged in the petition. The petitioner further alleges that she has been working as a teacher in St. Mary Girls' High School, Deogarh, Bihar.", "Issues": "(iii) coupled with marriage with another woman, (iv) coupled with cruelty which without adultery would have entitled her to divorce a mensa et thoro, (v) coupled with desertion without reasonable excuse for two years or upwards. It is, therefore, clear that as far as the ground of adultery is concerned, it is the husband who is in a favourable position as against the wife, since it is not enough for the wife to prove adultery simpliciter on the part of her husband. To that extent, undoubtedly, it is the wife who is discriminated against. As regards the other grounds which are available to the wife to claim dissolution of the marriage, which grounds are impliedly not available to the husband, the same are as follows (a) that the husband has exchanged his profession of Christianity for the profession of some other religion and gone through a form of marriage with...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion. | Constitutional Doctrine: Gender equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21; severance of discriminatory conditions requiring Christian wives to prove adultery coupled with cruelty/desertion (Ammini E.J. / Pragati Varghese).", "Decision": "11. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the petition and it is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1953502/ | 1994 SCC (5) 704, JT 1994 (4) 409, AIRONLINE 1994 SC 710", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; adultery; desertion; wife_specific", "Judgment Year": 1994, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (5) 704, JT 1994 (4) 409, AIRONLINE 1994 SC 710", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1953502", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1953502/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court of India", "Case Title": "Anil Kumar Mahsi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 20 July, 1994", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1994-07-20", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 377", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Desertion; Adultery; Wife Specific", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The hearing of this petition is confined only to examining the vires of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 [hereinafter referred to as the \"Act\"]. The petitioner was married to respondent No. 2, Monika on 8th October, 1986 as per the Christian rites in a Methodist Church at Muzaffarpur in Bihar. After marriage, the parties returned to Delhi on 10th October, 1986. Respondent-Monika, however, left the matrimonial home on 26th December, 1986, i.e., two months and a fortnight thereafter and never returned to. It again. It is not in dispute [respondent-Monika has not filed any counter to the petition] that the parties have been living separately since the day of the desertion by Monika on 26th December, 1986 as alleged in the petition. The petitioner further alleges that she has been working as a teacher in St. Marry Girls High School, Deogarh, Bihar. 2. In spite of notice to respondent-Monika and intimation to her that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 3,000 for her costs in attending the Court and the assistance of a senior advocate, Shri K.K. Venugopal is given to her to conduct her case, she has neither filed counter, nor attended the Court. On the other hand, by a letter of 5th January, 1993 she has intimated the Court that she is unable to attend...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The hearing of this petition is confined only to examining the vires of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 [hereinafter referred to as the \"Act\"]. The petitioner was married to respondent No. 2, Monika on 8th October, 1986 as per the Christian rites in a Methodist Church at Muzaffarpur in Bihar. After marriage, the parties returned to Delhi on 10th October, 1986. Respondent-Monika, however, left the matrimonial home on 26th December, 1986, i.e., two months and a fortnight thereafter and never returned to. It again. It is not in dispute [respondent-Monika has not filed any counter to the petition] that the parties have been living separately since the day of the desertion by Monika on 26th December, 1986 as alleged in the petition. The petitioner further alleges that she has been working as a teacher in St. Marry Girls High School, Deogarh, Bihar.", "Issues": "It will be apparent from the aforesaid provisions that while the husband can seek dissolution of marriage on the ground that his wife has been guilty of adultery simpliciter, the wife has to prove that the husband has been guilty of adultery which is (i) incestuous, (ii) coupled with bigamy, (iii) coupled with marriage with another woman, (iv) coupled with cruelty which without adultery would have entitled her to divorce a mensa et tora, (v) coupled with desertion without reasonable excuse for two years or upwards. It is, therefore, clear that as far as the ground of adultery is concerned, it is the husband who is in a favourable position as against the wife, since it is not enough for the wife of prove adultery simpliciter on the part of her husband. To that extent, undoubtedly, it is the wife who is discriminated against. As regards the other grounds which...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion. | Constitutional Doctrine: Gender equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21; severance of discriminatory conditions requiring Christian wives to prove adultery coupled with cruelty/desertion (Ammini E.J. / Pragati Varghese).", "Decision": "7. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the petition and it is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198217826/ | 1994(3)ALT17(SC), I(1995)DMC254SC, JT1994(4)SC409, 1994(2)KLT399(SC), 1994(3)SCALE447, (1994)5SCC704, [1994]SUPP2SCR1, 1994(2)UJ412(SC)", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; desertion; adultery; wife_specific", "Judgment Year": 1994, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1994(3)ALT17(SC), I(1995)DMC254SC, JT1994(4)SC409, 1994(2)KLT399(SC), 1994(3)SCALE447, (1994)5SCC704, [1994]SUPP2SCR1, 1994(2)UJ412(SC)", "Kanoon Doc ID": "198217826", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198217826/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court of India", "Case Title": "Jane Kaushik vs Union Of India on 17 October, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-10-17", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 105, Section 11, Section 13, Section 14, Section 141, Section 15, Section 16, Section 18, Section 2, Section 21, Section 22, Section 3, Section 35, Section 357, Section 377, Section 424, Section 44, Section 497, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2025 INSC 1248 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1405 OF 2023 JANE KAUSHIK …PETITIONER UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS INDEX A. FACTUAL MATRIX........................................................................................... 4 B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES. .................................... 15 I. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER. .............................................. 15 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 5 (“THE FIRST SCHOOL”). ............................................................................................................... 21 III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 (“THE SECOND SCHOOL”). ............................................................................................................... 23 C. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION ................................................................ 24 D. ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 25 I. OPENING REMARKS ......................................................................................... 25 II. RETHINKING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE 2019 ACT. ................................................................................................................ 34 a. Evolution of Canadian Jurisprudence. .......................................................... 44 b. A Reading of Reasonable Accommodation for Gender Dysphoria in the United States of America ..................................................................................... 46 c. EU on Reasonable Accommodation .............................................................. 48 III. ADDRESSING OMISSION IN DISCRIMINATION LAW ....................................... 50 a. A Four-Dimensional Approach to Address Substantial Equality: Situating ‘Discrimination’ in Omissive Discrimination ..................................................... 52 i. Redressing disadvantage. ..................................................................... 53 ii. Addressing stigma and stereotypes .................................................... 71 iii. Enhancement of voice and participation. ........................................... 83 iv. Accommodating Difference to Achieve Structural Changes. ........ 100 b. Omission by Legislature resulting in violation of the Right against Discrimination ................................................................................................... 102 IV. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND MANIFESTATION OF HORIZONTAL APPLICATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS........................................................... 112 W.P. (C) No....", "Fact/ Respondent": "INDEX A. FACTUAL MATRIX........................................................................................... 4 B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES. .................................... 15 I. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER. .............................................. 15 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 5 (“THE FIRST SCHOOL”). ............................................................................................................... 21 III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 (“THE SECOND SCHOOL”). ............................................................................................................... 23 C. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION ................................................................ 24 D. ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 25 I. OPENING REMARKS ......................................................................................... 25 II. RETHINKING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE 2019 ACT. ................................................................................................................ 34 a. Evolution of Canadian Jurisprudence. .......................................................... 44 b. A Reading of Reasonable Accommodation for Gender Dysphoria in the United States of America ..................................................................................... 46 c. EU on Reasonable Accommodation .............................................................. 48 III. ADDRESSING OMISSION IN DISCRIMINATION LAW ....................................... 50 a. A Four-Dimensional Approach to Address Substantial Equality: Situating ‘Discrimination’ in Omissive Discrimination ..................................................... 52 i. Redressing disadvantage. ..................................................................... 53 ii. Addressing stigma and stereotypes .................................................... 71 iii. Enhancement of voice and participation. ........................................... 83 iv. Accommodating Difference to Achieve Structural Changes. ........ 100 b. Omission by Legislature resulting in violation of the Right against Discrimination ................................................................................................... 102 IV. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND MANIFESTATION OF HORIZONTAL APPLICATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS........................................................... 112 W.P. (C) No. 1405 of 2023 Page 1 of 176 a. Indirect...", "Issues": "1. It has been more than half a decade since the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights Act ), 2019 (the “2019 Act”), came to be enacted and it has been more than a decade since this Court rendered the judgment in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (“NALSA”), reported in (2014) 5 SCC 438. However, the question whether the transgender persons are living a life with dignity continues to beg for an answer. One may get to read a lot about their rights in the statute books, but the reality is that these rights remain only an empty formality. 2. There is no gainsaying that the Union of India and the States need to do a lot more to create mechanisms for the transgender persons to translate their rights into reality. The lethargy exhibited on part of the concerned Government has also led the non-state establishments to put...", "Petitioner Argument": "02.12.2022. During these eight days, it is alleged that she was subjected to name-calling, harassment and body shaming by her colleagues and students for her inability to conform to the gender norms of a ‘female’ body. On 01.12.2022, the petitioner informed the Principal of the First School about the harassment she was being subjected to. The materials on record reveal that the Principal took cognizance of one specific faculty-member exhibiting hostile behavior towards Ms. Jane. The school Principal assured that the management would be talking to the concerned teacher to discontinue the harassment and assured her of all the support. iii. It is the case of the petitioner that on 03.12.2022 she was forced to resign on account of having revealed her identity to one of the students at the school. It is her case that the school attempted to garner a resignation from her forcefully, by threatening her that they would withhold her monetary compensation for the period of eight days during which she had worked. In the resignation letter as well, she cited the reason that the school...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Through the Looking Glass of Feminism in Gender and Politics in India” (1993).] The disadvantage must be addressed not by treating a woman as “weak” but by construing her entitlement to an equal citizenship. The former legitimises patronising attitudes towards women. The latter links true equality to the realisation of dignity. The focus of such an approach is not simply on equal treatment under the law, but rather on the real impact of the legislation. [ Maureen Maloney, “An Analysis of Direct Taxes in India : A Feminist Perspective”, Journal of the Indian Law Institute (1988).] Thus, Section 497 has to be examined in the light of existing social structures which enforce the position of a woman as an unequal participant in a marriage.” ---xxx--- 189. Article 15(3) encapsulates the notion of “protective discrimination”. The constitutional guarantee in Article 15(3) cannot be employed in a manner that entrenches paternalistic notions of “protection”. This latter view of protection only serves to place women in a cage. Article 15(3) does not exist in isolation. Articles 14 to 18, being constituents of a single code on equality, supplement each other and incorporate a non-discrimination principle. Neither Article 15(1) , nor Article 15(3) allow...", "Decision": "214. In the result, the petition stands disposed of in the following terms: W.P. (C) No. 1405 of 2023 Page 173 of 176 i. The respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively are directed to pay Rs 50,000/- each by way of compensation to the petitioner for their inaction and lethargy which resulted in lack of redressal mechanisms for the petitioner to avail. ii. The respondent no. 4 is directed to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. iii. These payments of compensation are directed to be made within four weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. 215. The respondent no. 1 is also directed to deposit a sum of Rs 10,00,000/- with the Registry of this Court within two weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment, for the initial operations of the Committee. 216. The Committee is requested to prepare its report and/or draft policy, as the case may be, within six months from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. The Chairperson, after consultation with the members of the Committee, shall be at...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109624343/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "109624343", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109624343/", "Chunks Indexed": 42 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court of India", "Case Title": "Geddam Jhansi vs The State Of Telangana on 7 February, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-02-07", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 155, Section 156, Section 3, Section 41, Section 482, Section 498A", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2025 INSC 160 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). _____ OF 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.9556 of 2022) GEDDAM JHANSI & ANR. ...APPELLANTS (S) THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). _____ OF 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.428 of 2024 GEDDAM JHANSI ...APPELLANTS (S) THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S) 2. This common order disposes of both the Criminal Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9556 of 2022 and Special 1 Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 428 of 2024 as both these appeals relate to similar and connected incidents.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2025 INSC 160 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). _____ OF 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.9556 of 2022) GEDDAM JHANSI & ANR. ...APPELLANTS (S) THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). _____ OF 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.428 of 2024 GEDDAM JHANSI ...APPELLANTS (S) THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)", "Issues": "State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 365] could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge-sheet, documents, etc. or not.” 19. Perusal of the charge-sheet would show that the investigating agency had relied on the statements of the complainant, her parents and two other witnesses who are Panchayat elders to substantiate the allegations. As far as the statement of the complainant is concerned, it is in the form of the complaint which has been already reproduced hereinabove. We will now examine whether any new or fresh evidence has 10 been revealed in the course of the investigation from the examination of other witnesses, namely, the complainant's parents and the two panchayat witnesses. 20. The statements of the parents are carbon copy of each other and as such we may refer to the statement...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "15. Even otherwise also, it must be remembered that the provision invoked by the accused before the High Court is Section 482 of the CrPC and that this Court is hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482 of the CrPC. Section 482 of the CrPC reads as follows: “482. Saving of inherent powers of the High Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 16. There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts the exercise of inherent powers by the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only up to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court [ G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. , (2000) 2 SCC 636, para 7, Umesh Kumar v. State of...", "Decision": "40. Accordingly, we allow both the present Criminal Appeals as below:", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/192533816/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "192533816", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/192533816/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court of India", "Case Title": "Rajiv Varghese vs Rosy Chakkrammakkil Francis on 19 November, 2024", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2024-11-19", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Partly_Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2024 INSC 876 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.4109 OF 2023) DR. RAJIV VERGHESE …APPELLANT ROSE CHAKKRAMMANKKIL FRANCIS …RESPONDENT With (arising out of SLP(C) No.19922 of 2023) 2. These are two appeals arising out of the impugned Court in C.M.A. No.1539 of 2022, whereby the High Court has reduced the maintenance amount to be paid to the wife from Rs.1,75,000/-(Rupees One Lakh and Seventy-five thousand only) per month to Signature Not Verified Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) per Digitally signed by month. Both parties have challenged the said order NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2024.11.19 19:12:43 IST Reason:", "Fact/ Respondent": "2024 INSC 876 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.4109 OF 2023) DR. RAJIV VERGHESE …APPELLANT ROSE CHAKKRAMMANKKIL FRANCIS …RESPONDENT With (arising out of SLP(C) No.19922 of 2023)", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "13. The appeal of respondent husband is accordingly dismissed in view of the above reasoning.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/87105153/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2024, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "87105153", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/87105153/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court of India", "Case Title": "Mr. 'X' vs Hospital 'Z' on 21 September, 1998", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1998-09-21", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 2, Section 20A, Section 27, Section 32, Section 33", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Venereal Disease; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1998 Supp(1) SCR 723 The Judgment of the Court Was delivered by SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Infringement of 'Suspended Right to marry' cannot be legally compensated by damages either in Torts or common law, is our answer to the problem raised in this appeal which is based on the peculiar facts of its own. the appellant; after obtaining the Degree of MBBS in 1987 from Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research. Chandigarh, completed his internship and junior residence at the same college. In June, 1990 he joined the Nagaland State Medical and Health Service as Assistant Surgeon Grade-I. Thereafter, the appellant joined the MD Pharmacology Course though he continued in the Nagaland State Service on .the condition that he would resume his duties after completing the MD Course. In September, 1991 the appellant joined the further Course of Diploma in Opthamalogy which completed in April, 1993, In August, 1993 he resumed his duties in the Nagaland State Health Service as Assistant Surgeon Grade-I. One Itokhu Yepthomi who was ailing from a disease which was provisionally diagnosed as Aortic Anuerisrn was advised to go to the 'Z' Hospital at Madras and the appellant was directed by the Government of Nagaland to accompany the said patient to Madras for treatment. For the treatment of the above disease, Itokhu Yepthomi was...", "Fact/ Respondent": "In August, 1995 the appellant proposed marriage to one Ms, 'Y' which was accepted and the marriage was proposed to be held on December 12, 1995. But the marriage was called off on the ground of blood test conducted at the respondent's hospital in which the appellant was found to be HIV(+). The appellant went again to the respondent's hospital at Madras where several tests were conducted and he was found to be HIV (+), Since the marriage had been settled but was subsequently called off, several people including members of the appellant's family and persons belonging to his community became aware of the appellant's HlV(+) status: This resulted in severe criticism of the appellant and he was, ostracized by the community. The appellant left Kohima (Nagaland) around November 26, 1995 and started working and residing at Madras.", "Issues": "\"The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a \"right to be let alone:\" A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent - whether truthful of otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however; be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy,\" In an American decision, Jane Roe v. Henry Wade, 410 US 113, the Supreme Court of United States said that : \"Although the Constitution of the U.S.A. does not explicitly...", "Petitioner Argument": "Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the principle of\" \"duty of care\" as applicable to persons in medical profession. includes the duty to maintain confidentiality and since this duty was violated by the respondents, they are liable in damages to the appellant. Duty to maintain confidentiality has its origin in the Hippocratic Oath, which is an ethical code attributed to the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates, adopted as a guide to conduct by the medical profession throughout the ages and still used in the graduation ceremonies of many medical schools and colleges: Hippocrates lived and practised as a Physician between third and first Century B.C. He has been referred to by Plato as a famous Ascleplad who had philosophical approach to medicine. His manuscripts, the Hippocratic Collection (Corpus Hippocracticum), contained the Hippocractie Oath which is reproduced below : \"I swear by Apollo the physician and Aesculapius and health and all-heal and all the gods and goddesses that according to my ability arid judgment I will keep this path and this stipulation - to reckon him who taught me...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Constitutional Doctrine: Gender equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21; severance of discriminatory conditions requiring Christian wives to prove adultery coupled with cruelty/desertion (Ammini E.J. / Pragati Varghese).", "Decision": "For the reasons stated above, the appeal is without merits and is, consequently, dismissed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/382721/ | AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 495, 1998 (8) SCC 296, 1998 AIR SCW 3662, (1999) 1 KER LT 14, 1999 BLJR 2 1306, (1999) 1 ALLMR 469 (SC), 1999 (1) COM LJ 23 SC, (1999) 2 BLJ 634, 1999 (1) UJ (SC) 232, 1998 (6) SCALE 230, 1999 (1) SRJ 88, 1998 (9) ADSC 109, 1999 UJ(SC) 1 232, (1998) 7 JT 626 (SC), 1998 (7) JT 626, (1999) 2 EASTCRIC 18, (1999) 1 GUJ LH 1008, (1999) 1 MAHLR 750, (1998) 9 SUPREME 220, (1999) 1 RECCIVR 324, (1998) 6 SCALE 230, (1999) 1 ALL WC 274, (1999) 2 ANDHWR 205, (1998) 3 CPJ 12, (1999) 2 BOM CR 474", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; venereal_disease; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 1998, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 495, 1998 (8) SCC 296, 1998 AIR SCW 3662, (1999) 1 KER LT 14, 1999 BLJR 2 1306, (1999) 1 ALLMR 469 (SC), 1999 (1) COM LJ 23 SC, (1999) 2 BLJ 634, 1999 (1) UJ (SC) 232, 1998 (6) SCALE 230, 1999 (1) SRJ 88, 1998 (9) ADSC 109, 1999 UJ(SC) 1 232, (1998) 7 JT 626 (SC), 1998 (7) JT 626, (1999) 2 EASTCRIC 18, (1999) 1 GUJ LH 1008, (1999) 1 MAHLR 750, (1998) 9 SUPREME 220, (1999) 1 RECCIVR 324, (1998) 6 SCALE 230, (1999) 1 ALL WC 274, (1999) 2 ANDHWR 205, (1998) 3 CPJ 12, (1999) 2 BOM CR 474", "Kanoon Doc ID": "382721", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/382721/", "Chunks Indexed": 13 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court of India", "Case Title": "Lachman Utamchand Kiriplani vs Meena Alias Mota on 14 August, 1963", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1963-08-14", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 2, Section 23, Section 3, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty; Adultery", "Outcome": "Partly_Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "LACHMAN UTAMCHAND KIRIPLANI Vs. MEENA alias MOTA 14/08/1963 AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ) SUBBARAO, K. DAYAL, RAGHUBAR CITATION: 1964 AIR 40 1964 SCR (4) 331 CITATOR INFO : R 1972 SC 459 (5) ACT: Husband and wife-judicial separation-Desertion without just- cause-offer to return to matrimonial home must be shown to be bona fide-Petition for judicial separation-Burden of proof-Hindx Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), s. 10(1)(a). HEADNOTE: Where an application is made under s. 10(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a decree for judicial separation on the ground of desertion, the legal burden is upon the petitioning spouse to establish by convincing evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that the respondent intentionally forsook and abandoned him or her without reasonable cause. The petitioner must also prove that there was desertion throughout the statutory period and there was no bona fide attempt on the respondent's part to return to the matrimonial home and that the petitioner did not by his or her action by word or conduct provide a just cause to the other spouse to desist from, making any attempt at reconciliation or resuming cohabitation; -but where, however, on the facts it is clear that the conduct of the deserted spouse has had no such effect on the mind of the...", "Fact/ Respondent": "LACHMAN UTAMCHAND KIRIPLANI Vs. MEENA alias MOTA 14/08/1963 AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ) SUBBARAO, K. DAYAL, RAGHUBAR CITATION: 1964 AIR 40 1964 SCR (4) 331 CITATOR INFO : R 1972 SC 459 (5) ACT: Husband and wife-judicial separation-Desertion without just- cause-offer to return to matrimonial home must be shown to be bona fide-Petition for judicial separation-Burden of proof-Hindx Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), s. 10(1)(a). HEADNOTE: Where an application is made under s. 10(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a decree for judicial separation on the ground of desertion, the legal burden is upon the petitioning spouse to establish by convincing evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that the respondent intentionally forsook and abandoned him or her without reasonable cause. The petitioner must also prove that there was desertion throughout the statutory period and there was no bona fide attempt on the respondent's part to return to the matrimonial home and that the petitioner did not by his or her action by word or conduct provide a just cause to the other spouse to desist from, making any attempt at reconciliation or resuming cohabitation; -but where, however, on the facts...", "Issues": "Even at the outset we might state that the decision of the appeal does not depend so much on any substantial question of law but rather on an appreciation of the facts on two matters on the basis of which the learned Judges of the High Court have decided the case against the appellant: (1) whether the appellant had established that the respondent had an irrevocable determination to break up the matrimonial home when she admittedly left the petitioner on February 26, 1954, and did not return to him thereafter, it being common ground that the onus of proving this to the reasonable satisfaction of the Court was on the appellant, and (2) whether the respondent had a justifiable cause for not returning to the husband the existence of which prevented her admitted absence from the matrimonial home from constituting \"desertion\" as to serve as the foundation for an order...", "Petitioner Argument": "The result of the said discussion may be stated thus The legal burden is upon the petitioning spouse to establish by convincing evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that the respondent abandoned him or her without reasonable cause. The petitioner must also prove that there was desertion throughout the statutory period and there was no bona fide attempt on the respondent's part to return to the matrimonial home and that the petitioner did not prevent the other spouse by his or her action by word or conduct from cohabitation. The expression \"willful neglect\" included in the section does not introduce a new concept in Indian law unknown to the English law, but is only an affirmation of the doctrine of constructive desertion. The said doctrine is not rigid but elastic and without doing violence to the principles governing it, it can be applied to the peculiar situations that arise in an Indian society and home. No inspiration could 'be derived from s. 9 of the Act in order to construe the scope of the expression \"without reasonable cause\" and whether there...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "PETITIONER: LACHMAN UTAMCHAND KIRIPLANI Vs. RESPONDENT: MEENA alias MOTA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/08/1963 BENCH: AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA BENCH: AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ) SUBBARAO, K. DAYAL, RAGHUBAR CITATION: 1964 AIR 40 1964 SCR (4) 331 CITATOR INFO : R 1972 SC 459 (5) ACT: Husband and wife-judicial separation-Desertion without just- cause-offer to return to matrimonial home must be shown to be bona fide-Petition for judicial separation-Burden of proof-Hindx Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), s. 10(1)(a). HEADNOTE: Where an application is made under s. 10(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a decree for judicial separation on the ground of desertion, the legal burden is upon the petitioning spouse to establish by convincing evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that the respondent intentionally forsook and abandoned him or her without reasonable cause. The petitioner must also prove that there was desertion throughout the statutory period and there was no bona fide attempt on the respondent's part to return to the matrimonial home and that the petitioner did not by his or her action by word or conduct provide a just cause to the other spouse to desist from, making any attempt at reconciliation or resuming...", "Decision": "ORDER OF COURT In accordance with the majority opinion, the appeal is allowed with costs here and in the High Court.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1376469/ | 1964 AIR 40, 1964 SCR (4) 331, AIR 1964 SUPREME COURT 40", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty; adultery", "Judgment Year": 1963, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 40, 1964 SCR (4) 331, AIR 1964 SUPREME COURT 40", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1376469", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1376469/", "Chunks Indexed": 32 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court of India", "Case Title": "Jeet Singh And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 25 November, 1992", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1992-11-25", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 19, Section 2, Section 23, Section 3, Section 494, Section 64, Section 82", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The facts as found by the courts below are as follows. Jeet Singh the appellant in the Civil Appeal No. 3732 of 82 had two wives. The first wife is the appellant in the Civil Appeal No. 3733 of 82. She filed sometime in 1966 a criminal complaint against her husband under Sections 494 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings they entered into a compromise before a Nyaya Panchayat constituted under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and the same was recorded by the Adalat Nyaya Panchayat Angadpur Mukam, Meerut District and that consent order dated 14.11.1966 recorded by the Nyaya Panchayat reads as follows: Today dated 14th November, 1966, A.D. Nyaya Panchayat held meeting under the Chairmanship of Sri Bhanwar Singh Sarpanch. Sri Hem Raj Son of Ram Sharrna Brahman, resident of Village Barawad. Jeet Singh, S/o Hem Raj and Smt. Ramo Devi wife of Jeet Singh Brahman, resident of Village Barawad party one and Smt. Maya Wati daughter of Nam Chand, resident of Village Chhaprauli second party with some of their relations are also present. Before the panch both parties stated that Smt. Maya Wati Devi had filed a case under Section 494 / 109 , Indian Penal Code, against Hem Raj and others and continuance of criminal case...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The facts as found by the courts below are as follows. Jeet Singh the appellant in the Civil Appeal No. 3732 of 82 had two wives. The first wife is the appellant in the Civil Appeal No. 3733 of 82. She filed sometime in 1966 a criminal complaint against her husband under Sections 494 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings they entered into a compromise before a Nyaya Panchayat constituted under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and the same was recorded by the Adalat Nyaya Panchayat Angadpur Mukam, Meerut District and that consent order dated 14.11.1966 recorded by the Nyaya Panchayat reads as follows:", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "We are unable to agree with the ratio of this judgment. As already stated it is not correct to say that there arc no provisions for Muslims or the Christians for obtaining orders of judicial separation in a court of law. Apart from that if under any personal law the person is not entitled to get any order of a court for a judicial separation it would only mean that they would not be entitled to the benefit of exclusion provided under the definition. We are unable to agree with the learned Judge that separation other than the one which was in pursuance of an order of court could be recognised for the purpose of Section 3(7) . In the result the appeals fail and they are dismissed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/315012/ | 1992(3)SCALE233, (1993)1SCC325, [1992]SUPP3SCR246, AIRONLINE 1993 SC 384, AIRONLINE 1992 SC 241", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1992, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1992(3)SCALE233, (1993)1SCC325, [1992]SUPP3SCR246, AIRONLINE 1993 SC 384, AIRONLINE 1992 SC 241", "Kanoon Doc ID": "315012", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/315012/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court of India", "Case Title": "Molly Joseph @ Nish vs George Sebastian @ Joy on 18 September, 1996", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1996-09-18", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 3, Section 4", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "O R D E R This appeal has been filed on behalf of the wife for setting aside the judgment of the Special Bench of the Kerala High Court, directing the District Judge to conduct enquiry into the allegations relating to the subsistence of a former marriage of the appellant and then to pass a decree accordance with law. A petition was filed by the respondent- husband before the District Judge for a declaration that (i) the marriage with the appellant is nullity on the ground he marriage between the appellant and one Prince Joseph was subsisting on the date the appellant married the respondent; (ii) the appellant was insane and continued to be so till the date of marriage. That application was contested by the appellant saying that although she had married earlier with aforesaid Prince Joseph, the said marriage was annulled by the order of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal (Church Court as it is referred to at times). It was also asserted on her behalf that previous marriage was known to the respondent and inspite of that he agreed to marry the appellant.", "Fact/ Respondent": "O R D E R This appeal has been filed on behalf of the wife for setting aside the judgment of the Special Bench of the Kerala High Court, directing the District Judge to conduct enquiry into the allegations relating to the subsistence of a former marriage of the appellant and then to pass a decree accordance with law. A petition was filed by the respondent- husband before the District Judge for a declaration that (i) the marriage with the appellant is nullity on the ground he marriage between the appellant and one Prince Joseph was subsisting on the date the appellant married the respondent;", "Issues": "(1) that the respondent was impotent at the time of the marriage and at the time of the institution of the suit; (2) that the parties are within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity (whether natural or legal) or affinity; (3) that either party was a lunatic or idiot at the time of the marriage; (4) that the former husband or wife of either party was living at the time of the marriage, and the marriage with such former husband or wife was then in force. Nothing in this section shall affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to maks decrees of nullity of marriage on the ground that the consert of either party was obtained by force or fraud.\"", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "As the District Judge had disposed of the application for divorce without any enquiry into the allegations relating to the subsistence of the former marriage, the High Court was justified in remitting the matter to the District Judge for fresh decision in accordance with law. We find no reason to interfere with the said order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/250473/ | AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 109, 1996 (6) SCC 337, AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 109(2), 1996 AIR SCW 4267, (1997) 1 MATLR 38, (1997) 1 KER LT 1, (1997) MARRILJ 127, (1996) 9 JT 120 (SC), 1996 (9) JT 120, 1996 (2) UJ (SC) 729, (1997) 1 MAD LJ 109, (1996) 2 DMC 452, (1997) 1 HINDULR 5, (1996) 3 SCJ 532, (1997) 1 LJR 231, (1997) 1 CIVLJ 411, (1996) 4 CURCC 79, (1996) 2 RENCR 573, (1996) 4 ICC 586, 1996 (6) SCC 228, (1997) 1 MAD LJ 109.1, (1997) 1 RENCJ 579, (1997) 5 SCJ 220, 1997 HRR 106, 1997 SCFBRC 37", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 1996, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 109, 1996 (6) SCC 337, AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 109(2), 1996 AIR SCW 4267, (1997) 1 MATLR 38, (1997) 1 KER LT 1, (1997) MARRILJ 127, (1996) 9 JT 120 (SC), 1996 (9) JT 120, 1996 (2) UJ (SC) 729, (1997) 1 MAD LJ 109, (1996) 2 DMC 452, (1997) 1 HINDULR 5, (1996) 3 SCJ 532, (1997) 1 LJR 231, (1997) 1 CIVLJ 411, (1996) 4 CURCC 79, (1996) 2 RENCR 573, (1996) 4 ICC 586, 1996 (6) SCC 228, (1997) 1 MAD LJ 109.1, (1997) 1 RENCJ 579, (1997) 5 SCJ 220, 1997 HRR 106, 1997 SCFBRC 37", "Kanoon Doc ID": "250473", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/250473/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court of India", "Case Title": "Rajnesh vs Neha on 4 November, 2020", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2020-11-04", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 106, Section 12, Section 125, Section 128, Section 151, Section 165, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 199, Section 2, Section 20, Section 209, Section 21, Section 22, Section 23, Section 24, Section 25, Section 26, Section 28, Section 28A, Section 3, Section 340, Section 36, Section 37, Section 4, Section 421, Section 488, Section 5, Section 6, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Conversion; Nullity Sec19; Desertion", "Outcome": "Interim", "Fact/ Petitioner": "REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 730 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9503 of 2018) RAJNESH …APPELLANT NEHA & Anr. …RESPONDENTS INDEX PART A Order passed in Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2020 PART B General Guidelines and Directions I. Issue of Overlapping Jurisdictions II. Payment of interim maintenance III. Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance IV. Date from which Maintenance to be awarded V. Enforcement of orders of maintenance VI. Final Directions Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jatinder Kaur Date: 2020.11.04 13:33:16 IST Reason: 1 (i) The present Criminal Appeal arises out of an application for Interim Maintenance filed in a petition u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. by the Respondent-wife and minor son. The Respondent No.1-wife left the matrimonial home in January 2013, shortly after the birth of the son-Respondent No.2. On 02.09.2013, the wife filed an application for interim maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. on behalf of herself and the minor son. The Family Court vide a detailed Order dated 24.08.2015 awarded interim maintenance of Rs.15,000 per month to the Respondent No.1- wife from 01.09.2013; and Rs.5,000 per month as interim maintenance for the Respondent No.2-son from 01.09.2013 to 31.08.2015; and @ Rs. 10,000 per month from 01.09.2015 onwards till further orders were passed in the main petition.", "Fact/ Respondent": "(i) The present Criminal Appeal arises out of an application for Interim Maintenance filed in a petition u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. by the Respondent-wife and minor son. The Respondent No.1-wife left the matrimonial home in January 2013, shortly after the birth of the son-Respondent No.2. On 02.09.2013, the wife filed an application for interim maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. on behalf of herself and the minor son. The Family Court vide a detailed Order dated 24.08.2015 awarded interim maintenance of Rs.15,000 per month to the Respondent No.1- wife from 01.09.2013; and Rs.5,000 per month as interim maintenance for the Respondent No.2-son from 01.09.2013 to 31.08.2015; and @ Rs. 10,000 per month from 01.09.2015 onwards till further orders were passed in the main petition.", "Issues": "“18. Maintenance of wife.— (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime. (2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance— (a) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning her without reasonable cause and without her consent or against her wish or willfully neglecting her; (b) if he has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with her husband; (c) [****] (d) if he has any other wife living; (e) if he keeps a concubine in the same house in which his wife is living or habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere; (f) if...", "Petitioner Argument": "(v) By a subsequent Order dated 05.08.2020, it was recorded that an Affidavit of Compliance had been filed on 04.08.2020 by the Appellant-husband, wherein it was stated that arrears of Rs.1,45,000 till 11.09.2019 had been paid by him in January, 2020. However, he had made no further payment to the wife thereafter. With respect to the amount of Rs.10,000 p.m. payable for the minor son, the Order had been complied with till July 2020. A statement was made by the Counsel for the Appellant that he was not disputing the payment of maintenance for his son, and would continue to pay the same. A direction was issued by this Court to pay the entire arrears of maintenance to the wife @ Rs.15,000 p.m. as 3 fixed by the Family Court, and continue to pay the said amount during the pendency of proceedings. (vi) By the Order dated 25.08.2020, it was noted that the Appellant had filed an Affidavit dated 23.08.2020 wherein he had admitted and acknowledged that an amount of Rs.5,00,000 was pending towards arrears of maintenance to the Respondent...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "(g) if there is any other cause justifying living separately. (3) A Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residency and maintenance from her husband if she is unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion.” The distinction between maintenance under HMA and HAMA is that the right under Section 18 of HAMA is available during the subsistence of a marriage, without any matrimonial proceeding pending between the parties. Once there is a divorce, the wife has to seek relief under Section 25 of HMA. 3 Under HMA, either the wife, or the husband, may move for judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, dissolution of marriage, payment of interim maintenance under Section 24 , and permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act, whereas under Section 18 of HAMA, only a wife may seek maintenance. The interplay between the claim for maintenance under HMA and HAMA came up for consideration by the Supreme Court in Chand Dhawan v Jawaharlal Dhawan.4 The Supreme Court, while considering the various laws relating to marriage amongst Hindus, discussed the scope of applications under the HMA and HAMA in the following words : “23. … Section 18(1) of the Hindu...", "Decision": "“8. Section 24 of the Act empowers the matrimonial court to award maintenance pendente lite and also litigation expenses to a needy and indigent spouse so that the proceedings can be conducted without any hardship on his or her part. The proceedings under this Section are summary in nature and confers a substantial right on the applicant during the pendency of the proceedings. Where this amount is not paid to the applicant, then the very object and purpose of this provision stands defeated. No doubt, remedy of execution of decree or order passed by the matrimonial court is available under Section 28A of the Act, but the same would not be a bar to striking off the defence of the spouse who violates the interim order of maintenance and litigation expenses passed by the said Court. In other words, the striking off the defence of the spouse not honouring the court's interim order is the instant relief to the needy one instead of waiting endlessly till its execution under Section 28A of the Act. Where the spouse who is to...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117541087/ | AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 569, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 915", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; conversion; nullity_sec19; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2020, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 569, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 915", "Kanoon Doc ID": "117541087", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117541087/", "Chunks Indexed": 52 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court of India", "Case Title": "Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2007-03-26", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 13, Section 3", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "This is yet another unfortunate matrimonial dispute which has shattered the twenty two year old matrimonial bond between the parties. The appellant and the respondent are senior officials of the Indian Administrative Service, for short 'IAS'. The appellant and the respondent were married on 13.12.1984 at Calcutta under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 . The respondent was a divorcee and had a female child from her first marriage. The custody of the said child was given to her by the District Court of Patna where the respondent had obtained a decree of divorce against her first husband, Debashish Gupta, who was also an I.A.S. officer. The appellant and the respondent knew each other since 1983. The respondent, when she was serving as the Deputy Secretary in the Department of Finance, Government of West Bengal, used to meet the appellant between November 1983 and June 1984. They cultivated close friendship which later developed into courtship.", "Fact/ Respondent": "This is yet another unfortunate matrimonial dispute which has shattered the twenty two year old matrimonial bond between the parties. The appellant and the respondent are senior officials of the Indian Administrative Service, for short 'IAS'. The appellant and the respondent were married on 13.12.1984 at Calcutta under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 . The respondent was a divorcee and had a female child from her first marriage. The custody of the said child was given to her by the District Court of Patna where the respondent had obtained a decree of divorce against her first husband, Debashish Gupta, who was also an I.A.S. officer.", "Issues": "The learned Additional District Judge decreed the appellant's suit on the ground of mental cruelty. We deem it appropriate to analyze whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge in view of the law declared by a catena of cases. We deem it appropriate to deal with the decided cases. Before we critically examine both the judgments in the light of settled law, it has become imperative to understand and comprehend the concept of cruelty. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines 'cruelty' as 'the quality of being cruel; disposition of inflicting suffering; delight in or indifference to another's pain; mercilessness; hard-heartedness'. The term \"mental cruelty\" has been defined in the Black's Law Dictionary [8th Edition, 2004] as under: \"Mental Cruelty - As a ground for divorce, one spouse's course of conduct (not involving actual violence) that creates such anguish that it endangers the...", "Petitioner Argument": "Admittedly, the appellant and the respondent have been living separately since 27th August, 1990. The appellant further stated that the respondent refused cohabitation and also stopped sharing bed with him without any justification. Her unilateral decision not to have any child also caused mental cruelty on the appellant. The appellant was not permitted to even show his normal affection to the daughter of the respondent although he was a loving father to the child. The appellant also asserted that the respondent desired sadistic pleasure at the discomfiture and plight of the appellant which eventually affected his health and mental peace. In these circumstances, the appellant has prayed that it would not be possible to continue the marriage with the respondent and he eventually filed a suit for the grant of divorce. In the suit for divorce filed by the appellant in Alipur, Calcutta, the respondent filed her written statement and denied the averments. According to the version of the respondent, Prabir Malik, the domestic servant did not look after the welfare and well-being of the child. The respondent was apprehensive...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "In the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi reported in (1988) 1 SCC 105, this Court had an occasion to examine the concept of cruelty. The word 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act . It has been used in Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Act in the context of human conduct or behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact...", "Decision": "On proper consideration of cumulative facts and circumstances of this case, in our view, the High Court seriously erred in reversing the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge which is based on carefully watching the demeanour of the parties and their respective witnesses and the ratio and spirit of the judgments of this Court and other Courts. The High Court erred in setting aside a well-reasoned judgment of the trial court based on the correct analysis of the concept of mental cruelty. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge granting the decree of divorce is restored.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/766894/ | AIRONLINE 2007 SC 347", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2007, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2007 SC 347", "Kanoon Doc ID": "766894", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/766894/", "Chunks Indexed": 13 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court of India", "Case Title": "Lily Thomas, Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 April, 2000", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2000-04-05", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 17, Section 18, Section 198, Section 494, Section 495, Section 497, Section 498, Section 5, Section 61", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Conversion; Adultery", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. I respectfully agree with the views expressed by my esteemed Brother, Sethi, J., in the erudite judgment prepared by him, by which the Writ Petitions and the Review Petition are being disposed of finally. I, however, wish to add a few words of my own. 2. Smt. Sushmita Ghosh, who is the wife of Shri G.C. Ghosh (Mohd. Karim Ghazi) filed a Writ Petition [W.P.(C) No. 509 of 1992] in this Court stating that she was married to Shri G.C. Ghosh in accordance with the Hindu rites on 10th May, 1984 and since then both of them were happily living at Delhi. The following paragraphs of the Writ Petition, which are relevant for this case, are quoted below.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. Smt. Sushmita Ghosh, who is the wife of Shri G.C. Ghosh (Mohd. Karim Ghazi) filed a Writ Petition [W.P.(C) No. 509 of 1992] in this Court stating that she was married to Shri G.C. Ghosh in accordance with the Hindu rites on 10th May, 1984 and since then both of them were happily living at Delhi. The following paragraphs of the Writ Petition, which are relevant for this case, are quoted below.", "Issues": "8. Thus, in view of the pleadings in Smt. Sushmita Ghosh 's case and in view of the order passed by this Court in the Writ Petitions filed separately by Smt. Sarla Mudgal and Ms. Lily Thomas, the principal question which was required to be answered by this Court was that where a non-Muslim gets converted to the 'Muslim' faith without any real change or belief and merely with a view to avoid an earlier marriage or to enter into a second marriage, whether the marriage entered into by him after conversion would be void? 9. Smt. Sushmita Ghosh, in her Writ Petition, had clearly spelt out that her husband, Shri G.C. Ghosh, had not really converted to 'Muslim' faith, but had only feigned conversion to solemnise a second marriage. She also stated that though freedom of religion is a matter of faith, the said freedom cannot be used as...", "Petitioner Argument": "18. That the petitioner asserts her fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 15(1) not to be discriminated against on the ground of religion and sex alone. She avers that she has been discriminated against by that part of Muslim Personal Law which is enforced by the State Action by issue of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1937 . It is submitted that such action is contrary to Article 13(1) and is unconstitutional. 19. That the truth of the matter is that Respondent No. 3 has adopted the Muslim religion and became a convert to that religion for the sole purpose of having a second wife which is forbidden strictly under the Hindu Law. It need hardly be said that the said conversion was not a matter of Respondent No. 3 having faith in the Muslim religion. 20. The petitioner is undergoing great mental trauma. She is 34 years of age and is not employed anywhere. 21. That in the past several years, it has become very common amongst the Hindu males who cannot get a divorce from their first wife,...", "Respondent Argument": "Shri Mahajan submitted that since the apprehended second marriage has not yet taken place, it is appropriate that we stop the happening of that event till disposal of this petition. Learned Counsel for the respondent-husband says that he would file a counter affidavit within four weeks. He assures that his client would not enter into a marriage in hurry before the counter-affidavit is filed. 6. On 30th November, 1992, this Writ Petition was directed to be tagged with Writ Petition (C) No. 1079/89 ( Smt. SarlaMudgal, President, \"Kalyani\" and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. and W.P. (Civil) No. 347/90 Sunita @ Fatima v. Union of India and Ors.. 7. It may be stated that on 23rd April,1990 when the Writ Petition (C) No. 10797 89 and Writ Petition (C) No. 347/90 were taken up together, the Court had passed the following order: 44. Moreover, as pointed out by Brother Sethi, J., learned ASG appearing for the respondent has stated before the Court that the Govt. of India did not intend to take any action in this regard on...", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion. | Constitutional Doctrine: Gender equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21; severance of discriminatory conditions requiring Christian wives to prove adultery coupled with cruelty/desertion (Ammini E.J. / Pragati Varghese).", "Decision": "36. From the above, it would be seen that mere conversion does not bring to an end the marital ties unless a decree for divorce on that ground is obtained from the court. Till a decree is passed, the marriage subsists. Any other marriage, during the subsistence of first marriage would constitute an offence under Section 494 read with Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the person, in spite of his conversion to some other religion, would be liable to be prosecuted for the . offence of bigamy. It also follows that if the first marriage was solemnized under the Hindu Marriage Act , the 'husband' or the 'wife', by mere conversion to another religion, cannot bring to an end the marital ties already established on account of a valid marriage having been performed between them. So long as that marriage subsists, another marriage cannot be performed, not even under any other personal law, and on such marriage being performed, the person would be liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 494 IPC.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80351/ | 2000(2)ALD(CRI)686, 2000(1)ALT(CRI)363, 2001(1)BLJR499, 2000CRILJ2433, II(2000)DMC1SC, JT2000(5)SC617, 2000(4)SCALE176, (2000)6SCC224, 2000(2)UJ1113(SC)", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; conversion; adultery", "Judgment Year": 2000, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2000(2)ALD(CRI)686, 2000(1)ALT(CRI)363, 2001(1)BLJR499, 2000CRILJ2433, II(2000)DMC1SC, JT2000(5)SC617, 2000(4)SCALE176, (2000)6SCC224, 2000(2)UJ1113(SC)", "Kanoon Doc ID": "80351", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80351/", "Chunks Indexed": 19 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court of India", "Case Title": "Lily Thomas, Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 May, 2000", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2000-05-05", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 17, Section 198, Section 494, Section 497, Section 5, Section 61", "Legal Topics": "Conversion", "Outcome": "Interim", "Fact/ Petitioner": "I respectfully agree with the views expressed by my esteemed Brother, Sethi, J., in the erudite judgment prepared by him, by which the Writ Petitions and the Review Petition are being disposed of finally. I, however, wish to add a few words of my own. Smt. Sushmita Ghosh, who is the wife of Shri G.C. Ghosh (Mohd. Karim Ghazi) filed a Writ Petition [W.P.(C) No. 509 of 1992] in this Court stating that she was married to Shri G.C. Ghosh in accordance with the Hindu rites on 10th May, 1984 and since then both of them were happily living at Delhi. The following paragraphs of the Writ Petition, which are relevant for this case, are quoted below: \"15. That around the 1st of April, 1992, the Respondent No. 3 told the petitioner that she should in her own interest agree to her divorce by mutual consent as he had any way taken to Islam so that he may remarry and in fact he had already fixed to marry one Miss Vanita Gupta resident of D-152 Preet Vihar, Delhi, a divorcee with two children in the second week of July 1992. The Respondent No. 3 also showed a Certificate issued by office of the Maulana Qari Mohammad Idris, Shahi Qazi dated 17th June, 1992 certifying that the Respondent No. 3 had...", "Fact/ Respondent": "I respectfully agree with the views expressed by my esteemed Brother, Sethi, J., in the erudite judgment prepared by him, by which the Writ Petitions and the Review Petition are being disposed of finally. I, however, wish to add a few words of my own. Smt. Sushmita Ghosh, who is the wife of Shri G.C. Ghosh (Mohd. Karim Ghazi) filed a Writ Petition [W.P.(C) No. 509 of 1992] in this Court stating that she was married to Shri G.C. Ghosh in accordance with the Hindu rites on 10th May, 1984 and since then both of them were happily living at Delhi. The following paragraphs of the Writ Petition, which are relevant for this case, are quoted below: \"15. That around the 1st of April, 1992, the Respondent No. 3 told the petitioner that she should in her own interest agree to her divorce by mutual consent as he had any way taken to Islam so that he may remarry and in fact he had already fixed to marry one Miss Vanita Gupta resident of D-152 Preet Vihar, Delhi, a divorcee with two children in the second week of July 1992. The Respondent No. 3 also showed a Certificate issued by...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (conversion) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "\"Counter affidavit shall be filed in four weeks. Place this matter before a Bench of which Hon'ble Pandian, J. is a member. Shri Mahajan submitted that since the apprehended second marriage has not yet taken place, it is appropriate that we stop the happening of that event till disposal of this petition. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband says that he would file a counter affidavit within four weeks. He assures that his client would not enter into a marriage in hurry before the counter-affidavit is filed.\" On 30th November, 1992, this Writ Petition was directed to be tagged with Writ Petition (C) No. 1079/89 ( Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, \"Kalyani\" & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. ) and W.P. (Civil) No. 347/90 (Sunita @ Fatima vs. Union of India & Ors.). It may be stated that on 23rd April, 1990 when the Writ Petition (C) No. 1079/89 and Writ Petition (C) No. 347/90 were taken up together, the Court had passed the following order : \"Issue Notice to respondent No. 3 returnable within twelve weeks in both the...", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "494. Change of religion does not dissolve the marriage performed under the Hindu Marriage Act between two Hindus. Apostasy does not bring to an end the civil obligations or the matrimonial bond, but apostasy is a ground for divorce under Section 13 as also a ground for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Hindu Law does not recognised bigamy. As we have seen above, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for \"Monogamy\". A second marriage, during the life-time of the spouse, would be void under Sections 11 and 17 , besides being an offence. In Govt. of Bombay vs. Ganga ILR (1880) 4 Bombay 330, which obviously is a case decided prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act , it was held by the Bombay High Court that where a Hindu married woman having a Hindu husband living marries a Mahommedan after conversion to `Islam', she commits the offence of polyandry as, by mere conversion, the previous marriage does not come to an end. The other decisions based on this principle are...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1762508/ | AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 1650, 2000 AIR SCW 1760, (2000) 5 JT 617 (SC), 2000 (4) SCALE 176, 2000 (2) LRI 623, 2000 (6) SCC 224, 2000 SCC(CRI) 1056, 2000 (2) UJ (SC) 1113, 2000 BOM CR 464, 2000 (6) SRJ 387, 2000 UJ(SC) 2 1113, 2001 (1) BLJR 499, (2000) 3 ALLMR 251 (SC), (2000) 2 KER LT 62, (2000) 2 MADLW(CRI) 837, (2000) 2 MAHLR 409, (2000) 2 CURCC 233, (2000) 2 CURLJ(CCR) 88, (2000) 2 CURCRIR 193, (2000) 4 SCALE 176, (2000) 2 DMC 1, (2000) 2 HINDULR 374, (2000) 3 MAD LW 371, (2000) 2 MARRILJ 1, (2000) 6 ANDHLD 16, (2000) 3 SUPREME 601, (2000) 3 RECCIVR 252, (2001) 2 ALLCRIR 1809, (2001) 42 ALLCRIC 421, (2001) 1 BLJ 53, 2000 (1) ANDHLT(CRI) 363 SC, (2000) 1 ANDHLT(CRI) 363", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Conversion", "All Grounds": "conversion", "Judgment Year": 2000, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 1650, 2000 AIR SCW 1760, (2000) 5 JT 617 (SC), 2000 (4) SCALE 176, 2000 (2) LRI 623, 2000 (6) SCC 224, 2000 SCC(CRI) 1056, 2000 (2) UJ (SC) 1113, 2000 BOM CR 464, 2000 (6) SRJ 387, 2000 UJ(SC) 2 1113, 2001 (1) BLJR 499, (2000) 3 ALLMR 251 (SC), (2000) 2 KER LT 62, (2000) 2 MADLW(CRI) 837, (2000) 2 MAHLR 409, (2000) 2 CURCC 233, (2000) 2 CURLJ(CCR) 88, (2000) 2 CURCRIR 193, (2000) 4 SCALE 176, (2000) 2 DMC 1, (2000) 2 HINDULR 374, (2000) 3 MAD LW 371, (2000) 2 MARRILJ 1, (2000) 6 ANDHLD 16, (2000) 3 SUPREME 601, (2000) 3 RECCIVR 252, (2001) 2 ALLCRIR 1809, (2001) 42 ALLCRIC 421, (2001) 1 BLJ 53, 2000 (1) ANDHLT(CRI) 363 SC, (2000) 1 ANDHLT(CRI) 363", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1762508", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1762508/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Rohit Shekhar vs Shri Narayan Dutt Tiwari & Anr. on 23 September, 2011", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2011-09-23", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A, Section 10B, Section 11, Section 112, Section 114, Section 125, Section 13, Section 144, Section 151, Section 165, Section 17, Section 185, Section 19, Section 2, Section 20, Section 21, Section 23, Section 27, Section 3, Section 32, Section 350, Section 351, Section 367, Section 37, Section 4, Section 41, Section 432, Section 45, Section 47, Section 482, Section 501, Section 508, Section 509, Section 52, Section 53, Section 531, Section 54, Section 57, Section 622, Section 646, Section 7, Section 75, Section 8, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "IA No.10394/2011 in CS(OS) No. 700/2008 Reserved on : August 2, 2011 ROHIT SHEKHAR ... Plaintiff through: Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vedanata Verma and Mr. Manu Aggarwal, Adv. SHRI NARAYAN DUTT TIWARI & ANR. ... Defendants through: Mr. Bahar U. Barqi and Mr. Pramod Kr. Sharma, Adv. for D-1 Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Adv. for D-2 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes 1. The present application displays a blatant refusal by a party to the litigation to comply with the court direction made in accordance with law to furnish a blood sample for DNA testing which would enable authoritative adjudication on the real issue in the matter. For this purpose, the defendant no. 1 has filed IA No. 10394/2011 dated 30th May, 2011 seeking the following prayers :- \"(a) direct the plaintiff or the learned Deputy Registrar of this court or any other authority or officer not to pressurize, coerce, compel or force the petitioner in any manner to involuntarily provide blood and/or tissue sample for DNA IA No.10394/2011 in CS(OS) 700/2008 1 analysis. (b) Direct that till the abovementioned prayer is finally considered...", "Fact/ Respondent": "IA No.10394/2011 in CS(OS) No. 700/2008 Reserved on : August 2, 2011 ROHIT SHEKHAR ... Plaintiff through: Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vedanata Verma and Mr. Manu Aggarwal, Adv. SHRI NARAYAN DUTT TIWARI & ANR. ... Defendants through: Mr. Bahar U. Barqi and Mr. Pramod Kr. Sharma, Adv. for D-1 Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Adv. for D-2 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes 1. The present application displays a blatant refusal by a party to the litigation to comply with the court direction made in accordance with law to furnish a blood sample for DNA testing which would enable authoritative adjudication on the real issue in the matter. For this purpose, the defendant no. 1 has filed IA No. 10394/2011 dated 30th May, 2011 seeking the following prayers :- \"(a) direct the plaintiff or the learned Deputy Registrar of this court or any other authority or officer not to pressurize, coerce, compel or force the petitioner in any manner to involuntarily provide blood and/or tissue...", "Issues": "In all such matrimonial cases where divorce is sought, say on the ground of impotency, schizophrenia...etc. normally without there being medical examination, it would be difficult to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the allegation made by his spouse against the other spouses seeking divorce on such a ground, is correct or not. In order to substantiate such allegation, the Petitioner would always insist on medical examination. If respondent avoids such medical examination on the IA No.10394/2011 in CS(OS) 700/2008 9 ground that it violates his/her right to privacy or for a matter right to personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and with the extensive interpretation of the phrase \"personal liberty\" this right has been read into Article 21 , it cannot be treated as absolute right. What is emphasized is that some limitations on this right have to be imposed and particularly...", "Petitioner Argument": "76. As noticed above, there is no specific statutory regime in India under civil law which empowers the court to direct the medical examination including the blood test for DNA profiling of the parties or any third party to a case where paternity of a child is in issue. Such a position subsisted before the courts in England prior to the amendment to the Family Reforms Act. In the judgment pronounced on 14th March, 1963 reported at [1963] 2 All E.R. 386, W. v. W. The question before IA No.10394/2011 in CS(OS) 700/2008 43 the court was whether the wife can be compelled against her will to undergo such a test. Cairns, J, it was observed that \"no such application as this has ever been made in this country before\". The court rejected the argument of the counsel for the petitioner expanding the definition of the said statutory provision regarding samples which could be taken or appointment of experts. In this pronouncement, it was ruled that medical inspections have, in some circumstances, been authorised by statute. For instance under the...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "\"264. In light of these conclusions, we hold that no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. However, we do leave room for the voluntary administration of the impugned techniques in the context of criminal justice provided that certain safeguards are in place. Even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test. However, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be IA No.10394/2011 in CS(OS) 700/2008 12 admitted in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.‖ (Emphasis supplied) 20. So far as a judicial pronouncement is concerned, it is well settled that principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court has to be read in the context of the issues which were before the court. (Ref: JT 2002 (1) SC 482 Haryana Financial Corporation vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills &...", "Decision": "GITA MITTAL, J September 23, 2011 kr IA No.10394/2011 in CS(OS) 700/2008 109", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1378226/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 2011, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1378226", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1378226/", "Chunks Indexed": 46 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Mamta Das vs Puneet Das on 22 September, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-09-22", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 19, Section 27, Section 3, Section 32, Section 55, Section 57, Section 7, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 55 of the Divorce Act, 18691, by the Appellant-Wife, assailing the Judgment and Decree Court, Tis Hazari Courts (Central), Delhi3, in IDA No. 13/2017. 2. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Family Court allowed the divorce petition filed by the Respondent-Husband and dissolved the marriage of the parties under Section 10(1)(ix) of the Divorce Act on the ground of desertion, while simultaneously dismissing the 1 Divorce Act 2 Impugned Judgment 3 Family Court Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR MAT.APP.(F.C.) 160/2022 Page 1 of 36 BHATIA Signing Date:23.09.2025 15:14:24 Counter-Claim bearing No. 01/20224, instituted by the Appellant seeking restitution of conjugal rights.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 55 of the Divorce Act, 18691, by the Appellant-Wife, assailing the Judgment and Decree Court, Tis Hazari Courts (Central), Delhi3, in IDA No. 13/2017.", "Issues": "\"19. After completion of the pleadings, following issues, were framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 10.12.2018: - (1) Whether the petitioner-husband has been subjected to cruelty by the respondent-wife as claimed in the petition, and if so, to what effect? OPP. (2) Whether the respondent-wife has deserted the petitioner-husband for a continuous period of more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition without reasonable cause? OPP (3) Whether the respondent-wife is entitled to decree of restitution of conjugal rights as claimed by her in her counter claim? OPP (4) Relief. ***** EVIDENCE: 22. Petitioner-husband has tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW1/X. He has reiterated the facts as mentioned in the petition. He has also relied upon documents Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B. Ex. PW1/A is copy of marriage certificate and Ex. PW1/B is copy of pre-litigation mediation application filed by the respondent. 23. In order to...", "Petitioner Argument": "24. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would contend that the finding of desertion recorded by the learned Family Court is wholly misconceived, for her departure from the matrimonial home on 02.12.2011 was not voluntary but occasioned by persistent hostility and humiliation inflicted by the Respondent's mother, and it was further compounded by the Respondent's own insistence that she shift to separate accommodation; hence, the learned Family Court erred in holding her guilty of desertion by overlooking the settled doctrine of constructive desertion. 25. It would be submitted by the learned Counsel that the Appellant was compelled to leave the matrimonial home owing to sustained cruelty and hostile conduct of her in-laws, while the Respondent remained a silent spectator, and it was the conduct of the Respondent and his family that forced her to arrange separate accommodation in 2011, which, in any event, was done with the Respondent's consent and therefore could not establish an intention on her part to abandon the marital relationship. 26. Learned Counsel would further argue that the learned Family Court erred in relying upon the Appellant's...", "Respondent Argument": "32. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent would support the Impugned Judgment and submit that the learned Family Court had correctly appreciated the pleadings, evidence, and surrounding circumstances, and therefore, rightly granted the decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. 38. In order to claim relief of dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion, as discussed above, petitioner had to prove the factum of \"desertion\" and the \"intention to desert\" on the part of respondent. In the present case, both parties had admitted that they are residing separately since 01.12.2011, although Respondent had stated that even after 01.12.2011 petitioner used to come and stay with her at her rented apartment. But in major way both parties have admitted that they are residing separately since December, 2011, except few instance of staying together, as alleged by respondent but denied by petitioner. Thus \"factum of desertion\" is proved by petitioner. 39. As regards \"animus deserendi\" ie the \"intention to desert\", on the part of respondent is concerned, Petitioner had specifically and categorically stated that Respondent is residing away from...", "Factors to be Considered": "34. From these judgments, it is clear that in order to prove the ground of desertion, petitioner has to prove firstly, the factum of separation, Secondly, the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end ie the intention to desert i.e. \"animus deserendi\". In order to prove \"animus deserendi\" the deserted spouse has to prove the absence of consent and the absence of any conduct on his/her part which could give reasonable cause to the other spouse for leaving the matrimonial home. 35. In nutshell, it can be considered that in order to prove the ground of desertion, petitioner has to prove firstly, that the parties are living separately for more than two years before the date of filing of petition and Secondly, petitioner has to prove that the \"intention to desert\" exist with the respondent. The intention to desert will be considered after considering the complete facts and circumstances of the case. While considering the intention to desert, the court has to necessarily see that there must not be any conduct on the part of petitioner which could give any reasonable cause to the respondent for leaving the matrimonial home or to live separately from petitioner. In other words,...", "Decision": "67. In view of the detailed discussion hereinabove, we find no merit in the present appeal and are not persuaded to interfere with the well- reasoned judgment of the learned Family Court. The decree of divorce granted under Section 10(1)(ix) of the Divorce Act, stands on firm legal and factual foundation and, accordingly, merits affirmation.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141378512/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 180)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "141378512", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141378512/", "Chunks Indexed": 19 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Neetu Grover vs Union Of India & Ors. on 22 January, 2024", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2024-01-22", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 15, Section 2, Section 29, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner inter-alia seeks issuance of an appropriate writ for striking down Section 5 (v) ('Impugned Section') of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('HMA Act'). 2.2 He states that despite existence of Section 5(v) of the HMA Act, marriages are commonly solemnized between parties who are related to each other as sapindas, even in the absence of proof of custom and it is prevalent in the civil society. Therefore, the impugned Section needs to be struck down to protect the interest of such women. He states that the striking down of the impugned Section is necessary to liberalize the citizens and to protect the affected women.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Respondent contested the petition, denying allegations of constitutional validity under Section 10 and submitting that no statutory grounds exist for dissolving the marriage.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (constitutional validity) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "5. In the facts of Petitioner's case, the competent Courts have returned a finding of fact that both the Petitioner and Mr. Gagan Grover fall within the prohibited category of sapindas as recognised under Section 5(v) of the HMA Act and therefore the marriage was null and void. Further, after examining the evidence led by the Petitioner the said Courts have held that the Petitioner was unable to prove the existence of a custom or usage1 of marriage within the sapindas in the community of the parties, and, therefore held that Petitioner's marriage with Mr. Gagan Grover is not saved by the exception of custom or usage. 6. The Petitioner seeks to challenge Section 5(v) of the HMA Act on the ground that though her marriage with her distant cousin Mr. Gagan Grover was consensual, he has abdicated his responsibilities towards the Petitioner and her son by taking recourse to the impugned Section. The Petitioner does not deny knowledge of the existence of the prohibition by impugned Section but pleads parental consent as the basis for justifying her marriage with her 1 The expression 'custom' and 'usage' signify any rule which, having been continuously and uniformly observed for a long...", "Decision": "4. As is evident from prayers (ii) and (iii) of this petition, the Petitioner is effectively aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2007 passed by a competent Court in HMA No. 396/2003 declaring that the marriage between the Petitioner and her distant cousin Mr. Gagan Grover was solemnized in contravention of Section 5(v) of the HMA Act and therefore, null and void. The said judgment of the competent Court was impugned by the Petitioner in MAT.APP. (F.C.) 35/2023; however, the said appeal as well has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 09.10.2023.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165310576/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity", "Judgment Year": 2024, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "165310576", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165310576/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Mrs. Nisha Ribero vs Mr. George Mario Ribeiro on 26 September, 2003", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2003-09-26", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 16, Section 17, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This Reference has been made by the Additional District Judge under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 by his order dated 25.9.2001. By a judgment and order of the same date i.e., 25.9.2001, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the petition of the petitioner (wife) which had been filed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty, adultery and desertion. The petitioner and the respondent No.1 (George Mario Riberio) were married on 1.6.1992 in New Delhi under the Indian Christian Marriage Act,1872 . Various allegations were made in the Petition. The respondent/husband filed a written statement on 30.11.2000. The case was posted on 4.1.2001 for conciliation but the Respondent No.1/husband did not turn up on that date and, accordingly, the respondents were proceeded ex parte thereafter. To prove her case the petitioner examined herself, her two brothers-in-law and her brother. On the basis of the unchallenged and non-rebutted deposition of the petitioner and her other witnesses the trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent No.1(husband) had treated the petitioner with cruelty, both physical and mental. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that the respondent No.1 had been living in adultery with respondent No.2 and had deserted the petitioner for more than two years...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This Reference has been made by the Additional District Judge under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 by his order dated 25.9.2001. By a judgment and order of the same date i.e., 25.9.2001, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the petition of the petitioner (wife) which had been filed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty, adultery and desertion. The petitioner and the respondent No.1 (George Mario Riberio) were married on 1.6.1992 in New Delhi under the Indian Christian Marriage Act,1872 . Various allegations were made in the Petition. The respondent/husband filed a written statement on 30.11.2000. The case was posted on 4.1.2001 for conciliation but the Respondent No.1/husband did not turn up on that date and, accordingly, the respondents were proceeded ex parte thereafter. To prove her case the petitioner examined herself, her two brothers-in-law and her brother. On the basis of the unchallenged and non-rebutted deposition of the petitioner and her other witnesses the trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent No.1(husband) had treated the petitioner with cruelty, both physical and mental. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that the...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "3. As indicated above the trial Court allowed the petition in favor of the petitioner and dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion coupled with adultery and cruelty. We have already stated above that we find no infirmity in the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge and, accordingly, we confirm the same.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1586826/ | 2004IAD(DELHI)70, 108(2003)DLT48, II(2003)DMC807, 2003(71)DRJ763", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2003, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2004IAD(DELHI)70, 108(2003)DLT48, II(2003)DMC807, 2003(71)DRJ763", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1586826", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1586826/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Kanchan Daniel vs Sh. Michael Daniel And Anr. on 6 February, 2004", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2004-02-06", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a Matrimonial Reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. By a Judgment and Order dated 16.9.1997, the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi allowed the petition of the petitioner (wife) which had been filed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent No.1 (Shri Michael Daniel) on the ground of cruelty, desertion and adultery. 2. The petitioner and the respondent No.1 are Christians and got married on 10.11.1982 at Delhi. They lived together as wife and husband up to August,1992 when the Respondent No.1 (husband) left the matrimonial home. They have two male children which were in the care and custody of the petitioner. The petitioner filed the petition for divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 on the allegations that the respondent No.1 (husband) treated her with cruelty, was living in adultery with respondent No.2 and that he had, in any event, deserted her as he left the matrimonial home in August, 1992. There was no appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and she was proceeded ex parte by the learned Additional District Judge. Initially, there was an appearance entered on behalf of respondent No.1 and the advocate took time for filing of the written statement. However, subsequently, neither there was any...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a Matrimonial Reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. By a Judgment and Order dated 16.9.1997, the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi allowed the petition of the petitioner (wife) which had been filed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent No.1 (Shri Michael Daniel) on the ground of cruelty, desertion and adultery.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "4. The Reference is disposed of accordingly.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/849748/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2004, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "849748", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/849748/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "A.S. Puri vs K.L. Ahuja on 14 April, 1970", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1970-04-14", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 202, Section 203, Section 497", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The petitioner (Mr. Puri) is aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge setting aside the dismissal by the learned S. D. M. Delhi preferred against him under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code by the respondent (Dr. K. L. Ahuja). The learned S.D. M. held an enquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, during which he examined seven witnesses on behalf of the complainant and dismissed the said complaint. As against the said dismissal, Dr. Ahuja preferred a revision petition to the Additional Sessions Judge which was accepted. 2. It is seen from the records that even though the learned Additional Sessions Judge had merely ordered issue of notice to the respondent in that revision (described as State) appearance was entered in that criminal case on behalf of the present petitioner. An objection was raised, on behalf of the complainant, to the learned Additional Sessions Judge hearing counsel for the present petitioner, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge considered it appropriate to invite his counsel (who was present) also to address arguments.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The petitioner (Mr. Puri) is aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge setting aside the dismissal by the learned S. D. M. Delhi preferred against him under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code by the respondent (Dr. K. L. Ahuja). The learned S.D. M. held an enquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, during which he examined seven witnesses on behalf of the complainant and dismissed the said complaint. As against the said dismissal, Dr. Ahuja preferred a revision petition to the Additional Sessions Judge which was accepted.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "33. In the above view the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judges is set aside the order of dismissal of the complaint will remain in force. The revision petition is accordingly accepted.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1939643/ | AIR1970DELHI214, 1970CRILJ1441, AIR 1970 DELHI 214", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1970, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1970DELHI214, 1970CRILJ1441, AIR 1970 DELHI 214", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1939643", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1939643/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Ms. X vs Mr. Z And Anr. on 20 December, 2001", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2001-12-20", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 112, Section 125, Section 488", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Adultery", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The main question which craves for an answer is as to whether the petitioner can resist the request of respondent No. 1 for directing the Pathology Department of the All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi to prepare a slide containing the blood cells of respondent No. 1 and calling for the slides and blocks of the case relating to the petitioner and order a DNA test with a view to ascertain if respondent No. 1 is the father of the foetus. The petitioner's claim is that such an order would infringer has constitutional right of her privacy.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The main question which craves for an answer is as to whether the petitioner can resist the request of respondent No. 1 for directing the Pathology Department of the All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi to prepare a slide containing the blood cells of respondent No. 1 and calling for the slides and blocks of the case relating to the petitioner and order a DNA test with a view to ascertain if respondent No. 1 is the father of the foetus.", "Issues": "1. The main question which craves for an answer is as to whether the petitioner can resist the request of respondent No. 1 for directing the Pathology Department of the All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi to prepare a slide containing the blood cells of respondent No. 1 and calling for the slides and blocks of the case relating to the petitioner and order a DNA test with a view to ascertain if respondent No. 1 is the father of the foetus. The petitioner's claim is that such an order would infringer has constitutional right of her privacy. 3. Respondent No. 1, by virtue of I.A. 3804/99 contends that case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 had adulterous affair with respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 1 on the contrary assest that petitioner had adulterous affairs with one Jose Thomas, which resulted in petitioner being...", "Petitioner Argument": "4. Needless to state that in the reply filed, the application as such, has been contested. It has been asserted that the petition has been filed only to delay the disposal of divorce petition and the respondent No. 1 is trying to create smoke screen for his own affairs. It is denied that DNA examination of the slides would conclusively prove the paternity of the foetus. It is alleged that the Courts in India do not have the authority to order DNA test in civil and quasi-civil matters in particular, where it is to establish the paternity even of living child where husband had the access. Such an order, it is alleged, would be in violation of the constitutional and legal rights of the petitioner. 5. It is in this back-drop of these facts that the main question referred to above, comes up for consideration. But before converging into the same, it would be appropriate to deal with the other submissions that were made at the Bar. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that there is no provision permitting the...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "8. In another case, reported as Sabayya Gounder v. Bhoopala Subramanian , , when a similar question cropped up under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1908 corresponding to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The same Court referred to Article 20(3) of the Constitution to conclude that no person accused of any evidence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself and once again the finding was that if the party concerned is unwilling to such a test, the Court cannot direct them to submit accordingly. It was held: In India there is no special Statute and there is no provision either in the Criminal Procedure Code or in the Indian Evidence Act empowering Courts to direct such a test to be made. Similarly, as pointed out by Raghava Rao, J. in Venkateswarulu v. Subbayya, , there is no procedure either in the Civil Procedure Code or the Evidence Act which provides for a blood test being made of a minor and his mother when the father is disputing the legitimacy of the minor and held that if the parties are unwilling to submit to such a test the Court has no power...", "Decision": "List it for further proceedings on 12.2.2002.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/627683/ | 96(2002)DLT354, I(2002)DMC448, AIR 2002 DELHI 217, (2002) 4 CIVLJ 155, (2002) 1 DMC 448, (2002) 62 DRJ 851, (2002) 2 HINDULR 32, (2002) 2 MARRILJ 180, (2002) MATLR 494, (2002) 3 RECCRIR 140, (2002) 3 RECCIVR 131, (2002) 2 CURCC 12, (2002) 96 DLT 354", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; adultery", "Judgment Year": 2001, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 96(2002)DLT354, I(2002)DMC448, AIR 2002 DELHI 217, (2002) 4 CIVLJ 155, (2002) 1 DMC 448, (2002) 62 DRJ 851, (2002) 2 HINDULR 32, (2002) 2 MARRILJ 180, (2002) MATLR 494, (2002) 3 RECCRIR 140, (2002) 3 RECCIVR 131, (2002) 2 CURCC 12, (2002) 96 DLT 354", "Kanoon Doc ID": "627683", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/627683/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Smt. Linda Constance Edwards vs Shri William Edwards & Anr. on 4 December, 2000", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2000-12-04", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 22", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Marriage between the parties who are Christians took place more than 25 years ago. Its dissolution has been sought on the ground of cruelty coupled with adultery. 2. It is alleged that right from day one respondent No.1, i.e. the husband started exhibiting symptoms of cruelty, apathy and lack of interest towards the petitioner and somehow or other the petitioner pulled on with the marriage till the year 1978 in the hope that the respondent No.1 may change. The impression of the petitioner was that the problems of his character may be due to temperament and not a basic trait of his character that may be incorrigible or unchangeable. That off and on the respondent No.1 used to come home fully drunk and indulged in physical beatings. However, when all efforts failed, the petitioner found that respondent No.1 was psychologically ill and has maniac traits right from his childhood and his character is unsuitable for a marital life and so much so the doctors, psychologists and priests have advised him not to entry into a marital life but the respondent No.1 played a fraud upon the petitioner and obtained her consent. In spite of the fact that two children were born to the petitioner during the three years of their joint stay the respondent No.1 developed hatred towards her...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. It is alleged that right from day one respondent No.1, i.e. the husband started exhibiting symptoms of cruelty, apathy and lack of interest towards the petitioner and somehow or other the petitioner pulled on with the marriage till the year 1978 in the hope that the respondent No.1 may change. The impression of the petitioner was that the problems of his character may be due to temperament and not a basic trait of his character that may be incorrigible or unchangeable. That off and on the respondent No.1 used to come home fully drunk and indulged in physical beatings. However, when all efforts failed, the petitioner found that respondent No.1 was psychologically ill and has maniac traits right from his childhood and his character is unsuitable for a marital life and so much so the doctors, psychologists and priests have advised him not to entry into a marital life but the respondent No.1 played a fraud upon the petitioner and obtained her consent. In spite of the fact that two children were born to the petitioner during the three years of their joint stay the respondent No.1 developed hatred towards her and stopped having intercourse with her and rather...", "Issues": "10. Whether refusal to have sexual intercourse amounts to cruelty or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Sexual intercourse is just one of marital rights. No doubt, the denial of sexual relations causes frustration and misery to the aggrieved party and is likely to destroy the fibre of marriage yet reasonable denial on the part of either party does not constitute cruelty. This aspect of marital obligation has been dealt with in most elaborate manner in Jacobson vs. Jacobson, 130 Ny.S.II D 762. It is observed that this obligation is of a personal and delicate nature and depends on sentiments and feelings to such an extent that it would be an intrusion into the privacy of domestic life to stipulate reasonable denial on the part of either party to submit to marital intercourse constitutes cruelty. Such denial does not constitute cruelty even though refusal to have...", "Petitioner Argument": "2. It is alleged that right from day one respondent No.1, i.e. the husband started exhibiting symptoms of cruelty, apathy and lack of interest towards the petitioner and somehow or other the petitioner pulled on with the marriage till the year 1978 in the hope that the respondent No.1 may change. The impression of the petitioner was that the problems of his character may be due to temperament and not a basic trait of his character that may be incorrigible or unchangeable. That off and on the respondent No.1 used to come home fully drunk and indulged in physical beatings. However, when all efforts failed, the petitioner found that respondent No.1 was psychologically ill and has maniac traits right from his childhood and his character is unsuitable for a marital life and so much so the doctors, psychologists and priests have advised him not to entry into a marital life but the respondent No.1 played a fraud upon the petitioner and obtained her consent. In spite of the fact that two children were born to the petitioner during the three...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "22. Taking over-all view and the long course of cruel conduct coupled not only with adulterous dispositions but actual indulgence in adultery, I feel pursuaded to allow the petition and grant decree for dissolution of marriage. Accordingly the marriage is dissolved. A decree sheet be prepared.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/999818/ | 2001IIIAD(DELHI)482, 91(2001)DLT355, I(2001)DMC746, 2001(58)DRJ731", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2000, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2001IIIAD(DELHI)482, 91(2001)DLT355, I(2001)DMC746, 2001(58)DRJ731", "Kanoon Doc ID": "999818", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/999818/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Dr.(Mrs.) Kiran Robinson vs Ajeet Malcolm Robinson And Ors. on 21 May, 2002", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2002-05-21", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of marriage on behalf of wife-petitioner on the ground of cruelty, desertion and adultery. This trite trinity has been responsible for larger number of broken marriages. Apart from this, there is allegation that respondent is medically unfit to impregnate the petitioner as he is suffering from Polycystic Kidney Disease which means he is capable of sexual intercourse but not able to make the wife conceive. 2. The parties entered into wedlock on 7.8.1991. The petitioner possessed postgraduate degree in Chemistry at the time of marriage and completed her Ph.D. after her marriage. She is presently working as P.G.T. in a Government Senior Secondary School. The respondent is a photographer by profession. After marriage she started living with her in laws at 1 B.P., Maurya Enclave, M.I.G. Flats, Pitampura (Poorvi) Delhi. She stayed there from August, 1991 to 2nd week of September, 1991.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of marriage on behalf of wife-petitioner on the ground of cruelty, desertion and adultery. This trite trinity has been responsible for larger number of broken marriages. Apart from this, there is allegation that respondent is medically unfit to impregnate the petitioner as he is suffering from Polycystic Kidney Disease which means he is capable of sexual intercourse but not able to make the wife conceive.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "3. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 before marriage was working and studying at Russia and came to India for the purpose of marriage and lived here from August, 1991 to October, 1991 where after he left for Russia. Since the petitioner was doing research work at Banaras Hindu University, Varansi, she along with respondent No. 1 came there to apprise him about the research work. Respondent No. 1 left for Russia in October, 1991. The petitioner stayed with her parents to prosecute her study from mid of November, 1991 to 23rd December, 1991 and rejoined her husband when he came back from Russia on 25th December, 1991 and stayed with him till 1st week of March, 1992. For completing her remaining research work, she came back to Varansi and remained there up to 23rd June, 1992 and returned to Delhi on 30th June, 1992 and started living with her in-laws. Respondent No. 1 came to Delhi in 1st week of July, 1992 and remained here till November, 1992. 4. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 never wanted...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "15. As a consequence, petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage on the aforesaid three grounds. Petition is allowed. Marriage is hereby dissolved. Decree of divorce be prepared.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/805113/ | AIR2003DELHI44, 99(2002)DLT111, II(2002)DMC462, 2002(63)DRJ708, AIR 2003 DELHI 44, (2003) 1 RECCIVR 523, (2002) 99 DLT 111, (2002) 2 DMC 462, (2002) 63 DRJ 708, (2003) 1 HINDULR 601, (2003) 2 MARRILJ 73, (2003) 2 CIVLJ 376", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2002, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR2003DELHI44, 99(2002)DLT111, II(2002)DMC462, 2002(63)DRJ708, AIR 2003 DELHI 44, (2003) 1 RECCIVR 523, (2002) 99 DLT 111, (2002) 2 DMC 462, (2002) 63 DRJ 708, (2003) 1 HINDULR 601, (2003) 2 MARRILJ 73, (2003) 2 CIVLJ 376", "Kanoon Doc ID": "805113", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/805113/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Annu J. Thomas vs Thomas Koshy on 25 April, 1997", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1997-04-25", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 22", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Mahinder Narain, A.C.J. (1) The petitioner Ms. Annu J. Thomas has filed a petition under the Indian Divorce Act against the respondent Mr. Thomas Koshy. Originally the petition was filed under Section 22 of the Indian Divorce Act and later the petition was amended and pleas under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act was also added thereto. (2) EX-PARTE evidence of the petitioner was recorded by the learned Additional District Judge.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Mahinder Narain, A.C.J. (1) The petitioner Ms. Annu J. Thomas has filed a petition under the Indian Divorce Act against the respondent Mr. Thomas Koshy. Originally the petition was filed under Section 22 of the Indian Divorce Act and later the petition was amended and pleas under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act was also added thereto.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "(12) For the aforesaid reasons, we confirm the order of the learned Additional District Judge and dissolve the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1592200/ | 1997IVAD(DELHI)222, AIR1997DELHI345, 67(1997)DLT263, 1997(42)DRJ73, AIR 1997 DELHI 345, (1998) 1 MARRILJ 178, (1998) 1 RECCIVR 97, (1997) 67 DLT 263, (1997) 42 DRJ 73, (1997) MATLR 496", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 1997, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1997IVAD(DELHI)222, AIR1997DELHI345, 67(1997)DLT263, 1997(42)DRJ73, AIR 1997 DELHI 345, (1998) 1 MARRILJ 178, (1998) 1 RECCIVR 97, (1997) 67 DLT 263, (1997) 42 DRJ 73, (1997) MATLR 496", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1592200", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1592200/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Surinder Singh vs Tejinder Kaur on 21 August, 1986", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1986-08-21", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 125, Section 13, Section 26, Section 27, Section 28", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "(1) F.A.O. 189/84 is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the judgment and decree of Shri R.C. Jain, Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 27/7/1984 dissolving the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Said Act. F.A.O. 181/84 is also an applauder Section 28 of the said Act against the order dated 27/7/1984 of Shri R.C. Jain, Additional District Judge, Delhi under Section 27 of the Act directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 to the wife towards compensation in respect of the articles mentioned in list, Ex. RW-1/1 and further directing the payment of the sum of Rs. 175.00 per month towards maintenance and education of the minor son. Both these appeals are disposed of by this common order. (2) The case of the husband as set out in the petition and the defense of the wife as set out in the written statement has succinctly been set out in the judgment of the trial Court and may be seen from there. The first issue in the case is whether the wife treated the husband with cruelty after the solemnization of the marriage. The second issue is whether the wife deserted the husband for a continuous period of not less than two...", "Fact/ Respondent": "(1) F.A.O. 189/84 is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the judgment and decree of Shri R.C. Jain, Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 27/7/1984 dissolving the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Said Act. F.A.O. 181/84 is also an applauder Section 28 of the said Act against the order dated 27/7/1984 of Shri R.C. Jain, Additional District Judge, Delhi under Section 27 of the Act directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 to the wife towards compensation in respect of the articles mentioned in list, Ex. RW-1/1 and further directing the payment of the sum of Rs. 175.00 per month towards maintenance and education of the minor son. Both these appeals are disposed of by this common order.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "(4) The main submission of Shri Mohinder Goel, the learned counsel for the appellant-wife is that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced by the parties in support of the case. The evidence produced by the husband is alleged to be beyond the. pleadings of the parties. It is urged that the trial Court has wrongly decided both the issues as the relevant oral and documentary evidence has not been correctly appreciated. The learned counsel took me through the pleadings of the parties and the relevant evidence on the record. (5) In para 7 of the petition, the husband has alleged that he stayed with the parents of the wife at Ghaziabad for only few days and during the stay the wife and her parents used to taunt the husband and used to insult the husband with the sole object to humiliate and degrade the husband and that the husband had been tolerating all the taunts with the hope and expectation that on one day a wiser counsel would prevail upon...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "(9) Section 26 of the said Act empowers the Court to provide for maintenance .of minor children. A decree for dissolution of marriage has been passed. Power is conferred on the Court to make provision in the decree as it may deem just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children. A sum of Rs. 100.00 per month as maintenance for the minor child was awarded in the proceedings under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court, the husband had himself agreed to enhance the said maintenance by Rs. 75.00 per month. The trial Court in exercise of the powers under Section 26 of the said Act, directed the payment of Rs. 175.00 per month towards the maintenance and education of the minor son till further orders. A half hearted attempt was made by Shri Luthra, the learned counsel for the husband to reduce this quantum. Considering the pay drawn by the husband and the cost of maintenance of the minor, I am...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1132171/ | 1987(12)DRJ78", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1986, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1987(12)DRJ78", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1132171", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1132171/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Easmie Mukand Lal vs Mukand Lal Etc. on 18 December, 1990", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1990-12-18", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 497, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "(2) Briefly, the relevant facts stated are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 was solemnized at Delhi on 11th March, 1971 according to Indian Christian Marriage Act . For some time the couple lived happily and on 22nd December 1971 were blessed with a female child named, Sujata and on 3rd January, 1973 with another female child named Meenakshi. The husband-respondent no. 1, however, could not remain faithful to the petitioner-wife for long and developed illicit relations with one Karuna, the respondent no 2. On account of his having developed unholy alliances with Karuna his attitude towards the petitioning-wife became indifferent, harsh and cruel. He used to beat her and made her life miserable on account of his involvement with Karuna. (3) PETITIONING-WIFE is a nurse in T B. Hospital, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. Being a nurse, she was required to be on shift duties. On some days she had to be on night duty. On 22nd October, 1986, she was on night duty. however, after finishing the same when she came to her house, she found the respondent husband sleeping with Karuna respondent no. 2 on the same bed. They were lying on the bed in a shameful way On being questioned. respondent-husband apologised and assured to mend his ways, but to her surprise be...", "Fact/ Respondent": "(2) Briefly, the relevant facts stated are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 was solemnized at Delhi on 11th March, 1971 according to Indian Christian Marriage Act . For some time the couple lived happily and on 22nd December 1971 were blessed with a female child named, Sujata and on 3rd January, 1973 with another female child named Meenakshi. The husband-respondent no. 1, however, could not remain faithful to the petitioner-wife for long and developed illicit relations with one Karuna, the respondent no 2. On account of his having developed unholy alliances with Karuna his attitude towards the petitioning-wife became indifferent, harsh and cruel. He used to beat her and made her life miserable on account of his involvement with Karuna.", "Issues": "(15) Collusion is a bar to divorce. Collusion can be defined as agreement to give false evidence or to suppress material evidence. On the facts of this case we have to determine whether husband's statement that he was not interested to contest the case and that divorce be granted, would amount to collusion ? The court has to be satisfied that the petition is not presented in collusion whether it is a defended or undefended petition. Respondent- husband No. 1 has not filed any written statement, but respondent no. 2 co-adulterer has filed one. Merely because husband has not filed his defense by itself would not amount to agreement to withholding material evidence, nor it would mean that husband has concealed from this court some pertinent facts with the sole object to allow the petitioner to procure divorce, even otherwise the fact that both the spouses desire a divorce does...", "Petitioner Argument": "(14) We are in respectful agreement with the view so expressed. Admittedly, the respondents have not cared to contest the proceedings but that would not justify for this Court to come to the conclusion that whatever the petitioner has stated is worthy of credit. The petitioner has to satisfy the court of the truth of her allegations of adultery Viewing in this background we have to see whether the petitioner in this case has been able to show satisfactorily the adulterous relation of the respondents. We have evidence of the wife that her husband was found with one Karuna on the same bed in her bed room on the night of 22nd October, 1986 She saw them lying on the same bed. Karuna was not properly dressed. Her husband and Karuna were in compromising position. So-much-so in her presence also respondent-husband brought Karuna, took her in the bed room He even took Karuna with him to his native village, where he introduced Karuna as his wife. He remained absent from office because he took Karuna out of Delhi. The petitioner's...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "(17) In the present case we do not have the evidence of the husband- respondent no. 1 and of Ms. Karuna, respondent no. 2 to contradict the version given by the petitioning wife. We are satisfied with the evidence of the petitioning wife which is reliable and trustworthy. From the conduct of the respondent husband and the evidence of the wife, the offence of adultery having been committed by the respondent no. 1 with respondent no. 2 stands proved. She is, in our opinion, entitled to a decree of divorce.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1479506/ | 44(1991)DLT25, 1991(20)DRJ196", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1990, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 44(1991)DLT25, 1991(20)DRJ196", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1479506", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1479506/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Stephen Joshus And Anr. vs J.D. Kapoor on 9 March, 1995", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1995-03-09", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 13B, Section 2, Section 28, Section 39", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "(1) The petitioners are Indian Christians and were married to each other on 25th August, 1973 under the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 . A joint petition was preferred by them under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Petition was dismissed on 5.10.1991 by Shri J.D. Kapur, Additional District Judge, Delhi. One of the grounds for dismissal was that the marriage was solemnised under the Christian Marriage Act whereas divorce had been sought under the Special Marriage Act , therefore, the petition was not maintainable. Petitioners have questioned the decision in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 39 of the Act. (4) Though the argument is attractive one but on a plain reading of Section 28 of the Act and on a true construction placed thereon, it is not possible to accept the same. The Act was enacted by the Parliament in 1954 with a view to provide a special forum of marriage in certain cases, for the registration of marriages and for divorce. It was made applicable to all citizens of India domiciled in the country. It is possible for every citizen of India domiciled in India...", "Fact/ Respondent": "Respondent contested the petition, denying allegations of unclear under Section 10 and submitting that no statutory grounds exist for dissolving the marriage.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "(2) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "(8) It is not disputed that there is no such provision like Section 28 of Special Marriage Act and Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, under the Indian Divorce Act for obtaining a decree of divorce on mutual consent. Acceptance of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners would amount to obliterating Section 28 of the Act. Even if Section 28 of the Act is given a liberal interpretation, the mandatory requirement cannot be done away that the marraige must have been solemnised under the Act.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1280278/ | 1995IAD(DELHI)1361, 58(1995)DLT57, 1995(33)DRJ258", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 1995, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1995IAD(DELHI)1361, 58(1995)DLT57, 1995(33)DRJ258", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1280278", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1280278/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Mrs. Zena Mary Rodgers vs Mr. Troy Steven Rodgers And Ors. on 6 February, 2004", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2004-02-06", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a Matrimonial Reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. By a Judgment and Order dated 8.6.2001, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the petition of the petitioner (wife) which had been filed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent No.1 (Mr. Troy Steven Rodgers) on the ground of adultery coupled with cruelty. The petitioner and the respondent No.1 are Christians and they had a Christian marriage on 3.2.1996 at Masihgarh Church at Okhla, Delhi. In the petition for divorce, the petitioner made various allegations including the allegation of adultery committed by the respondent No.1 with the respondents 2 and 3. Several instances have been narrated in the petition. The respondents could not be served through ordinary process. Insofar as the respondent No.3 was concerned the petitioner was unable to furnish her complete address and, therefore, she withdrew her case against respondent No.3. As regards respondents 1 and 2, the Trial Court ordered that they be served through publication as attempts to serve them through the ordinary process had failed. Publication was made. However, Respondents 1 and 2 did not appear and accordingly, they were proceeded ex parte. 2. In her ex parte evidence, the petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and her mother as PW-2....", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a Matrimonial Reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. By a Judgment and Order dated 8.6.2001, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the petition of the petitioner (wife) which had been filed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent No.1 (Mr. Troy Steven Rodgers) on the ground of adultery coupled with cruelty. The petitioner and the respondent No.1 are Christians and they had a Christian marriage on 3.2.1996 at Masihgarh Church at Okhla, Delhi. In the petition for divorce, the petitioner made various allegations including the allegation of adultery committed by the respondent No.1 with the respondents 2 and 3. Several instances have been narrated in the petition. The respondents could not be served through ordinary process. Insofar as the respondent No.3 was concerned the petitioner was unable to furnish her complete address and, therefore, she withdrew her case against respondent No.3. As regards respondents 1 and 2, the Trial Court ordered that they be served through publication as attempts to serve them through the ordinary process had failed. Publication was made. However, Respondents 1 and 2 did not appear and accordingly, they were...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "2. In her ex parte evidence, the petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and her mother as PW-2. Initially the petition filed by the petitioner was on the ground of adultery, coupled with cruelty and adultery coupled with desertion without reasonable excuse for two years or upwards. However, on examining the evidence on record and considering the arguments advanced by the advocate on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner had no case to seek divorce on the ground of desertion. Insofar as the ground of cruelty coupled with adultery, the learned Additional District Judge, after examining the case in detail, has come to the conclusion that there was evidence galore on the point of adultery as well as the cruelty caused by respondent No.1 to the petitioner. He, accordingly, allowed the petition and dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 by a decree of divorce on the ground of adultery coupled with cruelty subject to confirmation by this Court under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/864262/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 2004, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "864262", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/864262/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Alika Khosla vs Thomas Mathew And Anr. on 20 December, 2001", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2001-12-20", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 112, Section 125, Section 488", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Adultery", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The main question which craves for an answer is as to whether the petitioner can resist the request of respondent No. 1 for directing the Pathology Department of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi to prepare a slide containing the blood cells of respondent No. 1 and calling for the slides and blocks of the case relating to the petitioner and order a DNA test with a view to ascertain if respondent No. 1 is the father of the foetus. The petitioner's claim is that such an order would infringe her constitutional right of her privacy.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The main question which craves for an answer is as to whether the petitioner can resist the request of respondent No. 1 for directing the Pathology Department of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi to prepare a slide containing the blood cells of respondent No. 1 and calling for the slides and blocks of the case relating to the petitioner and order a DNA test with a view to ascertain if respondent No. 1 is the father of the foetus.", "Issues": "1. The main question which craves for an answer is as to whether the petitioner can resist the request of respondent No. 1 for directing the Pathology Department of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi to prepare a slide containing the blood cells of respondent No. 1 and calling for the slides and blocks of the case relating to the petitioner and order a DNA test with a view to ascertain if respondent No. 1 is the father of the foetus. The petitioner's claim is that such an order would infringe her constitutional right of her privacy. 3. Respondent No. 1 by virtue of I.A. 3804/99 contends that case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 had adulterous affair with respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 1 on the contrary asserts that petitioner had adulterous affairs with one Jose Thomas, which resulted in petitioner being...", "Petitioner Argument": "4. Needless to state that in the reply filed, the application as such, has been contested. It has been asserted that the petition has been filed only to delay the disposal of divorce petition and that respondent No. 1 is trying to create smoke screen for his own affairs. It is denied that DNA examination of the slides would conclusively prove the paternity of the foetus. It is alleged that the courts in India do not have the authority to order DNA test in civil and quasi-civil matters in particular, where it is to establish the paternity even of living child where husband had the access. Such an order, it is alleged, would be in violation of the constitutional and legal rights of the petitioner. 5. It is in this back-drop of these facts that the main question referred to above, comes up for consideration. But before covering into the same, it would be appropriate to deal with the other submissions that were made at the bar. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there is no provision permitting the...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "8. In another case, reported as SABAYYA GOUNDER v. BHOOPALA SUBRAMANIAN , when a similar question cropped up under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 corresponding to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The same court referred to Article 20(3) of the Constitution to conclude that no person accused of any evidence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself and once again the finding was that if the party concerned is unwilling to such a test, the court can not direct them to submit accordingly. It was held : In India there is no special statute and there is no provision either in the Criminal Procedure Code or in the Indian Evidence Act empowering Courts to direct such a test to be made. Similarly, as pointed out by Raghava Rao, J. in Venkateswarlu v. Subbayya there is no procedure either in the Civil Procedure Code or the Evidence Act which provides for a blood test being made of a minor and his mother when the father is disputing the legitimacy of the minor and held that if the parties are unwilling to submit to such a test the Court has no power...", "Decision": "23. Order was pronounced on 20th December 2001. On it being mentioned the file has been taken up. At joint request it is directed that if the matter has to be reported the names of the parties should not appear. In case of the petitioner it should be mentioned as Ms. X. In case of the respondent it should be mentioned as Mr. Z.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/133578/ | 2002(62)DRJ851", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; adultery", "Judgment Year": 2001, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2002(62)DRJ851", "Kanoon Doc ID": "133578", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/133578/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Mini Mathew vs Thomas Mathew on 10 April, 2003", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2003-04-10", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a petition by the wife under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (substituted by Act 51 of 2001) seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 2. Put briefly the facts pleaded by the wife are as under:", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a petition by the wife under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (substituted by Act 51 of 2001) seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.", "Issues": "\"The question whether the misconduct complained of constitutes cruelty and the like for divorce purposes is determined primarily by its effect upon the particular person complaining of the acts. The question is not whether the conduct would be cruel to a reasonable person or a person of average or normal sensibilities, but whether it would have that effect upon the aggrieved spouse. That which may be cruel to one person may be laughed off by another, and what may not be cruel to an individual under one set of circumstances may be extreme cruelty under another set of circumstances.\" 13. However, for the purpose of Indian Law of which Indian Divorce Act is also a part, the Supreme Court has in Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane , while dealing with the meaning of cruelty has taken the view that like English Law it is not necessary that the...", "Petitioner Argument": "8. In response respondent levelled volley of similar allegations against the petitioner by filing the written statement but left it in the midway as after 27.9.1999, neither the respondent nor did his Counsel appear and accordingly vide order dated 6.9.2000, respondent was proceeded ex-parte. Allegations mainly verge on the conduct of the petitioner in getting rid of him after having extracted huge amount as he has been seeking money from time-to-time to the petitioner by bank drafts when he was in Muscat running into thousands and lacs of rupees. It is averred that it was only in the month of December, 1993 when the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent that he noticed drastic change in the behavior of the petitioner inasmuch as not only was the petitioner cruel and stubborn in her behavior and attitude but was also demanding and would order the respondent to send money every now and then on one pretext or the other. On 1.12.1994 the respondent came from Muscat on annual leave and went to Kerala to the house of the petitioner. The...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "11. In V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat , Supreme Court had the occasion to define 'Mental Cruelty' as contemplated in Indian Laws particularly under the provisions of Section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act. These provisions are identical to other laws governing different communities in this country. The acid test to determine mental cruelty is that the conduct of the guilty party should be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put with such conduct and continue to live with the other party and therefore danger to life, limb or causing injury to the health of the aggrieved party is not essential. The observations of the Supreme Court in this regard are quote worthy and are as under: \"Mental cruelty can be broadly defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for the party to live with the other. In other words 'mental cruelty' must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put with such conduct and continue to live with the...", "Decision": "17. Petition is allowed. Marriage is dissolved to be followed by decree of divorce.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/634239/ | 2003IVAD(DELHI)370, 104(2003)DLT760, II(2003)DMC33, 2003(68)DRJ481", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2003, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2003IVAD(DELHI)370, 104(2003)DLT760, II(2003)DMC33, 2003(68)DRJ481", "Kanoon Doc ID": "634239", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/634239/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Mamta Das vs Puneet Das on 24 December, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-12-24", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 114", "Legal Topics": "Desertion", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "REVIEW PET. 624/2025 (Seeking review in judgment dt. 22.09.2025 filed by Petitioner) CM APPL. 78637/2025 (Stay) & CM APPL. 78638/2025 (Delay of 2 days in Re-filing the review petition) 1. The present Review Petition instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, read with Section 114 and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, seeks review of the final (F.C.) No. 160/2022, whereby this Court affirmed the Judgement and Decree dated 31.05.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, 1 Impugned Judgement Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:24.12.2025 11:59:09 Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts (Central), Delhi, in IDA No. 13/2017, granting a decree of divorce in favour of the Respondent- husband on the ground of desertion under Section 10(1)(ix) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The present Review Petition instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, read with Section 114 and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, seeks review of the final (F.C.) No. 160/2022, whereby this Court affirmed the Judgement and Decree dated 31.05.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, 1 Impugned Judgement Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:24.12.2025 11:59:09 Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts (Central), Delhi, in IDA No. 13/2017, granting a decree of divorce in favour of the Respondent- husband on the ground of desertion under Section 10(1)(ix) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.", "Issues": "18. Courts ought not mix up or overlap one jurisdiction with another jurisdiction. Having noted the appellate and review jurisdiction of the Court, we will apply these principles to the impugned order to determine whether the High Court was within its power of review jurisdiction or had exceeded it by reversing the findings, as if the High Court were sitting in appeal against the order dated 23.09.2022. We appreciate the above tabulated summary of the view taken in the impugned order while doing so.\" 8. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid settled principles, even though a factual clarification has been noticed in the present case, the same does not disclose any error of such a nature which can be characterised as an error apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant interference in review. Importantly, the said clarification does 2 2025 SCC OnLine 1927 Signature Not...", "Petitioner Argument": "2. During the course of arguments in the Review Petition, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-wife contended that Paragraph 50(c) of the Impugned Judgment suffers from a material error apparent on the face of the record. In order to examine the said submission, we consider it appropriate to reproduce Paragraph 50(c) of the Impugned Judgment, which reads as follows: \"50. Upon a scrutiny of the pleadings, depositions, and documents placed on record, the learned Family Court, arrived at the following, though not exhaustive, material conclusions: ***** (c) After 2013-2014, all forms of communication between the parties came to an end. Importantly, the Wife moved to Doha in November 2012 without even informing the Husband, while the Husband relocated to Nigeria in December 2012. The parties thereafter lived abroad in different countries and never reunited under one roof. ***** ....\" 3. It was contended that while the said paragraph records that the Appellant-wife left for Doha without informing the husband, the admitted factual position, as borne out from the record, is that the Petitioner-wife had relocated to Doha in November 2012...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "1. The present Review Petition instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, read with Section 114 and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, seeks review of the final Judgment dated 22.09.20251 passed by this Court in MAT.APP. (F.C.) No. 160/2022, whereby this Court affirmed the Judgement and Decree dated 31.05.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, 1 Impugned Judgement Signature Not Verified MAT.APP.(F.C.) 160/2022 Page 1 of 6 Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/131989964/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 165); Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "131989964", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/131989964/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Alika Khosia vs Thomas Mathew on 1 May, 1996", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1996-05-01", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "(1) The petitioner's wife has filed the present Matrimonial petition for dissolution of the marriage with respondent No. I on ground of cruelty and adultery under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. (2) The petitioner, who was a hindu by birth got converted into Christianity prior to marriage to the respondent No. 1 on 29-12-1985 through a Church ceremony. There are two children a daughter aged 8 years named Divya and a son named George aged 6 years born of the marriage. The allegation in the petition is that the petitioner was forced to leave matrimonial home in Cochin, due to cruel and inhuman behavior of the respondent No.1 husband, who was at that time posted as Collector in Cochin. The respondent No. 1 is an officer belonging to the Indian Administrative Service and is presently posted as Private Secretary to the Cabinet Minister for Industries Mr. K. Karunakaran. The allegation in the petition is that respondent No.1 was having and still continues to have an adulterous relationship with respondent No.2, Mrs. Padamja Venugopal, who is daughter of Mr. K. Karunakaran.", "Fact/ Respondent": "(1) The petitioner's wife has filed the present Matrimonial petition for dissolution of the marriage with respondent No. I on ground of cruelty and adultery under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "(3) The respondent No. 1 has filed his detailed reply to the petition ;for dissolution of marriage denying the allegations, accusing the petitioner of immoral behavior and adulte (4) One of the preliminary submissions made by the respondent is that the petitioner is herself guilty .of adultery and cruelty. Matrimonial disco was caused by her adulterous affair and neglect of the children. It is alleged that the present petition has been filed on totally false and concocted allegations against respondent No. 1, with a view to harass and pressurize the respondent No. 1 to give up the custody of the children to her. (5) Mr. P.N. Lekhi, Senior Advocate, has drawn my attention to portions of the transcript of the tape recorded conversations as filed: His argument is that the tape recorded conversations between the petitioner and her mother as well as those of Mr. Jose Thomas with petitioner, clearly show that the petitioner was lietselfliavaigan adulterous relationship. Not only that, she Was privy to disruption of the fairi fly life by encouraging there respondent's sister-in-law in the latter's alleged...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "ONE of these principles is that a decree for dissolution of marriage cannot be made merely on admission and without recording evidence: see Bai Kanku Vs. Shiva Toya (1). This principle has in fact been incorporated in the opening words of Sectioned 14 of the Indian Divorce Act , which require the Court to be satisfied on evidence that the case of the petitioner has been proved.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1306472/ | 1996IIIAD(DELHI)325, 63(1996)DLT120, 1996(37)DRJ525", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1996, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1996IIIAD(DELHI)325, 63(1996)DLT120, 1996(37)DRJ525", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1306472", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1306472/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Ramish Francis Toppo vs Violet Francis Toppo on 22 August, 1988", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1988-08-22", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 13A, Section 14, Section 17, Section 193, Section 20, Section 22, Section 23, Section 27A, Section 3, Section 32, Section 33, Section 45, Section 47, Section 51", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Constitutional Validity; Desertion", "Outcome": "Decree for Judicial Separation Granted", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. I have no doubt that we cannot but decline to confirm this decree nisi for dissolution of marriage passed by the learned District Judge in the Divorce Suit under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869, which has come up before us for confirmation under Section 17 of the Act. I am, however, of opinion that, for the reasons stated hereinafter, a decree for divorce a mensa et thoro. i.e., a decree of judicial separation should instead be passed in favour of the petitioner-husband against the wife-respondent under Section 22 of the Divorce Act. 2. In Swapna Ghosh v. Sadananda Ghosh (SB ) disposed of by this Bench, I have confessed my inability to appreciate the utility of retaining any longer the provisions of Section 17 of the Divorce Act of 1869, which compulsorily requires confirmation by this Court of the decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the District Court and that too, by a Bench of not less than three Judges. It may be that the concerned Legislature in that mid-nineteenth century intended the continuance of the marriage to be the rule and dissolution thereof to be the exception and attached so great importance to the continuance of marriage that it thought that a marriage could be allowed to be dissolved only after a District Judge had...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. I have no doubt that we cannot but decline to confirm this decree nisi for dissolution of marriage passed by the learned District Judge in the Divorce Suit under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869, which has come up before us for confirmation under Section 17 of the Act. I am, however, of opinion that, for the reasons stated hereinafter, a decree for divorce a mensa et thoro. i.e., a decree of judicial separation should instead be passed in favour of the petitioner-husband against the wife-respondent under Section 22 of the Divorce Act.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "12. Now all that the petitioner has stated in his deposition about the adultery is that the wife-respondent \"is leading an immoral life and many people are visiting her\". This is, if weareto, as we should govern ourselves by the Special Bench decision in Susanta Kumar (supra), not even allegation of adultery, far less any proof thereof. In Susanta Kumar (supra, at 34, para 3), the evidence of the petitioner-husband was that \"my wife used to bring young men into the house and spend nights with them\" and the evidence of the petitioners mother was that the wife-respondent was \"living a vicious life\". But the Special Bench clearly ruled that no adultery could be said to have been proved thereby and that \"a life of vice is not necessarily one of adultery\", for \"living a vicious life may or may not be adultery and that evidence is not enough\". I would also like to hold accordingly that \"leading an immoral life\", as alleged by the petitioner-husband in the case at hand, is not necessarily living an adulterous life and a...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "4. In her Written Statement, the wife-respondent has no doubt put forward a case of reasonable excuse for her withdrawing from the matrimonial home and has asserted that the conduct of the petitioner compelled her to do so. It is true, as pointed again in Kamal v. Kalyani (supra), in a matrimonial case on the ground of desertion, very often the question arises as to who has deserted and who is deserted, because the physical act of withdrawal or departure by one spouse does not necessarily make that spouse the deserting party. For, if a husband has behaved in such a way as to make it impossible for the wife to live in the matrimonial home and the wife in consequence leaves the home, may be with animus deserendi and animus non-revertendi, then, even if the wife has herself made the physical departure, she would not be guilty of desertion as the husband has given the wife reasonable cause to form such animus and to make the departure. But not only the wife has not turned up to prove such a case, there is also nothing on record to show that the conduct of the husband was such as to...", "Decision": "21. But as I have already held, the petitioner-husband has been able to prove that the wife-respondent has deserted him for more than two years without reasonable excuse and that would entitle the petitioner to a decree for judicial separation. As pointed out by this Court in the Special Bench decision in Amita v. Alwin (ILR 1968-1 Cal 390) and also in the Nagpur Special Bench decision in KJ v. KJ, AIR 1952 Nag 395 at 397, a proceeding for confirmation under Section 17 of the Divorce Act is virtually a continuation of the original lis and, therefore, this Court can, even when declining confirmation, grant any relief to which the petitioner may be found to be entitled. It is true that the Divorce Act does not contain any express provision, corresponding to Section 27A of the Special Marriage Act or Section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act, providing that in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, the Court may, if it thinks fit, nevertheless decree judicial separation only. But under Section 45 of the Act, the proceedings thereunder are...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1808647/ | AIR1989CAL128, (1989)1CALLT87(HC), 1988(2)CHN241, 93CWN165, 1(1989)DMC322, AIR 1989 CALCUTTA 128, (1989) 1 CIV LJ 675, (1988) 93 CAL WN 165, (1988) 2 CAL HN 241, (1988) 2 CALLJ 294, (1990) 1 LJR 132, (1989) 1 DMC 322, (1989) 1 HINDULR 456, (1989) MATLR 142, (1988) 2 HINDULR 760", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; constitutional_validity; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1988, "Relief Status": "judicial_separation", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1989CAL128, (1989)1CALLT87(HC), 1988(2)CHN241, 93CWN165, 1(1989)DMC322, AIR 1989 CALCUTTA 128, (1989) 1 CIV LJ 675, (1988) 93 CAL WN 165, (1988) 2 CAL HN 241, (1988) 2 CALLJ 294, (1990) 1 LJR 132, (1989) 1 DMC 322, (1989) 1 HINDULR 456, (1989) MATLR 142, (1988) 2 HINDULR 760", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1808647", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1808647/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "T.O. Aykut vs M.O. Aykut on 17 March, 1939", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1939-03-17", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a wife's petition for a decree that her marriage with the respondent may be declared null and void. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner at the time of the marriage was domiciled in Austria and was an Austrian subject. The respondent was a Turk. The parties went through the form of marriage at the register office in Calcutta on 8th March 1937. The petitioner has given evidence in which she has stated that she is a professing Christian and a Roman Catholic. She has further stated that she would not marry anybody who was not a Roman Catholic; prior to their marriage the respondent informed her that he was a Roman Catholic and he signed a paper to that effect. She also states that when they went to the register office where the form of marriage was celebrated, the respondent swore that he was a Roman Catholic and she states further that she would never have married him had she known that he was a Mahomedan. That information she obtained in England in May 1937 when her passport expired. She then found that in a document purporting to be a marriage certificate which is partly in Turkish and partly in English and issued by the Turkish Consul-General in London the respondents' religion...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a wife's petition for a decree that her marriage with the respondent may be declared null and void. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner at the time of the marriage was domiciled in Austria and was an Austrian subject. The respondent was a Turk. The parties went through the form of marriage at the register office in Calcutta on 8th March 1937. The petitioner has given evidence in which she has stated that she is a professing Christian and a Roman Catholic. She has further stated that she would not marry anybody who was not a Roman Catholic; prior to their marriage the respondent informed her that he was a Roman Catholic and he signed a paper to that effect. She also states that when they went to the register office where the form of marriage was celebrated, the respondent swore that he was a Roman Catholic and she states further that she would never have married him had she known that he was a Mahomedan. That information she obtained in England in May 1937 when her passport expired. She then found that in a document purporting to be a marriage certificate...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "2. Detective Sgt. Clarke has given evidence that he had known the respondent for some time having come into contact with him in connexion with a passport. In February of this year he arrested the respondent for disorderly conduct and the respondent then made a voluntary statement in which, amongst other things, he stated that he was a Mahomedan and that he did not remember whether he stated that he was a Mahomedan or a Christian at the time of his marriage. Mr. R.C. Bonnerjee on behalf of the petitioner has referred me to Section 10 , Divorce Act, which provides that a wife may obtain dissolution of her marriage if her husband has since the solemnization of the marriage exchanged his profession of Christianity for the profession of some other religion and he argues that if the alleged husband never professed the Christian religion, there would be even stronger grounds for dissolving the marriage tie. It is clear that the policy of the Act does not contemplate a valid marriage between a Christian and a person professing a religion...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1440557/ | AIR1940CAL75, AIR 1940 CALCUTTA 75", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 1939, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1940CAL75, AIR 1940 CALCUTTA 75", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1440557", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1440557/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Surendra Nath Dutt vs Malati And Anr. on 29 May, 1942", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1942-05-29", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 115, Section 17, Section 24, Section 41, Section 43, Section 45, Section 62, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Conversion", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. In this case the learned District Judge of the 24-Parganas by his order, dated 17th September 1911, has directed that the marriage of the petitioner, Surendra Nath Dutt, with his wife, Malati alias Baby Dutt, be dissolved subject to confirmation by the High Court. The matter has accordingly come before us under Section 17 , Divorce Act, for confirmation of the order passed by the learned Judge. The admitted facts of the case are as follows : Surendra Nath Dutt went through a form of marriage in 1919 with a lady named Indubala Das. This marriage appears to have been solemnized according to Hindu rites but, in spite of this fact, the petitioner and Indubala went through a further form of marriage on 3rd August 1920, under the provisions of Act 3 of 1872. On 2nd September 1938, Indubala Das, on the allegation that she had become a convert to Islam, filed a Plaint in the Court of the third Munsif of Alipore in which she asked for a declaration to the effect that her marriage with Surendra Nath Dutt stood dissolved by reason of her conversion to Islam and disinclination on the part of her husband to be converted to Islam. The case was uncontested before the learned Munsif and, on 21st September 1938, Indubala obtained an ex...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. In this case the learned District Judge of the 24-Parganas by his order, dated 17th September 1911, has directed that the marriage of the petitioner, Surendra Nath Dutt, with his wife, Malati alias Baby Dutt, be dissolved subject to confirmation by the High Court. The matter has accordingly come before us under Section 17 , Divorce Act, for confirmation of the order passed by the learned Judge. The admitted facts of the case are as follows : Surendra Nath Dutt went through a form of marriage in 1919 with a lady named Indubala Das. This marriage appears to have been solemnized according to Hindu rites but, in spite of this fact, the petitioner and Indubala went through a further form of marriage on 3rd August 1920, under the provisions of Act 3 of 1872. On 2nd September 1938, Indubala Das, on the allegation that she had become a convert to Islam, filed a Plaint in the Court of the third Munsif of Alipore in which she asked for a declaration to the effect that her marriage with Surendra Nath Dutt stood dissolved by reason of her conversion to Islam and disinclination on the part of her husband to be...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "16. Finally, Mr. Roy Chowdhury in dealing with the merits of the case argues that his client was prejudiced as her counsel had no sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner's witnesses when they were examined on commission at Mymensingh and further that the charges of adultery have not been proved. With regard to the first of these complaints we do not think that the learned District Judge of Mymensingh adopted an unreasonable attitude as regards the questions put up by counsel to the petitioner's witnesses. Further, even after Mr. B.B. Chatterjee retired from the case, the respondent was still represented by a lawyer who was competent to continue the cross-examination. It follows, therefore that in our opinion she has sustained no prejudice in connexion with this matter. As regards the specific instances of adultery alleged by the petitioner we have perused the evidence and we are entirely in agreement with the findings of the learned District Judge. The evidence was ample and complete and it appears from the record that on 15th September 1941, learned Counsel for the respondent stated...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/582424/ | AIR1942CAL546, AIR 1942 CALCUTTA 546", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; conversion", "Judgment Year": 1942, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1942CAL546, AIR 1942 CALCUTTA 546", "Kanoon Doc ID": "582424", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/582424/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Sm. Susama Singh vs Sri Sailendra Nath Singh And Anr. on 27 January, 1961", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1961-01-27", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 19, Section 3, Section 494", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion; Cruelty; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian-Divorce Act for confirmation of a Decree Nisi parsed by an Additional District Judge of Alipore in an application under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act filed by Sm. Susaina Singh against her husband, Sailendra Nath Singh, under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act for dissolution of their marriage. 2. Both parties are Indian Christian and both are of Indian domicile. The parties were married at the Methodist Church, Dum Dum on 27th June, 1945. The marriage was consummated. The parties lived together as husband and wife for the last time on 24th August, 1950 at 3/1, Jannagar Second Lane at Entally within the jurisdiction of Alipore Court. The petitioner is now living at her father's place at 218, Lalji Shah Road, Dum Dura which also is within the jurisdiction of the Court of Alipore. The respondent contested the jurisdiction of the learned Additional District Judge who heard the application. But since both parties were living together at 3/1 Jannagar Second Lane within the jurisdiction of the Alipore Court for the last time, the learned Additional District Judge was competent to hear the case. The husband raised a point that in a previous application for divorce filed by the petitioner, which was with-drawn ultimately, 22/1D Dixon Lane, which...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian-Divorce Act for confirmation of a Decree Nisi parsed by an Additional District Judge of Alipore in an application under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act filed by Sm. Susaina Singh against her husband, Sailendra Nath Singh, under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act for dissolution of their marriage.", "Issues": "\"Marriage with another woman means marriage of any person being married to any other person during the life of the former wife, whether the second marriage shall have taken place within the Dominion of India or elsewhere\". 16. It is true that there was no issue framed as to whether respondent No. 1 was guilty of bigamy with adultery. I do not think, however, that this caused any prejudice to respondent No. 1. He does not also appear before us to make any grievance. 17. Regarding the delay in claiming divorce, the finding of the Court below is that the wife petitioner had not sufficient fund to start the proceeding earlier and also that she hoped that the husband might come back to her. Since the court be-low was satisfied, on that evidence, that there was no unreasonable delay, I do not desire to differ from that finding, in the...", "Petitioner Argument": "3. The allegations are of adultery and desertion. According to the petitioner the parties lived as husband and wife for the last time on 24th August, 1950. On 26th August next the respondent drove her out and left her at her father's place at 218 Lalji Shall Road, Dum Dum, A point was taken that there was unreasonable delay in presenting the petition for divorce which was filed on 14th May, 1957. The petitioner had stated that she could not file the suit earlier as she had not enough money to file one and that she was hoping that her husband would return to her. The petitioner is getting a monthly salary of only BE. 75/-. In the circumstances the plea of poverty may be accepted. She was expecting that her husband would return to her as all women in such circumstances might. But that would not amount to condonation of the offence in question, namely, adultery. 4. Even before 24th August, 1950, according to the evidence, the co-respondent Depali used to meet the respondent. The petitioner has proved that...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "20. I agree with my Lords that the decree of dissolution of marriage passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alipore should be con firmed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/807630/ | AIR1961CAL373, 65CWN412, AIR 1961 CALCUTTA 373, ILR (1962) 1 CAL 173 65 CAL WN 412, 65 CAL WN 412", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion; cruelty; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 1961, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1961CAL373, 65CWN412, AIR 1961 CALCUTTA 373, ILR (1962) 1 CAL 173 65 CAL WN 412, 65 CAL WN 412", "Kanoon Doc ID": "807630", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/807630/", "Chunks Indexed": 12 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Apurba Mohan Ghosh vs Manashi Ghosh on 10 June, 1988", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1988-06-10", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13B, Section 21, Section 23", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The appellant-husband petitioned against the wife-respondent in court below for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of her alleged mental disorder and the petition having been dismissed, the husband has preferred this appeal to this Court. But both the parties have now filed a joint-petition before us praying that the marriage between them may be dissolved by a decree of divorce on compromise on the terms and conditions contained therein. The question that has accordingly arisen for our consideration is whether such a course is permissible under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . 2. Under Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, ''all proceedings under this Act shall be regulated, as far as may be, by the Civil P.C.\", which would accordingly include Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code, providing for compromise of suit. But as indicated in Section 21 itself in its opening words, the Civil P.C. would apply \"subject to the other provisions contained in this Act\", and as provided in Rule 3 of Order 23 of the Code, the Rule would apply only when the Court is satisfied that the \"agreement of compromise\", on the basis of which the proceeding is sought to be decreed, is \"lawful\". We would accordingly have to ascertain as to whether the \"agreement or compromise\" in...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The appellant-husband petitioned against the wife-respondent in court below for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of her alleged mental disorder and the petition having been dismissed, the husband has preferred this appeal to this Court. But both the parties have now filed a joint-petition before us praying that the marriage between them may be dissolved by a decree of divorce on compromise on the terms and conditions contained therein. The question that has accordingly arisen for our consideration is whether such a course is permissible under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 .", "Issues": "1. The appellant-husband petitioned against the wife-respondent in court below for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of her alleged mental disorder and the petition having been dismissed, the husband has preferred this appeal to this Court. But both the parties have now filed a joint-petition before us praying that the marriage between them may be dissolved by a decree of divorce on compromise on the terms and conditions contained therein. The question that has accordingly arisen for our consideration is whether such a course is permissible under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 .", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "4. Since marriage is an institution around which our civilised society has germinated, the question of public policy involved in the matrimonial law providing for the maintenance as well as dissolution of marriage is no less important than the public policy involved in the Rent Control Laws seeking to provide protection to the tenants. On a parity of reasoning, therefore, it must be held that since the Hindu Marriage Act has in details provided for the grounds for dissolution and has further provided in Section 23(1)(e) that dissolution can be decreed on those grounds, \"but not otherwise\", a decree of divorce on the basis of consent or compromise alone without the satisfaction of the Court as to the existence of any of the statutory grounds would be without jurisdiction. Our view appears to be fully fortified by the observations of the Supreme Court in Reynold Rajamani, to the effect that \"when a legislative provision specifies the grounds on which divorce may be granted, they constitute the only conditions on which the court has jurisdiction to grant divorce\". That was a case under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 , Section 10 whereof specifies the grounds of divorce, but there is no...", "Decision": "10. We accordingly in accordance with the terms of compromise recorded in the joint petition, allow the appeal and decree that the marriage between the appellant husband and the wife-respondent stands dissolved with effect from this date. As desired by the parties, we also record that the wife respondent has acknowledged receipt of the entire amounts and also the ornaments receivable by her under the terms of compromise. The petition of compromise to form part of the decree.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1487189/ | AIR1989CAL115, 93CWN79, I(1990)DMC145, AIR 1989 CALCUTTA 115, (1988) 2 CAL HN 449, (1988) 93 CAL WN 79, (1990) 1 HINDULR 496, (1990) 1 DMC 145, (1989) 1 HINDULR 247", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 1988, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1989CAL115, 93CWN79, I(1990)DMC145, AIR 1989 CALCUTTA 115, (1988) 2 CAL HN 449, (1988) 93 CAL WN 79, (1990) 1 HINDULR 496, (1990) 1 DMC 145, (1989) 1 HINDULR 247", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1487189", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1487189/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Mrs. Rose Simpson vs Binimoy Biswas on 23 April, 1979", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1979-04-23", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 13, Section 15, Section 18, Section 19, Section 21, Section 24, Section 57, Section 60, Section 7, Section 88", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19; Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Nullity Adjudicated", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The suit instituted by Rose Simpson the petitioner under the Indian Divorce Act is primarily for a declaration that her marriage with the respondent is a nullity. The parties profess the Christian religion. In the petition it is, inter alia, alleged that at the time of the impugned marriage on May 7th, 1955, the respondent represented to the petitioner that his prior marriage with the petitioner's eldest sister Agnes Simpson had been lawfully dissolved. Subsequently, in a suit for divorce on charges of adultery, initiated by the petitioner against her husband being Suit No. 9, 1973 (Mrs. Rose Biswas v. Binimoy Biswas) she came to know that the prior marriage of her eldest sister with her husband, the present respondent had not been dissolved. On advice the petitioner obtained leave to withdraw the said suit with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings. The present suit was caused to be filed thereafter. It is contended that inasmuch as the said prior marriage of the respondent was in force at the material time, the subsequent marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is a nullity. The parties have four boys and three girls some of whom were born before the ceremony of marriage. The eldest two daughters aged 26 years and 24 years are married and the youngest daughter is a minor...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The suit instituted by Rose Simpson the petitioner under the Indian Divorce Act is primarily for a declaration that her marriage with the respondent is a nullity. The parties profess the Christian religion. In the petition it is, inter alia, alleged that at the time of the impugned marriage on May 7th, 1955, the respondent represented to the petitioner that his prior marriage with the petitioner's eldest sister Agnes Simpson had been lawfully dissolved. Subsequently, in a suit for divorce on charges of adultery, initiated by the petitioner against her husband being Suit No. 9, 1973 (Mrs. Rose Biswas v. Binimoy Biswas) she came to know that the prior marriage of her eldest sister with her husband, the present respondent had not been dissolved. On advice the petitioner obtained leave to withdraw the said suit with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings. The present suit was caused to be filed thereafter. It is contended that inasmuch as the said prior marriage of the respondent was in force at the material time, the subsequent marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is a nullity. The parties have four boys and three girls some of whom were born before the ceremony of...", "Issues": "\"It would be all the more hazardous in the case of marriage laws to treat a marriage in breach of a certain condition void even though the law does not expressly provide for it. Craies on Statute Law 6th Edition pages 263 and 264 may be referred to with advantage: \"The words in this section are negative words, and are clearly prohibitory of the marriage being had without the the prescribed requisites, but whether the marriage itself is void.....is a question of very great difficulty: It is to be recollected that there are no words in the Act rendering the marriage void and I have sought in vain for any case in which a marriage has been declared null and void unless there were words in the statute expressly, so declaring it (emphasis supplied).....From this examination of these Acts I draw two conclusions. First, that there never appears to have...", "Petitioner Argument": "1. The suit instituted by Rose Simpson the petitioner under the Indian Divorce Act is primarily for a declaration that her marriage with the respondent is a nullity. The parties profess the Christian religion. In the petition it is, inter alia, alleged that at the time of the impugned marriage on May 7th, 1955, the respondent represented to the petitioner that his prior marriage with the petitioner's eldest sister Agnes Simpson had been lawfully dissolved. Subsequently, in a suit for divorce on charges of adultery, initiated by the petitioner against her husband being Suit No. 9, 1973 (Mrs. Rose Biswas v. Binimoy Biswas) she came to know that the prior marriage of her eldest sister with her husband, the present respondent had not been dissolved. On advice the petitioner obtained leave to withdraw the said suit with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings. The present suit was caused to be filed thereafter. It is contended that inasmuch as the said prior marriage of the respondent was in force at the material time, the subsequent marriage between the petitioner and the respondent...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "Or when in the result of any such appeal any marriage is declared to be dissolved. But not sooner, it shall be lawful for the respective parties to the marriage to marry again, as if the prior marriage had been dissolved by death; Provided that no appeal to (the Supreme Court) has been presented against any such order or decree. When such appeal has been dismissed, or when in the result thereof the marriage is declared to be dissolved, but no sooner, it shall be lawful for the respective parties to the marriage to marry again as if the prior marriage had been dissolved by death.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1257066/ | AIR1980CAL214, AIR 1980 CALCUTTA 214", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19; adultery", "Judgment Year": 1979, "Relief Status": "nullity", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1980CAL214, AIR 1980 CALCUTTA 214", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1257066", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1257066/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Brojendra Kumar Ghosh vs Mrs. Arpana Ghosh And Anr. on 23 December, 1981", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1981-12-23", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 34", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The instant reference has been made by Sri A. K. Chatterjee, District Judge, Burdwan for confirmation of the decree passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 70 of 1976 under the Indian Divorce Act 2. An application under Sections 10 and 34 of the Divorce Act, 1869 was presented by the petitioner, Brojendra Kumar Ghosh for dissolution of marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 1, Mrs. Arpana Ghosh on the ground that she had been guilty of adultery with the corespondent No. 2, Sri Dilip Sen and for damages amounting to Rs. 2,000/- against the co-respondent.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. An application under Sections 10 and 34 of the Divorce Act, 1869 was presented by the petitioner, Brojendra Kumar Ghosh for dissolution of marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 1, Mrs. Arpana Ghosh on the ground that she had been guilty of adultery with the corespondent No. 2, Sri Dilip Sen and for damages amounting to Rs. 2,000/- against the co-respondent.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "6. Having gone through the materials, on record we are of the opinion that the decree for divorce under Section 10 of the Divorce Act was rightly passed. The decree for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as damages under Section 34 of the Divorce Act also appears to have been rightly passed. In the circumstances, we confirm the decree and accept the reference.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1851304/ | AIR1982CAL360, (1982)2COMPLJ132(CAL), AIR 1982 CALCUTTA 360, (1982) 2 CALLJ 132, 1982 (2) DMC 257, 1982 HINDULR 464", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 1981, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1982CAL360, (1982)2COMPLJ132(CAL), AIR 1982 CALCUTTA 360, (1982) 2 CALLJ 132, 1982 (2) DMC 257, 1982 HINDULR 464", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1851304", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1851304/", "Chunks Indexed": 2 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Wang Chen Tshering vs Smt. Lorretta Tshering Nee Fuller And ... on 7 May, 1982", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1982-05-07", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The order of the learned District Judge, Darjeeling allowing the petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, filed by the husband has been placed before us for confirmation under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. 2. After perusing the records we are satisfied that the learned District Judge has rightly allowed the petition dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent No. 1, under Section 10 of the Divorce Act.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The order of the learned District Judge, Darjeeling allowing the petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, filed by the husband has been placed before us for confirmation under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "4. In the circumstances, we accept the Reference and confirm the decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the District Judge, Darjeeling dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent No. 1.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/826951/ | AIR1983CAL50, AIR 1983 CALCUTTA 50", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 1982, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1983CAL50, AIR 1983 CALCUTTA 50", "Kanoon Doc ID": "826951", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/826951/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Dr. Niranjan Das Mohan vs Mrs. Ena Mohan W/O Dr. Niranjan Das Mohan ... on 30 November, 1942", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1942-11-30", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14, Section 15, Section 17, Section 2, Section 21, Section 39, Section 7, Section 77", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This appeal arises out of a judgment of the District Judge of the 24 Parganas dismissing a petition for dissolution of marriage presented on 19th January 1940 by the appellant Dr. Niranjan Das Mohan against his wife Ena Mohan and three corespondents, (1) Brojendra Nath Pal, (2) H.K. Lalvani and (3) M.G. Mennon. The petition was presented under Sections 10 and 34, Divorce Act, 4 of 1869 (which provide respectively for dissolution of marriage and award of damages) and Section 17, Special Marriage Act, 3 of 1872 (which makes the Divorce Act applicable to marriages contracted under the Special Marriage Act ). The statements in the petition, so far as they are relevant for the purposes of this appeal, may be briefly summarised thus: The petitioner is a Hindu of the Arya Samaj sect. The respondent was born of Christian parents, but became a convert to the Arya Samaj sect on 5th April 1925. They were married according to Arya Samaj rites that very day; but they had also been married under the Special Marriage Act on 13th March 1925. The parties lived together until 28th January 1938. There are 5 children of the marriage, 3 sons and 2 daughters whose ages at the date of the petition ranged between 3 and 13 years. The respondent has since 1929...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This appeal arises out of a judgment of the District Judge of the 24 Parganas dismissing a petition for dissolution of marriage presented on 19th January 1940 by the appellant Dr. Niranjan Das Mohan against his wife Ena Mohan and three corespondents, (1) Brojendra Nath Pal, (2) H.K. Lalvani and (3) M.G. Mennon. The petition was presented under Sections 10 and 34, Divorce Act, 4 of 1869 (which provide respectively for dissolution of marriage and award of damages) and Section 17, Special Marriage Act, 3 of 1872 (which makes the Divorce Act applicable to marriages contracted under the Special Marriage Act ). The statements in the petition, so far as they are relevant for the purposes of this appeal, may be briefly summarised thus: The petitioner is a Hindu of the Arya Samaj sect. The respondent was born of Christian parents, but became a convert to the Arya Samaj sect on 5th April 1925. They were married according to Arya Samaj rites that very day; but they had also been married under the Special Marriage Act on 13th March 1925. The parties lived together until 28th January 1938. There are 5 children of the marriage, 3 sons and 2...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "14. It is now a settled rule that damages in proceedings of this kind must be compensatory, not punitive. The amount must depend as laid down in (1920) L.R. 1920 P. 126 (1920) L.R. 1920 P. 126 : 89 L.J.P. 151 : 122 L.T. 804 : 36 T.L.R. 265, Butterworth v. Butterworth at p. 142 on (1) the actual value of the wife to the husband, (2) the proper compensation to the husband for the injury to his feelings, the blow to his marital honour and the serious hurt to his matrimonial and family life. The question of the amount or damages was raised in issue No. 13 before the District Judge, but has not been dealt with by him, presumably because he dismissed the petition. We have therefore to assess the damages ourselves with the help of the materials on the record. As to the first head of damages, namely, the actual value of the wife to the husband, we have some evidence as to its pecuniary aspect inasmuch as the petitioner has stated that the expenses of the...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "5. In the result, he dismissed the petition, the parties being directed to bear their own costs. It may be mentioned incidentally that the accusation of cruelty was held to be wholly without foundation in the wife's suit for judicial separation. The appellant contends that the District Judge was wrong in holding that there was unreasonable delay in presenting the petition. This contention is plainly well-founded. It is true that there was a period of nearly two years between the date when the respondent finally left the petitioner (28th January 1938) and the date when the petition for dissolution of marriage was presented (19th January 1940). But the petition was not founded on her going away: it was founded on the adulteries committed afterwards, which, by themselves as well as by reviving previous offences, gave the petitioner a cause of action. The latest of these subsequent adulteries, according to the District Judge's findings was between 9th December 1939 and 7th January 1940. The petition was presented on 19th January 1940 so that there was hardly any delay so far as...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1190629/ | AIR1943CAL146, AIR 1943 CALCUTTA 146", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1942, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1943CAL146, AIR 1943 CALCUTTA 146", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1190629", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1190629/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Constance Catherine Moreno vs Henry William Bunn Moreno on 7 April, 1920", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1920-04-07", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 14, Section 438", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is an appeal against a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage made upon a petition presented by a husband under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, on the ground that his wife had, since the solemnization of the marriage, been guilty of adultery. 2. The petitioner and the respondent were married on the 21st May 1S02 and lived together until the month of February 1905, Daring this period, two children were born to them, a daughter, now sixteen years of age, and a son who is dead. In February 1905, the respondent left the petitioner and lived apart till the end of the year 1912, or the beginning of the year 1913. The petitioner alleges that after the respondent had left him, she lived in adultery with one Pratti, now deceased. She gave birth to two children in 1907 and 1908; but the petitioner was not aware either of the adultery with Pratti or of the birth of the children. In 1909 one Abro commenced divorce proceeding against his own wife and made the petitioner a co-respondent, on the allegation of adultery with her. Shortly after, in 1910, the respondent instituted divorce proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of the adultery alleged in the Abro suit. Both the suits were dismissed as against the petitioner....", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is an appeal against a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage made upon a petition presented by a husband under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, on the ground that his wife had, since the solemnization of the marriage, been guilty of adultery.", "Issues": "3. As regards the first contention, namely that the husband had condoned the adultery and was consequently no longer entitled to an order for dissolution of marriage, reliance has been placed upon the admitted fast that the parties resumed cohabitation in 1913. The only point in controversy is whether at the time when cohabitation was resumed or during the continuance thereof the husband was aware of the antecedent adultery on the part of his wife The wife asserts that he had full and definite knowledge of all the circumstances before cohabitation was resumed; the husband maintains on the other hand that he had no such knowledge when he took back his wife and that as soon as he made the discovery, he separated from her in the beginning of 1914. There is conflict of testimony on this point; and upon an examination of the evidence we have arrived at the...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "7. The result is that this appeal is allowed and the petition dismissed with costs in both Courts. Fletcher, J. 8. I agree.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15735/ | 57IND. CAS.216, AIR 1920 CALCUTTA 439", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1920, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 57IND. CAS.216, AIR 1920 CALCUTTA 439", "Kanoon Doc ID": "15735", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15735/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Simon Rajan vs Anita Simon Rajan on 3 February, 1999", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1999-02-03", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 23", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Adultery; Desertion", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The plaintiff instituted the suit fn the form of an application under section 10 or section 23 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 whichever will be applicable in the present case. 2. The cause of making such alternative relief is that the husband/ petitioner made out case of adultery as well as physical and mental cruelty or desertion simultaneously as against the wife.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The cause of making such alternative relief is that the husband/ petitioner made out case of adultery as well as physical and mental cruelty or desertion simultaneously as against the wife.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "1. The plaintiff instituted the suit fn the form of an application under section 10 or section 23 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 whichever will be applicable in the present case. 2. The cause of making such alternative relief is that the husband/ petitioner made out case of adultery as well as physical and mental cruelty or desertion simultaneously as against the wife. 3. The petitioner/husband served a notice of making this application and filed the Affidavit-of-Service along with other incidental papers to establish that service was effected upon the respondent. In addition thereto, he produced a certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar, Original Side of this court wherefrom it appears that the respondent did not appear either in person or by Advocate. Let the Affidavit-of-Service and other incidental papers along with the Certificate issued by the concerned Deputy Registrar be kept with the record. 4. Since no denial was there, I was inclined to proceed on the basis of Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure but Mr. K.S.Roy, learned senior counsel with the able assistance of Mrs. Swapna Mukherjee learned counsel appearing with him, contended that in view of the circumstances particulars when the...", "Decision": "12. At the time of argument a further question arose that the respondent/wife instituted two suits i.e. for divorce and for maintenance in the courts of Kerala prior to the institution of this Suit. Therefore, accroding to me, the suit for divorce as instituted by the respondent-wife prior to institution of this suit for divorce by the husband implies that she has no objection as to the passing a decree for divorce in favour of the petitioner-husband.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1432375/ | (1999)2CALLT137(HC), I(2000)DMC116, AIR 2000 CALCUTTA 8, (1999) 2 CAL WN 558, (2000) 1 DMC 116, (2000) 1 HINDULR 503, (2000) 1 MARRILJ 495, (2000) 2 CAL LJ 94, (1999) 2 CALLT 137, (1999) 4 CIVLJ 310", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; adultery; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1999, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1999)2CALLT137(HC), I(2000)DMC116, AIR 2000 CALCUTTA 8, (1999) 2 CAL WN 558, (2000) 1 DMC 116, (2000) 1 HINDULR 503, (2000) 1 MARRILJ 495, (2000) 2 CAL LJ 94, (1999) 2 CALLT 137, (1999) 4 CIVLJ 310", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1432375", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1432375/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Charles James Wickins vs Eden Ris Rita Wickins & Another on 14 June, 1991", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1991-06-14", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 47", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The decree for divorce passed by the learned Additional District Judge in favour of the Petitioner-husband has, as it must, come up before us under Section 17 of the Divorce Act, 1869, for confirmation or such other order as the matter would warrant. 3. Not that a suit heard ex parte must be decreed; it may, even if uncontested, still be dismissed if there is any legal bar thereto or such infirmity in the evidence which cannot sustain a decree. No such infirmity, either in law or on facts, shows its head.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The decree for divorce passed by the learned Additional District Judge in favour of the Petitioner-husband has, as it must, come up before us under Section 17 of the Divorce Act, 1869, for confirmation or such other order as the matter would warrant.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "6. The decree for dissolution of marriage between the parties stands confirmed. The records, with a copy of our judgment, to go down at once.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53008/ | AIR1992CAL306, AIR 1992 CALCUTTA 306, (1992) MATLR 131", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 1991, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1992CAL306, AIR 1992 CALCUTTA 306, (1992) MATLR 131", "Kanoon Doc ID": "53008", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53008/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Swapna Ghosh vs Sadananda Ghosh And Anr. on 22 July, 1988", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1988-07-22", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 112, Section 17, Section 22, Section 488", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Adultery; Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This decree for dissolution of marriage made by the Additional District Judge in a Divorce Suit under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 , has come, as it must, before us for confirmation under Section 17 of the Act and we confirm the same as we are satisfied that the materials on record would warrant such confirmation. But the manner in which the trial Judge has decided the issues involved has not earned our satisfaction and we would accordingly like to draw the attention of the learned Judge to the fact that trial of matrimonial causes, even if undefended as the present one, is a matter, not of easy insouciance, but of most anxious advertence. 2. I have, however, my own doubts as to whether the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act requiring confirmation of the decree of the trial court by the High Court should any longer be retained. A decree for dissolution of marriage among the Hind us, Buddhists, Sikhs anJ Jains under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , among the Parsis under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 , among the Muslims under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 are made by the District Courts and under the last mentioned Act, even by courts of lower rank and all such decrees operate...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. I have, however, my own doubts as to whether the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act requiring confirmation of the decree of the trial court by the High Court should any longer be retained. A decree for dissolution of marriage among the Hind us, Buddhists, Sikhs anJ Jains under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , among the Parsis under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 , among the Muslims under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 are made by the District Courts and under the last mentioned Act, even by courts of lower rank and all such decrees operate with the fullest efficacy without any confirmation from the High Court. It is, therefore, difficult to appreciate the retention of the provisions of Section 17 of the Divorce Act providing that the Christian couples, even after obtaining a decree for dissolution from the District Court, may be after a long-drawn and strenuous litigation, must still wait for confirmation thereof from the High Court before those decrees can be complete and binding. These provisions of Section 17 , even assuming that they had their days when enacted in the mid-ninteenth Century, have probably outlived their purposes,...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (constitutional validity) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "6. That being so, we would have also no good reason to reject the testimony of the wife to the effect that she used to be \"tortured\", \"used to be assaulted with fist and blows\" and that she and her daughter were not provided with food. This is cruelty sufficient enough to warrant a decree of divorce a mensa et thoro and under Section 10 , if a husband is found to be guilty of \"adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled to her to a divorce a mensa et thoro the wife would be entitled to a decree of dissolution of the marriage i.e., a vinculo matrimoni and not merely a judicial separation, i.e., a divorce a mensa et thoro. 7. It is also the categorical evidence of the wife-petitioner that she was unable to bear the cruel treatment of the husband and as he did not look after the child and provide her and the child with food and maintenance, she had to leave the matrimonial home and go to her father's place in 1980. It is now settled law that if one spouse, by his or her acts, deeds and conduct makes it...", "Decision": "9. I would accordingly confirm the decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the trial Judge in favour of the petitioner wife, not on the ground that the husband respondent is guilty of bigamy with adultery or of marriage with another woman with adultery, but on the ground that the husband respondent is guilty of adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have justified a decree of judicial separation and also of adultery coupled with desertion without reasonable excuse for two years and more.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/296734/ | AIR1989CAL1, 93CWN231, AIR 1989 CALCUTTA 1, (1989) 1 CIV LJ 687, (1988) 93 CAL WN 231, (1988) 2 CAL HN 153, (1988) 2 CALLJ 156, (1988) 2 DMC 343, (1989) EASTCRIC 236, (1988) 2 HINDULR 742, (1988) 2 HINDULR 592, (1988) MATLR 351, (1988) 2 CURCC 540", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; adultery; cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1988, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1989CAL1, 93CWN231, AIR 1989 CALCUTTA 1, (1989) 1 CIV LJ 687, (1988) 93 CAL WN 231, (1988) 2 CAL HN 153, (1988) 2 CALLJ 156, (1988) 2 DMC 343, (1989) EASTCRIC 236, (1988) 2 HINDULR 742, (1988) 2 HINDULR 592, (1988) MATLR 351, (1988) 2 CURCC 540", "Kanoon Doc ID": "296734", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/296734/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Smt. Balwant Kunwar And Ors. vs Addl. Munsiff, Dehra Dun And Anr. on 30 April, 1958", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1958-04-30", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 18, Section 19, Section 2, Section 21, Section 23, Section 28, Section 29, Section 32, Section 4, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The question raised in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is whether, in view of the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, or the 1955 Act), a Munsif has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for restitution of conjugal rights where the parties are Hindus. 2. Ranjit Singh filed suit No, 306 of 1955 in the Court of Munsif, Dehra Dun against Smt. Bal-want Kunwar, Bakshish Singh and Inder Kunwar. Defendant No. 1 is plaintiff's wife. Defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 are her brother and mother respectively. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are :", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. Ranjit Singh filed suit No, 306 of 1955 in the Court of Munsif, Dehra Dun against Smt. Bal-want Kunwar, Bakshish Singh and Inder Kunwar. Defendant No. 1 is plaintiff's wife. Defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 are her brother and mother respectively. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are :", "Issues": "1. The question raised in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is whether, in view of the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, or the 1955 Act), a Munsif has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for restitution of conjugal rights where the parties are Hindus. 2. Ranjit Singh filed suit No, 306 of 1955 in the Court of Munsif, Dehra Dun against Smt. Bal-want Kunwar, Bakshish Singh and Inder Kunwar. Defendant No. 1 is plaintiff's wife. Defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 are her brother and mother respectively. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are : (a) a decree against the defendant No. 1 directing her to live with the plaintiff and to allow him a free exercise of his conjugal rights: (b) an injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 from preventing the defendant No. 1...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "21. The petition is allowed. Proceedings in suit No. 306 of 1955 pending before the learned Additional Munsif, Dehra Dun are quashed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1754000/ | AIR1959ALL7, AIR 1959 ALLAHABAD 7, 1958 ALL. L. J. 556 ILR (1958) 2 ALL 761, ILR (1958) 2 ALL 761", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 1958, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1959ALL7, AIR 1959 ALLAHABAD 7, 1958 ALL. L. J. 556 ILR (1958) 2 ALL 761, ILR (1958) 2 ALL 761", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1754000", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1754000/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Alfred Stanley Barrett vs Mrs. Kathleen Barrett on 26 August, 1949", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1949-08-26", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 3, Section 34, Section 55, Section 56", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The petitioner Alfred Stanley Barett filed a petition under Section 10 , Divorce Act for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent, Mrs. Kathleen Barett, on the ground of her adultery with the co-respondent Lachhmi Chand Srivastava. It was stated that the parties were married on 19th August 1937, at the Catholic Church, Cawnpore, that they were domiciled in India and that both of them were Roman Catholic Christians. The petitioner alleged that he and his wife lived together happily till 1938 when he noticed a strange change in the behaviour of his wife and that she finally left him in October 1944 from Partabgarh where the petitioner was posted. The petitioner alleged that there was an exchange of love letters between his wife, the respondent, and the co-respondent; that his wife stayed at the Royal Hotel, Lucknow, with the co-respondent on 31st August 1943; that both of them stayed at the Hotel under the name of Mr. and Mrs. S. P. Singh; that the respondent and the co-respondent used to go about in trains as husband and wife and that after his wife left him in October 1944, the petitioner put in an advertisement in the Statesman of 4th July 1945, disclaiming any responsibility for the debts incurred by his wife as she had left his protection. It...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The petitioner Alfred Stanley Barett filed a petition under Section 10 , Divorce Act for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent, Mrs. Kathleen Barett, on the ground of her adultery with the co-respondent Lachhmi Chand Srivastava. It was stated that the parties were married on 19th August 1937, at the Catholic Church, Cawnpore, that they were domiciled in India and that both of them were Roman Catholic Christians. The petitioner alleged that he and his wife lived together happily till 1938 when he noticed a strange change in the behaviour of his wife and that she finally left him in October 1944 from Partabgarh where the petitioner was posted. The petitioner alleged that there was an exchange of love letters between his wife, the respondent, and the co-respondent; that his wife stayed at the Royal Hotel, Lucknow, with the co-respondent on 31st August 1943; that both of them stayed at the Hotel under the name of Mr. and Mrs. S. P. Singh; that the respondent and the co-respondent used to go about in trains as husband and wife and that after his wife left him in October 1944, the petitioner put in an advertisement in the Statesman of...", "Issues": "(1) Whether the respondent committed adultery with the co-respondent at the Royal Hotel, Lucknow, on 31st August 1943. (2) Whether there is any connivance or collusion between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1? (3) Is the petitioner entitled to a decree for damages against the co-respondent? If go, to what amount? (4) Has this Court jurisdiction to try the suit? 4. On issue No. 1 as to adultery, the finding was in the affirmative. 5. On the issue of connivance and collusion the answer was in the negative. 6. On the question of jurisdiction the learned trial Court held that the petitioner and his wife last resided together at Lucknow, and so the Court had jurisdiction. The Court accordingly awarded on 17th December 1946, the petitioner a decree for dissolution of marriage subject to confirmation by the Hon'ble Chief Court (now High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)....", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "It will be noticed that, this English case is baaed on the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 and 21 V. C. 85) and Matrimonial Causes Act, 1860 (23 and 24 V. C. 144). The Bombay authority was followed later in Charles Wakehearst Peyton v. Mrs. Ada Peyton, A. I. R. (24) 1937 Lah 417 : (169 I. C. 654 S. B.). The learned Judges there gave no reasons except to say that they were following the view in Kyte, 20 Bom. 362. It seems to us that the English precedents cannot help us in the present case as the English law iw not the same as the Indian law. The procedure instituted by Section 17 , Indian Divorce Act is a new procedure which has no parallel in English law and is specific in itself and contains a specific procedure for confirmation of a decree passed by a District Judge. In the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 and 21 V. C. 85) and Matrimonial Causes Act, 1860 (23 and 24 V. C. 144), there is no procedure for trial of...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/615345/ | AIR1950ALL193, AIR 1950 ALLAHABAD 193", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1949, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1950ALL193, AIR 1950 ALLAHABAD 193", "Kanoon Doc ID": "615345", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/615345/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "David Campbell vs Smt. Shiphali Aayreen Campbell on 1 September, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-09-01", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of applicant was solemnized with opposite party according to Christian religion & rites on 30.1.2008. Two children were born on 9.8.2009 and 8.11.2012 out of wedlock of applicant and opposite party. Applicant filed a case for dissolution of marriage (divorce) under Section 10 of Divorce Act, 1869 before Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi. Opposite party/ wife has put in her appearance and filed her reply in the aforementioned divorce case filed by husband/ applicant. The aforementioned divorce case has been transferred from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi to the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi vide order dated 29.9.2023. 3. The instant transfer application has been filed in November, 2023 for the following reliefs:", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of applicant was solemnized with opposite party according to Christian religion & rites on 30.1.2008. Two children were born on 9.8.2009 and 8.11.2012 out of wedlock of applicant and opposite party. Applicant filed a case for dissolution of marriage (divorce) under Section 10 of Divorce Act, 1869 before Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi. Opposite party/ wife has put in her appearance and filed her reply in the aforementioned divorce case filed by husband/ applicant. The aforementioned divorce case has been transferred from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi to the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi vide order dated 29.9.2023.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "11. The instant transfer application is rejected accordingly.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73410623/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "73410623", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73410623/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Smt. Alpna Rolston vs Shri Darwin Rolston on 8 May, 2023", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2023-05-08", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 24", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "3. The present application under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed seeking transfer of Case No.2065 of 2022 (Darwin Rolston Vs. Alpana Rolston) filed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 from the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad. 4. The applicant is wife of the opposite party. The applicant has three years girl child born out of the wedlock and lives in Allahabad (Prayagraj) with her parents and due to poor financial condition of her parents, it is very difficult for the applicant to attend the proceedings at Kanpur Nagar.", "Fact/ Respondent": "4. The applicant is wife of the opposite party. The applicant has three years girl child born out of the wedlock and lives in Allahabad (Prayagraj) with her parents and due to poor financial condition of her parents, it is very difficult for the applicant to attend the proceedings at Kanpur Nagar.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "6. Application is accordingly allowed and the proceedings of Case No.2065 of 2022 (Darwin Rolston Vs. Alpana Rolston) filed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 is transferred from the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77570879/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2023, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "77570879", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77570879/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Smt. Prerna Paul vs Jugunu George Das on 19 February, 2021", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2021-02-19", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "The present application has been filed by the applicant-wife seeking transfer of Case No.555 of 2020 (Jugunu George Das Vs. Smt. Prerna Paul), under Section 10 (ix) & (x) of the Divorce Act 1869 pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, District Meerut to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut is directed to remit the record of Case No.555 of 2020 (Jugunu George Das Vs. Smt. Prerna Paul), under Section 10 (ix) & (x) of the Divorce Act 1869 to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra for disposal of suit.", "Fact/ Respondent": "The present application has been filed by the applicant-wife seeking transfer of Case No.555 of 2020 (Jugunu George Das Vs. Smt. Prerna Paul), under Section 10 (ix) & (x) of the Divorce Act 1869 pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, District Meerut to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is working in Bank and at present she is posted at Agra. He further submits that the applicant has a minor child which she has to look after, and therefore, in this circumstances, it is very hard for her to travel alongwith her child to Meerut to contest the case instituted by the opposite party. Necessary averments in this respect have been made in paragraph 12 of the affidavit filed in support of the transfer application which is being reproduced hereinbelow:- \"12. That the Applicant has a minor child and a serviceman lady, who is working in Bank at Agra, due to this reason she is not able to attend the Court at Meerut. The Applicant is living alone at Agra and no one look after her child.\" The averments made by the applicant in paragraph 12 are unrebutted, and therefore, they are being treated to be correct.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "The Transfer Application is allowed with", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/88349819/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2021, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "88349819", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/88349819/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Sri Aulvin V. Singh vs Smt. Chandrawati on 15 March, 1974", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1974-03-15", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 15, Section 18, Section 24, Section 27, Section 31", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is an appeal by the husband arising out of a petition under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The material facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant presented a petition under Section 27 of the Act seeking divorce from his wife Smt. Chandrawati. who figures as a respondent before me. The appellant Sri Aulvin V. Singh and Smt. Chandrawati, respondent, are admittedly Christians and they were married in a Christian Church according to Christian rites on the 2nd May, 1957. The appellant alleged that they lived happily together as husband and wife till the 5th September, 1964, when all of a sudden the respondent for no rhyme or reason went away to her father's place. It was alleged that the appellant awaited her return for a few months but when she did not return back to the matrimonial home he made all efforts to bring her to his place but in vain. The petition was founded on the allegation of desertion by the wife without any cause for more than three years. The appellant prayed for a decree for divorce and dissolution of marriage.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is an appeal by the husband arising out of a petition under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act hereinafter referred to as the Act.", "Issues": "4. The trial Court framed the following issues:-- \"(1) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner without any cause for more than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the present petition ? If so its effect? (2) Is the petition not maintainable as framed ?\" It may also be pointed out in this connection that the preamble of the Act shows that so far as divorce is concerned, the Act is all embracing and would govern the dissolution of all marriages irrespective of the consideration whether the marriage is of the special form envisaged in the Act and whether it has been registered under the Act or not. In this view of the matter, I can see nothing in the Act of 1954 which would exclude the application thereof to the case of the petitioner, no matter that the provisions of the Act of 1869 in this respect are...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "10. Learned counsel for the parties have taken me through the evidence on record and I am satisfied that it was the appellant who for reasons of his own drove away his wife from his house and took no serious steps to bring her back. Even in his statement recorded by the trial Court, the appellant stated that he was not prepared to take back his wife. On the other hand, the respondent clearly stated that she was prepared to live with her husband provided he undertook not to treat her with cruelty and beat her. The only witness produced by the appellant in support of his case that the respondent left the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason and subsequently refused to return back is P. W. 2 Kamal Nain. It is true that Kamal Nain is the uncle of the respondent but from his own statement it appears that he has several litigations not only with the father of the respondent but also with the respondent herself. He is clearly a witness inimical to the respondent and...", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "Both the issues were decided by the learned District Judge, Dehra Dun, against the appellant. It was held that as the evidence exists on record it could not be said that the respondent had herself left the roof of \"her husband's house, the fact of the matter being that the appellant himself had turned her out of his house because she had not borne any child and he wanted to remarry and so started troubling the respondent. The trial Court recorded a finding that it was the husband who had made the life of his wife miserable by neglecting her and beating her off and on and ultimately on the 6th September, 1964, forcibly turned her out of the matrimonial home and it was then that the respondent went to live at her father's house. On Issue No. 2, it was held that the scheme of the Act disclosed that its provisions will apply only to those cases where marriage had been solemnized under the Act or where marriages celebrated under other forms have been registered under the Act. The...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1671377/ | AIR1974ALL278, AIR 1974 ALLAHABAD 278, 1974 ALL. L. J. 924 ILR (1974) 1 ALL 53, ILR (1974) 1 ALL 53", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1974, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1974ALL278, AIR 1974 ALLAHABAD 278, 1974 ALL. L. J. 924 ILR (1974) 1 ALL 53, ILR (1974) 1 ALL 53", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1671377", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1671377/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Jijo C. George vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 December, 2022", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2022-12-01", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 157, Section 173, Section 376, Section 482", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "(2) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 18.10.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- IX, Allahabad, in Case - State vs. Jijo C. George arising out of the First Information Report registered at Case Crime No.0070 of 2022, under Sections 376 , 328 , 323 , 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station- Mutthiganj, District- Praygraj and the operation and effect of the order impugned dated 21.10.2022 passed by Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Allahabad, in C.N.R. No. UPAD01-013127-2022, whereby he allowed the application of the Investigating Officer cocnerned to proceed with blood test / DNA test of the applicant during investigation. (4) In this case, a peep into facts of the case proceeds on line that an F.I.R. was lodged by the victim (opposite party no.2) that on 21.05.2022 referring to some incident that allegedly occurred on 05.12.2019 and onwards. The description in the first information report proceeds on to claim that the informant/prosecutrix was engaged in teaching profession at Ewing Christian College, Prayagraj. She was in contact with the present applicant- Jijo C. George and (also in teaching profession in ECC), he taking advantage of the situation invited her to a tea party at 11:00 a.m. on 05.12.2019 at his campus residence in...", "Fact/ Respondent": "(1) Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Arun Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Subhash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.4, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.", "Issues": "(28) Now this Court would have to consider the very language and import of allegations contained in the first information report and to contemplate on the point whether bare description contained in the first information report makes out, inter-alia, alleged offence of rape and commission of cognizable offence or not? (29) In that regard, as this Court proceeds with the description contained in the FIR it is reflected that the allegations are expressive of solitary view that \"taking advantage of the opposite party no.4 on 05.12.2019\", the applicant allegedly \"invited\" the opposite party no.4 \"at his residence in ECC campus served tea and admixed some noxious substance in tea due to which she became unconcious\". Consequently, rape was committed upon her. When she regained her consciousness, she asked the applicant as to why he deceived her when he threatened her and told that he has made a video clip of...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "(1) Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Arun Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Subhash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.4, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.", "Factors to be Considered": "Constitutional Doctrine: Gender equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21; severance of discriminatory conditions requiring Christian wives to prove adultery coupled with cruelty/desertion (Ammini E.J. / Pragati Varghese).", "Decision": "(40) It is made clear that nothing has been expressed on the merit of the case and authenticity of the material sought to be collected by the Investigating Officer during course of the investigation and the investigating agency shall not be prejudiced by the observation made hereinabove and the same is confined solely to the disposal of this petition and would in no case travel beyond it.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/88752786/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity", "Judgment Year": 2022, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "88752786", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/88752786/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Navneet Kaur & Anr vs Principal Judge Family Court Lko on 31 May, 2018", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2018-05-31", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 125, Section 13, Section 13B, Section 23, Section 28, Section 40", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "AFR Reserved Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 881 of 2017 Petitioner :- Navneet Kaur & Anr Respondent :- Principal Judge Family Court Lko Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Shukla, Harjot Singh, Vivek Kumar Rai 1. In their third innings before this Court, the petitioners: Navneet Kaur (wife) and Kanwaljeet Sachdev (husband), have jointly assailed the order dated 19.07.2016 passed by the Family Court, Lucknow whereby the petitioners have been directed to appear before the Family Court in person for making a joint motion in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (for short 'Act') to obtain divorce by mutual consent.", "Fact/ Respondent": "AFR Reserved Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 881 of 2017 Petitioner :- Navneet Kaur & Anr Respondent :- Principal Judge Family Court Lko Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Shukla, Harjot Singh, Vivek Kumar Rai", "Issues": "\"13-B Divorce by mutual consent.-(1) Subject to the provisions of the Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), on the ground that (1) they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, (2) that they have not been able to live together and (3) that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. \"23. Decree in proceedings-(1) In any proceeding under this Act, whether defended or not, if the Court is satisfied that- [(bb) When a divorce is sought on the ground of mutual consent, such consent has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence, and]......\" 3. The learned Judge observed that...", "Petitioner Argument": "17. As of now, there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court on this point. At least the learned counsel for the petitioners has not placed any such authority before this Court. However, various High Courts, along the length and breadth of the country have spoken in one voice. At this stage, it would be apposite to take note of the views expressed by the various High Courts.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "25. In the case at hand, the petitioners got married on 24.09.2012. They lived together only for a period of three and a half months. In terms of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners, a divorce petition was filed by them jointly on 05.05.2016. The husband being abroad was represented by his father as attorney in terms of the special power of attorney dated 11.04.2016, whereas the wife appeared in person. The draft settlement agreement which was placed before this Court in the earlier round of litigation was also annexed along with the joint petition. An affidavit of the husband sworn in USA, containing his attested photograph, verifying and attesting the contents of the joint petition was also filed along with the petition. The marriage card and marriage registration certificate of the petitioners are already on record and as such the fact that the marriage between the parties has been solemnized cannot be doubted. The petitioners have amicably resolved their dispute outside the Court and have executed a settlement agreement which was placed before this Court, which has also...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/184501474/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; unclear", "Judgment Year": 2018, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "184501474", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/184501474/", "Chunks Indexed": 13 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Jitendra Singh @ Monu And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 August, 2024", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2024-08-29", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 3, Section 482", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding of the Case Crime No.536 of 2010, under Sections 498-A , 323 , 504 , 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act , Police Station- Jagdishpura, District- Agra arising out of Charge Sheet dated 29.03.2012 as well as stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case, on the basis of the compromise between the parties. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 536 of 2010, under Sections 498-A , 323 , 504 , 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 / 4 D.P. Act, Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra as well as charge-sheet dated 29.03.2012 on the basis of compromise so entered into between the parties.", "Fact/ Respondent": "It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that applicant nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party no.2 and the dispute between the parties are matrimonial in nature. He further submits that on account of intervention of well-wishers of the applicants and opposite party no.2, they have settled their disputes and arrived at a compromise. On the basis of said compromise, an affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.2 before the court below that she does not want to press the criminal proceedings initiated by her against the applicants. He next submits that a petition under Section 10-A of the Indian Divorce Act, 2001 has also been filed by applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 for divorce with mutual consent. It is, thus, contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303.", "Issues": "Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it. Put up this case on 22.03.2023 before the appropriate Bench. Learned counsel for the parties undertake that they shall make a fresh compromise application before the court below within a week from today for verification of the aforesaid compromise. They further undertake to ensure their presence before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 14.03.2023 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court. Office is directed to send...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "11. The application is, accordingly, allowed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63891412/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2024, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "63891412", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63891412/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Abhishek Pandey And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 February, 2023", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2023-02-13", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 3, Section 482", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 1691 of 2021 ( State Vs. Abhishek Pandey and Others ), arising out of Case Crime No. 286 of 2020, under Sections 420 , 498-A , 313 , 323 , 504 , 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 / 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Patiyali, District Kasganj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj on the basis of compromise so entered into between the parties. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the sister of opposite party no.2 and the dispute between the parties are matrimonial in nature. He further submits that on account of intervention of well-wishers of the applicants and opposite party no.2, they have settled their disputes and arrived at a compromise. On the basis of said compromise, an affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.2 before the court below that she does not want to press the criminal proceedings initiated by her against the applicants. He next submits that a petition under Section 10-A of the Indian Divorce Act, 2001 has also been filed by applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 for divorce with mutual consent. It is, thus, contended...", "Fact/ Respondent": "It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the sister of opposite party no.2 and the dispute between the parties are matrimonial in nature. He further submits that on account of intervention of well-wishers of the applicants and opposite party no.2, they have settled their disputes and arrived at a compromise. On the basis of said compromise, an affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.2 before the court below that she does not want to press the criminal proceedings initiated by her against the applicants. He next submits that a petition under Section 10-A of the Indian Divorce Act, 2001 has also been filed by applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 for divorce with mutual consent. It is, thus, contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303.", "Issues": "Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it. Put up this case on 28.03.2023 before the appropriate Bench. Learned counsel for the parties undertake that they shall make a fresh compromise application before the court below within a week from today for verification of the aforesaid compromise. They further undertake to ensure their presence before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 15.03.2023 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court. Office is directed to send...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid criminal case.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167604166/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2023, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "167604166", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167604166/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Smt. Uma Rani Urf Aisleen vs Rohit Chand on 12 August, 2021", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2021-08-12", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 125", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Partly_Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "This is a transfer application filed by the applicant-wife seeking transfer of a Divorce Petition No. 152 of 2018 ( Rohit Chandra Vs. Smt. Uma Rani @ Aisleen ), under Section 10 (I) (IX, X) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 filed by the husband at Badaun. Its transfer is being sought to District Aligarh on the ground of convenience. In the counter affidavit filed by Sri Ganesh Shankar Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, the pendency of the cases before the competent courts at Aligarh has not been disputed.", "Fact/ Respondent": "This is a transfer application filed by the applicant-wife seeking transfer of a Divorce Petition No. 152 of 2018 ( Rohit Chandra Vs. Smt. Uma Rani @ Aisleen ), under Section 10 (I) (IX, X) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 filed by the husband at Badaun. Its transfer is being sought to District Aligarh on the ground of convenience.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ganesh Shankar Patel, learned counsel for the respondent.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "For this reason alone, this transfer application is liable to be allowed and is allowed. The Divorce Petition No. 152 of 2018 ( Rohit Chandra Vs. Smt. Uma Rani @ Aisleen ) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Badaun stand transferred to Aligarh forthwith.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102411102/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2021, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "102411102", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102411102/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Firoz Karim vs Smt. Dimple Karim And Another on 2 July, 2024", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2024-07-02", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14, Section 19", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:106764-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 130 of 2016 Appellant :- Firoz Karim Respondent :- Smt. Dimple Karim And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav,Abhishek Counsel for Respondent :- Brahmdatt Pathak,R.P. Tiwari,Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta,Vijay Kumar Gupta 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, in Petition No.410 of 2013 (Firoz Karim Vs. Smt. Dimple Karim and another). By that order, learned court below has dismissed the divorce petition filed by the present appellant under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\" )", "Fact/ Respondent": "?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:106764-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 130 of 2016 Appellant :- Firoz Karim Respondent :- Smt. Dimple Karim And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav,Abhishek Counsel for Respondent :- Brahmdatt Pathak,R.P. Tiwari,Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta,Vijay Kumar Gupta", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit, in his testimony, the present appellant had clearly described the commission of adultery by alleging that respondent no.2 had often visited respondent no.1 at his home in the absence of the appellant. He had further proved that respondent nos.1 and 2 were often seen roaming around / travelling in a car belonging to respondent no.2. 5. According to the appellant, respondent no.1 had admitted of her forming an adulterous relationship with respondent no.2. The appellant further alleged having established payment of Rs.84,000/- made by respondent no.2 to respondent no.1 in her bank account as a result of adulterous relationship formed between those parties. The appellant further alleged that respondent no.1 admitted having formed such a relationship with respondent no.2. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further referred to SMS / text messages received and saved on the mobile phone of the appellant as were received by him from respondent nos.1 and 2 and as were elaborated and thus proved during the course of oral evidence. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant...", "Respondent Argument": "1. Heard Shri Abhishek, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that entire fact allegations made in the divorce petition are false. Respondent no.1 has never committed adultery. No ingredient of adultery was proven. Only vague and general allegations were made as may never lead any Court to accept adulterous relationship formed by any party. He has referred to oral evidence of respondent no.1 to establish that she never admitted having committed adultery. As to oral allegations made by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, he would submit, sufficient doubt exists as to correctness of the statement made by those witnesses during their examination in chief. 11. The appellant never led any evidence to establish that he had witnessed any occurrence / transaction as may amount to adultery committed by the respondents. In fact, he chose to rely on hearsay. Neither he named the persons who may have seen the respondents having formed adulterous relationship nor he led any credible evidence to establish...", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "19. Accordingly, the present appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/49943376/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2024, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "49943376", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/49943376/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Natasha James vs Avinash Simon on 7 May, 2022", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2022-05-07", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 24", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under section 24 C.P.C. seeking transfer of the divorce suit bearing no. 2253 of 2017 (Avinash Simon Vs. Natasha James) under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow to the appropriate court in distict-Meerut. Initially, the transfer petition was filed on 09-12-2019 alongwith an affidavit of one Ms. Priyanka Spring and it was stated that she was a relative(cousin) of the petitioner. Notice was issued to the respondent, which was duly served, however, no Counter Affidavit has been filed as yet.", "Fact/ Respondent": "None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent though the names of Sri Pankaj Singh and Ms. Pooja Bhargava Singh, Advocates are printed in the cause list as counsel for the respondent.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Heard Sri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. On 27-04-2022, the court noticing the affidavit filed in support of the petition by Ms. Priyanka Spring, had called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner to explain the maintainability of the petition. In the meantime, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a Supplementary Affidavit reiterating the contents of the transfer application alongwith an affidavit of the petitioner, Natasha James. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that any anomaly or defect in filing the aforesaid petition, which might have occurred in view of the affidavit filed by Ms. Priyanaka Spring on behalf of the petitioner would stand cured as the petitioner herself has filed her affidavit reiterating the contents and the same may be considered by the court for the purposes of transfer application. Since, the matter is engaging attention of this court since the year 2019, as a result proceedings filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Lucknow are held up. Accordingly, instead of entering into the technicalities, the court accepts the affidavit filed by the petitioner...", "Respondent Argument": "None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent though the names of Sri Pankaj Singh and Ms. Pooja Bhargava Singh, Advocates are printed in the cause list as counsel for the respondent.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46775776/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2022, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "46775776", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46775776/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Dr. Ashim Kumar Natheniel vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 August, 2019", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2019-08-02", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 482", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "\"a) That the marriage of Dr. Ashim Kumar Natheniel (Applicant-Husband) and Smt. Manisha Gardner (Opposite Party No.2-Wife) was solemnized on 5.5.2014. After living together till 22.6.2014, the relations between the parties became strained and they started living separately. Out of aforesaid wedlock, parties have no issue. b) That as per interim settlement dated 26.6.2018, Dr. Ashim Kumar Natheniel (Applicant-Husband) and Smt. Manisha Gardner (Opposite Party No.2-Wife) have decided to take divorce by mutual consent on the condition of a Permanent Alimony including Stridhan of Rs.7,50,000/- (Seven lakhs fifty thousand only) which shall be paid by the husband to the wife in two instalments.", "Fact/ Respondent": "\"a) That the marriage of Dr. Ashim Kumar Natheniel (Applicant-Husband) and Smt. Manisha Gardner (Opposite Party No.2-Wife) was solemnized on 5.5.2014. After living together till 22.6.2014, the relations between the parties became strained and they started living separately. Out of aforesaid wedlock, parties have no issue.", "Issues": "h) That it has been agreed between the parties that all the cases whether criminal and civil filed by them against each other shall be withdrawn by them by taking appropriate steps before the court/authorities concerned at the earliest.\" In view of above, proceedings of the aforesaid case including the summoning order are quashed on the condition that the parties shall abide the terms of the agreement. The application stands allowed.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "In view of above, proceedings of the aforesaid case including the summoning order are quashed on the condition that the parties shall abide the terms of the agreement.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/19227929/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2019, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "19227929", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/19227929/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Sushil T. Williams vs Smt. Kakoli Williams on 16 October, 2024", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2024-10-16", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 19", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "?Court No. - 39 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 65 of 2017 Appellant :- Sushil T. Williams Respondent :- Smt. Kakoli Williams Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeshwar Prasad Sinha 1. List revised. None is present for the appellant, in either call.", "Fact/ Respondent": "?Court No. - 39 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 65 of 2017 Appellant :- Sushil T. Williams Respondent :- Smt. Kakoli Williams Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeshwar Prasad Sinha", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (mutual consent 10A) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "4. The present appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159958974/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; unclear", "Judgment Year": 2024, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "159958974", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159958974/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Smt. Shirin Samuel And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 12 October, 2020", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2020-10-12", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "?Court No. - 66 Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 292 of 2020 Petitioner :- Smt. Shirin Samuel And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Mukesh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. This petition has been filed by Smt. Shirin Samuel, wife of Danise Samuel, against the fourth respondent, asking this Court to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus to order the first and the second petitioner, the two minor children of parties to be produced before this Court and set at liberty by entrusting them into the first petitioner's custody, their mother. The first petitioner and the fourth respondents were married according to Christian rites on 01.11.2007. Two children were born of the wedlock of parties. It appears that the matrimonial discordovertook the parties and they parted ways. The first petitioner and the fourth respondent have become an estranged couple. The fourth respondent filed for divorce before the Family Court, Kota, Rajasthan under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. A decree dated 17.12.2019, has been passed by the Judge, Family Court, Kota, Rajasthan. It appears from the averments made in the petition that the first petitioner and the fourth respondents last resided together as a family at Kota, Rajasthan. They did not...", "Fact/ Respondent": "?Court No. - 66 Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 292 of 2020 Petitioner :- Smt. Shirin Samuel And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Mukesh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "This petition has been filed by Smt. Shirin Samuel, wife of Danise Samuel, against the fourth respondent, asking this Court to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus to order the first and the second petitioner, the two minor children of parties to be produced before this Court and set at liberty by entrusting them into the first petitioner's custody, their mother. The first petitioner and the fourth respondents were married according to Christian rites on 01.11.2007. Two children were born of the wedlock of parties. It appears that the matrimonial discordovertook the parties and they parted ways. The first petitioner and the fourth respondent have become an estranged couple. The fourth respondent filed for divorce before the Family Court, Kota, Rajasthan under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. A decree dated 17.12.2019, has been passed by the Judge, Family Court, Kota, Rajasthan. It appears from the averments made in the petition that the first petitioner and the fourth respondents last resided together as a family at Kota, Rajasthan. They did not live together...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118450587/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2020, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "118450587", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118450587/", "Chunks Indexed": 2 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Preman vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 October, 1998", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1998-10-16", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 118, Section 125, Section 15, Section 17, Section 176, Section 20, Section 22, Section 23, Section 28, Section 29, Section 3, Section 303, Section 31, Section 332, Section 4, Section 43, Section 50, Section 57, Section 58", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Desertion; Adultery; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Heard Mr. P. Chidambaram, Senior Advocate, for Mr. Tony George Kannathanam and Mr. Romy Chacko for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ramakumar, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the first respondent in O.P. No. 5150 of 1995 and the sole respondent in O.P. No. 16501 of 1996. The petitioners in both the Original Petitions are Christians. Aggrieved against Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, they have filed the Original Petitions to declare the said provision as unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 13(1) , 14 , 15(1) , 25 and 51A of the Constitution of India and to direct the State Government to exempt Christians from Section 118 by invoking Section 3 of the Indian Succession Act since Section 118 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A further direction is also sought for to the State Government to take a decision on Ext. P-1 representation and pass a speaking order within one month. 2. According to the petitioners, they are aggrieved by the discriminatory treatment meted out to members of Christian community under the Indian Succession Act by which they are practically prevented from bequeathing property for religious and charitable purposes. The Indian Succession Act, 1865 was repealed and replaced by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 , which was enacted consolidating various...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. Heard Mr. P. Chidambaram, Senior Advocate, for Mr. Tony George Kannathanam and Mr. Romy Chacko for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ramakumar, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the first respondent in O.P. No. 5150 of 1995 and the sole respondent in O.P. No. 16501 of 1996. The petitioners in both the Original Petitions are Christians. Aggrieved against Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, they have filed the Original Petitions to declare the said provision as unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 13(1) , 14 , 15(1) , 25 and 51A of the Constitution of India and to direct the State Government to exempt Christians from Section 118 by invoking Section 3 of the Indian Succession Act since Section 118 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A further direction is also sought for to the State Government to take a decision on Ext. P-1 representation and pass a speaking order within one month.", "Issues": "It is then submitted that the teachings from the Book of Holy Bible also encourage Christians to practice charities to attain spiritual salvation. Whenever fundamental right to freedom of conscience and to profess, practice and to propagate religion is invoked, the petitioners contend that the act complained of as offending the fundamental right must be examined to discover whether such act is to protect public order, morality and health, whether it is to give effect to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution or whether it is authorised by a law made to regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political or secular, activity which may be associated with religious practice or to provide for social welfare and reform. It is the duty and function of the Court so to do. Since in the instant case the impugned law has nothing to do with any of the aforesaid restrictions...", "Petitioner Argument": "It is submitted that Bhagavad Geeta and some of the Smritis encourage charity for the spiritual well being of humanity. 6. It is then submitted that as for Christians, faith, hope and charity are the three theological virtues. Disposition of property for the religious and charitable purposes, according to the petitioner, is an integral part of Christian religious-faith. Both the Holy Bible and the canon law speak on the obligation of a Christian to give property for religious and charitable purposes. In support of the submission counsel for the petitioner cited verses 18 to 22 of Chapter XIX of the Holy Gospel according to St. Luke which reads thus : \"18. A Jewish leader asked Jesus, \"Good Teacher, what must I do to receive eternal life.\" 19. \"Why do you call me good?\" Jesus asked him. No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery; do not commit murder; do not steal, do not accuse anyone falsely; respect your father and your mother' \". 21. The man replied, \"Ever since I was young, I...", "Respondent Argument": "13. On the above pleadings, we heard arguments from Mr. P. Chithambaram, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioners in both the Original Petitions and Mr. K. Ramakumar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.", "Factors to be Considered": "42. The Standing Counsel submitted that the aforesaid provision has stood the test of time since 1925 and is continuously existing in the Act. In support of the above proposition he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney's case (supra) where the Supreme Court has held that where a decision has stood the test of time and has never been doubted, it has to be respected unless, of course, there are compelling and strong reasons to depart from it. The question is why such a prescription of procedure for Christians alone. As already seen, this Act came into effect on 30th September, 1925. As per Section 4, Part II of the Act shall not apply if the deceased was a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina. Section 20 of Part III of the act is not applicable to any marriage contracted before the first day of January, 1866; and is not applicable and is deemed never to have applied to any marriage, one or both of the parties to which professed at the time of marriage the Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina religion. As per Section 23 of Part IV of the Act, that part...", "Decision": "We, therefore, declare that Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act is anomalous and anachronistic being violative of Articles 14,15,25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act is therefore struck down as unconstitutional. There will be", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1673703/ | AIR1999KER93, AIR 1999 KERALA 93, (1999) ILR(KER) 2 KER 113, (1998) 2 KER LJ 758, (1998) 2 KER LT 1004, (1999) 1 CIVLJ 811", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; desertion; adultery; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1998, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1999KER93, AIR 1999 KERALA 93, (1999) ILR(KER) 2 KER 113, (1998) 2 KER LJ 758, (1998) 2 KER LT 1004, (1999) 1 CIVLJ 811", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1673703", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1673703/", "Chunks Indexed": 32 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Sasivarnam vs S. Gnanasundari Kamalam on 29 March, 1954", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1954-03-29", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 2", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. The husband of the first respondent is the petitioner, and he claimed in the petition dissolution of marriage between himself and the respondent on the ground, that she was guilty of adultery with the co-respondent. The husband is a Hindu and the wife is a Christian. Their marriage was solemnised according to Christian rites on 22-8-1934 at Madurai, and Ex. A. 1 is the marriage certificate. They lived at Calicut for three years after the marriage and there was no trouble till 1938. In 1938 the husband saw the wife writing a letter to one Gnanamuthu Isac. He caught hold of the letter, which is dated 27-2-1938, Ex. A. 2. Gnanamuthu Isac was found in the house of the petitioner in July 1938, when he went away to his office and returned suddenly to his house. When asked to explain his presence, the wife could not give a satisfactory answer, and as he suspected her conduct, there was some quarrel between them and he gave her a beating. After he lelt the house the wife wrote a letter dated 14-7-1938, Ex. A. 3, in which she stated, \"There will be no connection whatever between you and me from today 14-7-1938. Hereafter you shall not take any notice of me for any reason whatever. I shall conduct myself in the...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The husband of the first respondent is the petitioner, and he claimed in the petition dissolution of marriage between himself and the respondent on the ground, that she was guilty of adultery with the co-respondent. The husband is a Hindu and the wife is a Christian. Their marriage was solemnised according to Christian rites on 22-8-1934 at Madurai, and Ex. A. 1 is the marriage certificate. They lived at Calicut for three years after the marriage and there was no trouble till 1938. In 1938 the husband saw the wife writing a letter to one Gnanamuthu Isac. He caught hold of the letter, which is dated 27-2-1938, Ex. A. 2. Gnanamuthu Isac was found in the house of the petitioner in July 1938, when he went away to his office and returned suddenly to his house. When asked to explain his presence, the wife could not give a satisfactory answer, and as he suspected her conduct, there was some quarrel between them and he gave her a beating. After he lelt the house the wife wrote a letter dated 14-7-1938, Ex. A. 3, in which she stated, \"There will be no connection whatever between you and me from today...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "which clearly shows that if either of them is a Christian, it would be sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under the Indian Christian (sic) Divorce Act for relief under it and this was the view taken by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in -- 'Nina Dalai v. Merwanji ', AIR 1930 Bom 385 (FB) (A). We therefore think that the District Court had ample jurisdiction to deal with the matter and the decree 'nisi' granted by the District Judge must be confirmed. The decree 'nisi' is accordingly confirmed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/968128/ | AIR1954MAD1018, AIR 1954 MADRAS 1018, 1967 MADLW 1137", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1954, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1954MAD1018, AIR 1954 MADRAS 1018, 1967 MADLW 1137", "Kanoon Doc ID": "968128", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/968128/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Samdeep Mohan Varghese vs Anjana on 15 September, 2010", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2010-09-15", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 2, Section 27, Section 32", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Mat.Appeal.No. 99 of 2009() 1. SAMDEEP MOHAN VARGHESE, AGED 35, ... Petitioner 2. ANJANA JOSE, D/O.T.T.JOSE, Vs 1. ANJANA For Petitioner :SRI.GEO PAUL For Respondent :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS O R D E R R.BASANT & ........................................... MAT.APPEAL. Nos.99 & 152 OF 2009 ............................................ Does the concept of matrimonial cruelty vary in accordance with the religious persuasions of individuals? Is a spouse bound to suffer greater amount of matrimonial cruelty because the spouses belong to a religion which considered marriage as indissoluble? Can the secular constitutional republic recognise and accept the existence of different varieties of matrimonial cruelty - Hindu cruelty, Christian cruelty, Muslim cruelty and secular cruelty? Should not matrimonial cruelty entitling a spouse for divorce yield to a uniform conceptualisation notwithstanding the different semantics employed in different pieces of matrimonial legislations applicable to different religions? Should not the courts take inspiration from Art.44 of the Constitution and attempt to understand the concept of matrimonial cruelty in a uniform manner to ensure that the right to life under Art.21 is made effective and meaningful under the matrimonial roof and to liberate spouses from a marital life in MA 99 & 152 OF 2009 2 perpetual fear of contumacious cruelty? These questions arise before us in these appeals.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Mat.Appeal.No. 99 of 2009() 1. SAMDEEP MOHAN VARGHESE, AGED 35, ... Petitioner 2. ANJANA JOSE, D/O.T.T.JOSE, Vs 1. ANJANA For Petitioner :SRI.GEO PAUL For Respondent :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS O R D E R R.BASANT & ........................................... MAT.APPEAL. Nos.99 & 152 OF 2009 ............................................", "Issues": "22. The learned counsel for the wife contends that even if we go by the case of the appellant, he was guilty of matrimonial cruelty to his wife in that he did not recognise, accept and respect the personality and preferences of the wife. It is the very case of the husband that the wife had aspirations of an active and energetic career. In fact we see the appellant accusing the wife of entertaining aggressive career aspirations. She was herself an Engineer. Her husband was also an Engineer. Her husband had secured admission to Government Engineering College, by getting into the merit list whereas the wife was compelled to pursue her education elsewhere by securing a seat by payment of money, obviously. The husband was well employed. Wife could not secure such good employment. This admittedly caused frustration in the wife. She also wanted to secure a good job for...", "Petitioner Argument": "7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned order on the following grounds. i) The court below has significantly omitted to record a specific finding on the disputed question of cruelty. 14. A word about appreciation of evidence in this case. Certain broad aspects must be considered before the challenge against appreciation of evidence is considered. Matrimonial cruelty between educated spouses belonging to a higher strata of society cannot evidently be expected to be proved by occular corroboration from independent sources. By its very nature it would be difficult to secure such independent corroborative evidence. The fact that PW1's evidence is not corroborated by independent sources is thus insignificant. The evidence of RW2 and RW3 is again not of any vital significance. Go by the evidence of PW1 or RW1, they had traumatic experiences when they cohabited in Bombay. RWs 2 and 3 appear to be fairly close friends of RW1. Even then their evidence suggests that they did not know or perceive any difficulty in...", "Respondent Argument": "44. The learned counsel for the respondent/wife submits that inasmuch as Exts.B2 and B3 series have been filed as documents in the joint trial, the respondent/wife was not able to MA 99 & 152 OF 2009 45 request that they be released to her earlier. In the light of the specific directions, it is prayed that Exts.B2 and B3 series may be ordered to be released to the respondent/wife with specific directions to the bank concerned to renew the deposit if necessary and release the proceeds to the respondent.", "Factors to be Considered": "28. The counsel then points out that provisions of the Special Marriage Act dealing with divorce on the ground of MA 99 & 152 OF 2009 29 cruelty. Section 27(1)(d) of Special Marriage Act deals with cruelty. We extract the same below:- \" Divorce - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and to the rules made thereunder, a petition for divorce may be presented to the district court either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the respondent - (a)xxxxx (b)xxxxx (c)xxxxx (d) has since the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty; \". (irrelevant portions omitted) 29. The learned counsel then points out Section 2(viii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act which we extract below:- \"Ground for decree for dissolution of marriage - A woman married under Muslim law shall be entitled to obtain a decree for the dissolution of her marriage on any one or more of the following grounds, namely:- (i)xxxxxxxx ii)xxxxxxx iii)xxxxxxx iv)xxxxxxx v)xxxxxx vi)xxxxxxx vii)xxxxx viii) that the husband treats her with cruelty, that is to say,- (a) habitually assaults her or makes her life miserable by cruelty of conduct even if such conduct does not amount...", "Decision": "\"In the result, O.P.68/2005 is decreed in part; that the respondent is directed to pay the petitioner the amount covered by Ext.B2 series FD receipts and the amount as per the three FD receipts of the South Indian bank mentioned in the petition together with the interest accrued thereon from the date of deposit till payment.\"", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1439693/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2010, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1439693", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1439693/", "Chunks Indexed": 26 }, { "Court": "Gauhati High Court", "Case Title": "Paul Tushar Biswas vs Addl. Dist. Judge And Anr. on 21 November, 2005", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2005-11-21", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 14, Section 2, Section 3, Section 4000, Section 4002, Section 43, Section 44, Section 44A, Section 45, Section 454, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The matrimonial alliance between the parties though conclusively determined by a decree of divorce, the issue pertaining to maintenance of their minor son has kept them belligerently engaged in Courts of law. The instant application witnesses a challenge by the petitioner/husband to the judgment and order dated 9.4.2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Shillong, in (Civil) Miscellaneous Application 7(H)/2002 arising out of matrimonial case No. 6(H)/ 2000 under Section 43 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereafter referred to as the Divorce Act ), rejecting his application to allow him to provide child maintenance to the offspring, Timothy Biswas. 2. I have heard Ms. A. Paul, Advocate assisted by Mr. K. Paul, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. P.D.B. Baruah, Advocate for the respondent No. 2.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The matrimonial alliance between the parties though conclusively determined by a decree of divorce, the issue pertaining to maintenance of their minor son has kept them belligerently engaged in Courts of law. The instant application witnesses a challenge by the petitioner/husband to the judgment and order dated 9.4.2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Shillong, in (Civil) Miscellaneous Application 7(H)/2002 arising out of matrimonial case No. 6(H)/ 2000 under Section 43 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereafter referred to as the Divorce Act ), rejecting his application to allow him to provide child maintenance to the offspring, Timothy Biswas.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (desertion) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "15. Chapter IV of the Gauhati High Court Rules outlines the general rules for applications and affidavits to be filed before this Court. Clause 8 thereof mandates that every application should be signed with the full name and date either by the applicant or the declarant or his Advocate. Chapters VA and VB dealing with rules governing applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India also do not prescribe the requirement of signing each and every page of the petition. In that view of the matter, omission to sign all the pages of the instant petition cannot be held to be violative of the High Court Rules. The affidavit annexed to the petition has been sworn and signed by the attorney on being identified by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The affidavit is in prescribed form and the petitioner has stood by the statements made in the petition. The underlying purpose of a verification and/or the affidavit required by the law being to obviate the possibility of disownment of the pleaded facts by the party concerned...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "1. The matrimonial alliance between the parties though conclusively determined by a decree of divorce, the issue pertaining to maintenance of their minor son has kept them belligerently engaged in Courts of law. The instant application witnesses a challenge by the petitioner/husband to the judgment and order dated 9.4.2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Shillong, in (Civil) Miscellaneous Application 7(H)/2002 arising out of matrimonial case No. 6(H)/ 2000 under Section 43 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereafter referred to as the Divorce Act ), rejecting his application to allow him to provide child maintenance to the offspring, Timothy Biswas. 2. I have heard Ms. A. Paul, Advocate assisted by Mr. K. Paul, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. P.D.B. Baruah, Advocate for the respondent No. 2.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1104468/ | II(2006)DMC59", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion", "Judgment Year": 2005, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: II(2006)DMC59", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1104468", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1104468/", "Chunks Indexed": 20 }, { "Court": "Gauhati High Court", "Case Title": "Smt. Ann Sarkar vs Anil Sarkar on 27 January, 1988", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1988-01-27", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13B, Section 17, Section 22", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Adultery; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. The petitioner sued for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on ground of adultery coupled with cruelty. Examining herself as witness 1, she deposed that she was married to the respondent Anil Sarkar on 6-12-79 at Dibrugarh Christ Church as both of them were Christians. Ext. 1 was their marriage certificate. After marriage they lived conjugal life at Moran but had no issue. Since about 3 months after the marriage the respondent showed indifference towards her, at the same time having affairs with other women and when her protests proved to be useless she went to her mother's house. When her husband used to be with other women and when she objected her husband threw things at her and behaved very rudely in presence of her daughter by her previous marriage. The respondent also had a son by his previous marriage. It appears the previous marriages of both the petitioner and the respondent ended in divorce. She apprehended that she could not live with her husband safely, and she left respondent's company in April, 1981 and went to her mother at Pangeri where after the respondent never enquired about her. She further deposed that the respondent was living an adulterous, life and hence she prayed for dissolution of marriage without claiming any alimony from him. 3. The respondent...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The petitioner sued for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on ground of adultery coupled with cruelty. Examining herself as witness 1, she deposed that she was married to the respondent Anil Sarkar on 6-12-79 at Dibrugarh Christ Church as both of them were Christians. Ext. 1 was their marriage certificate. After marriage they lived conjugal life at Moran but had no issue. Since about 3 months after the marriage the respondent showed indifference towards her, at the same time having affairs with other women and when her protests proved to be useless she went to her mother's house. When her husband used to be with other women and when she objected her husband threw things at her and behaved very rudely in presence of her daughter by her previous marriage. The respondent also had a son by his previous marriage. It appears the previous marriages of both the petitioner and the respondent ended in divorce. She apprehended that she could not live with her husband safely, and she left respondent's company in April, 1981 and went to her mother at Pangeri where after the respondent never enquired about her. She further deposed that the respondent was living...", "Issues": "11. To find cruelty it is not necessary to, find physical violence. It is doubtful whether any definition of cruelty applies equally well to cases where there has been physical violence and to cases of nagging or to cases where there has been a deliberate intention to hurt and to cases where temperament and unfortunate circumstances have caused much of the trouble. It is undesirable, if not impossible, by judicial pronouncements, to create certain categories of acts of conduct as having or lacking the nature of quality which renders them capable or incapable in all circumstances amounting to cruelty in cases where no physical violence is averred. 12. In para 516 we read the following considerations which in general are material. Either of the spouses may be guilty of the offence or cruelty. The general rule in all questions of cruelty is that the whole matrimonial relations must be considered...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "6. We have perused the evidence on record and the decree nisi. While agreeing that the marriage could not be dissolved on mutual consent the learned District Judge failed to notice that under Section 10 of the Act any wife may present a petition praying that her marriage may be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization thereof her husband has been guilty of adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to divorce a mense et toro or of adultery coupled with desertion, without reasonable excuse, for two years or upwards and the burden of proof is on the party who alleges. Again under that Section every such petition shall state, as distinctly as the nature of the case permits, the facts on which the claim to have such marriage dissolved is founded. In the instant case desertion, cruelty, and adultery have not been specifically alleged as grounds for dissolution. On the other hand she deposed that her husband used to be very friendly with other women and had affairs with them and her protests were of no avail and that her husband was living an adulterous life. No particular name of any woman...", "Decision": "19. In the result, there having been no specific allegation and satisfactory proof of adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce a mensa et toro, we are unable to confirm the decree nisi. The reference is rejected. There shall be no bar for the petitioner to file fresh petition for divorce on other or fresh cause of action if so advised.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1992585/ | AIR1989GAU44, AIR 1989 GAUHATI 44, (1988) 24 REPORTS 405, (1988) 1 DMC 462, (1988) 2 HINDULR 147, (1990) 1 CIVLJ 43", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; adultery; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1988, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1989GAU44, AIR 1989 GAUHATI 44, (1988) 24 REPORTS 405, (1988) 1 DMC 462, (1988) 2 HINDULR 147, (1990) 1 CIVLJ 43", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1992585", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1992585/", "Chunks Indexed": 13 }, { "Court": "Gauhati High Court", "Case Title": "Ka Steldoris Syiemlieh vs U. Skipland Sanglyne And Anr. on 2 May, 1985", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1985-05-02", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14, Section 17, Section 17A", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The decree nisi for dissolution of marriage passed by the District Council Court, Khasi Hills under Section 14 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for short \"the Act\", has come up for confirmation under Section 17 of the Act. 2. Divorce Galore Syndrome : The other names of dissolution are \"destruction end of life and death\". We are alarmed to note the mercurial upswing of divorce proceedings in this region. A considerable number of cases coming from this region relates to 'legal separation of man and wife'. These are all divorce a vinculo matrimony', a total divorce of husband and wife dissolving the marriage tie and releasing the parties wholly from their matrimonial obligations. Two young persons go to Church solemnly pledge that they shall ever live as man and wife. The marriages are religiously and solemnly performed. In all systems, be that Hindu, Islamic, Christian etc. marriage is a legal union of one man and woman as husband and wife-- it is a legal status, condition or relation between a man and woman united in law for life for the discharge to each other and the community certain positive duties. How is it that so many solemn pledges by so many persons are forgotten over-night and matrimonial ties are snapped? It seems none comes forward to resolve the...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. Divorce Galore Syndrome : The other names of dissolution are \"destruction end of life and death\". We are alarmed to note the mercurial upswing of divorce proceedings in this region. A considerable number of cases coming from this region relates to 'legal separation of man and wife'. These are all divorce a vinculo matrimony', a total divorce of husband and wife dissolving the marriage tie and releasing the parties wholly from their matrimonial obligations. Two young persons go to Church solemnly pledge that they shall ever live as man and wife. The marriages are religiously and solemnly performed. In all systems, be that Hindu, Islamic, Christian etc. marriage is a legal union of one man and woman as husband and wife-- it is a legal status, condition or relation between a man and woman united in law for life for the discharge to each other and the community certain positive duties. How is it that so many solemn pledges by so many persons are forgotten over-night and matrimonial ties are snapped? It seems none comes forward to resolve the matrimonial disputes to see that the couple lives together instead of diverting their lives to dangerous courses. What happens to...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "8. The Onus of Proof and The Standard of Proof is Required For Establishing Allegations of Adultery, Bigamy Etc. It is necessary to take note of the trend in the law as to the standard of proof in materimonial causes, which is more often than not overlooked by the courts trying matrimonial causes. A petition for divorce is a civil proceeding and not a criminal proceeding. There is, however, some overlapping in view of the character of imputation, in view of necessary to prove the allegations of adultery, cruelty, bigamy, sodomy, beastiality, etc. in divorce proceedings. The onus of proof of adultery etc. is undoubtedly on the person who alleges adultery etc. Direct evidence of adultery is rare. In most of the cases the fact of adultery is required to be inferred from the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case. There must be proof of disposition and opportunity for committing adultery. If a prima facie case is made out and the party charged fails to give evidence in disproof, that may be a fact, which the court is entitled to take into consideration in favour of the petitioner. We delved into the question and answered the same in Ka...", "Decision": "13. In the result the decree nisi is confirmed. There will be", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1378942/ | AIR1986GAU24, AIR 1986 GAUHATI 24, 1986 (2) HINDULR 339, (1985) 2 HINDULR 339, (1985) 1 GAULR 487, (1985) 2 CURCC 226, (1985) 2 DMC 51, (1986) MATLR 130, (1986) 1 RECCRIR 434", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1985, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1986GAU24, AIR 1986 GAUHATI 24, 1986 (2) HINDULR 339, (1985) 2 HINDULR 339, (1985) 1 GAULR 487, (1985) 2 CURCC 226, (1985) 2 DMC 51, (1986) MATLR 130, (1986) 1 RECCRIR 434", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1378942", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1378942/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Gauhati High Court", "Case Title": "Malza D. Shira vs Archana Marak And Anr. on 27 March, 2003", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2003-03-27", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 15, Section 17, Section 34, Section 39", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. The petitioner-husband Shri Malza D. Shira has filed a suit for divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short \"the Act\"). It is alleged that Smti Archana Marak, the wife of the petitioner and Simon Sangma, had adulterous relations. His wife has deserted him without any justifiable cause. The respondent No. 1, the wife has entered appearance and filed her written statement denying the allegations of adultery and desertion. On the contrary, she has alleged adultery, cruelty and desertion on the part of the husband. She further prayed for return of all the matrimonial properties and maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month for herself and minor children. The Court below after recording evidence of the parties have reached to the conclusion that both the parties have failed to prove the adultery alleged by them against each other. However, the wife has successfully proved the cruelty and desertion against the petitioner-husband and consequent thereof, the decree of divorce was passed. The Court further directed custody of the minor children with the mother Smti Archana Marak. While passing the decree of divorce, the Court gave further direction regarding the property shown in Annexure-I of the written statement of the Respondent No. 1 holding it to be property of the wife being matrimonial property. The Court has directed...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The petitioner-husband Shri Malza D. Shira has filed a suit for divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short \"the Act\"). It is alleged that Smti Archana Marak, the wife of the petitioner and Simon Sangma, had adulterous relations. His wife has deserted him without any justifiable cause. The respondent No. 1, the wife has entered appearance and filed her written statement denying the allegations of adultery and desertion. On the contrary, she has alleged adultery, cruelty and desertion on the part of the husband. She further prayed for return of all the matrimonial properties and maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month for herself and minor children. The Court below after recording evidence of the parties have reached to the conclusion that both the parties have failed to prove the adultery alleged by them against each other. However, the wife has successfully proved the cruelty and desertion against the petitioner-husband and consequent thereof, the decree of divorce was passed. The Court further directed custody of the minor children with the mother Smti Archana Marak. While passing the decree of divorce, the Court gave further direction regarding the property shown in Annexure-I of the written statement...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "7. In the present case, the Court has specifically recorded the finding that the Court does not find the ground of adultery alleged by the petitioner-husband or by the respondent wife is proved. The decree granted by the Court is on the ground of cruelty and desertion found against the petitioner-husband. Therefore, there is no decree on the ground of adultery. That apart, the Court does not get jurisdiction to settle the property in the benefit of the wife under Section 39 . Section 39 only authorises settlement of property in favour of the husband and children of the marriage. On the facts found, the Court could not have exercised jurisdiction to pass decree for delivery of the property to wife and, therefore, although confirming the decree of divorce we set aside the decree of the Court directing return of the property mentioned in Annexure-I to the written statement. As the result, decree for divorce is confirmed and the decree for return of Annexure-I to the written statement property is set aside. We, however, make it clear that it shall...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165206/ | AIR2004GAU165, (2004)1GLR109, AIR 2004 GAUHATI 165, 2004 A I H C 4922, (2004) 1 GAU LR 109, (2003) 2 GAU LT 256, (2004) 2 CIVLJ 220", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2003, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR2004GAU165, (2004)1GLR109, AIR 2004 GAUHATI 165, 2004 A I H C 4922, (2004) 1 GAU LR 109, (2003) 2 GAU LT 256, (2004) 2 CIVLJ 220", "Kanoon Doc ID": "165206", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165206/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Gauhati High Court", "Case Title": "Wenmanard Marak vs Smt. Poiby Momin on 27 January, 1988", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1988-01-27", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 17, Section 5, Section 58", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. The petitioner sued for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent Smt. Poiby Momin on the ground of adultery coupled with desertion. Examining himself, he deposed that the parties were married according to the Christian rites on 15th April, 1954 whereafter they lived as husband and wife. After about 6 months of marriage the respondent deserted him and subsequently she lived with one Honith Sangma as his mis tress and thereby committed adultery with him and the petitioner and the respondent have remained completely separate since then. He further deposed that there was no collusion or connivance between the parties in the matter of filing the petition for divorce; and that the respondent had no objection to the dissolution of their marriage which might be dissolved on the ground of adultery and mutual consent. He examined another witness Sabilson Momin who fully corroborated him. 3. Respondent Smt. Poiby Momin examined herself and deposed that since after 6 months of their marriage, since 1954, till date they had been living in complete separation. She also admitted that she lived with one Honith Sangma as his wife and that she had no objection to the petition of her husband for divorce, and that she also submitted a petition on that day to the effect that she had no objection to the...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The petitioner sued for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent Smt. Poiby Momin on the ground of adultery coupled with desertion. Examining himself, he deposed that the parties were married according to the Christian rites on 15th April, 1954 whereafter they lived as husband and wife. After about 6 months of marriage the respondent deserted him and subsequently she lived with one Honith Sangma as his mis tress and thereby committed adultery with him and the petitioner and the respondent have remained completely separate since then. He further deposed that there was no collusion or connivance between the parties in the matter of filing the petition for divorce; and that the respondent had no objection to the dissolution of their marriage which might be dissolved on the ground of adultery and mutual consent. He examined another witness Sabilson Momin who fully corroborated him.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "10. In the result, the decree nisi is set aside and the petition remanded. The reference is accordingly rejected.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/471365/ | AIR1988GAU50, AIR 1988 GAUHATI 50, (1988) 1 GAU LR 261, (1988) 2 CIV LJ 39, (1988) 1 DMC 405, (1988) 2 HINDULR 93, (1988) MATLR 231", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1988, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1988GAU50, AIR 1988 GAUHATI 50, (1988) 1 GAU LR 261, (1988) 2 CIV LJ 39, (1988) 1 DMC 405, (1988) 2 HINDULR 93, (1988) MATLR 231", "Kanoon Doc ID": "471365", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/471365/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Gauhati High Court", "Case Title": "Mrs. Thaza Akoijam vs Dr. Vashum Mathew Thomas on 4 November, 2019", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2019-11-04", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 15, Section 5", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010109612019 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Mat.App. 60/2019 1:MRS. THAZA AKOIJAM W/O- DR. VASHUM MATHEW THOMAS, D/O- LATE LANNGAM AKOIJAM, R/O- KWAKEITHEL NGANAPI THONG, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMAI, DIST.- IMPHAL (WEST), MANIPUR, PIN- 795001. 1:DR. VASHUM MATHEW THOMAS S/O- LATE JOSEPH THOMAS, R/O- NAGARAM NEAR STADIUM VIEW HOTEL LAIPHAM LHUNAO, P.O. LAMLONG, P.S. HEINGANG, DIST.- IMPHAL (EAST), MANIPUR, PIN- 795001, AND OFFICE OF SENIOR DMO, RAILWAY HOSPITAL, N.F. RAILWAY, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND, PIN- 797112. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO The petition under Section 10(1)(x) read with Section 15 of the Divorce Act, 1989 was preferred by the appellant herein for a dissolution of a marriage with the respondent. By the Order of 14.09.2018, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup arrived at a conclusion that the appellant is a Hindu by birth and religion, whereas, the respondent is a Christian by birth and religion belonging to the Scheduled Caste community and therefore, they could not have solemnized their marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act . By referring to section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it was taken note of that a marriage...", "Fact/ Respondent": "Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010109612019 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Mat.App. 60/2019 1:MRS. THAZA AKOIJAM W/O- DR. VASHUM MATHEW THOMAS, D/O- LATE LANNGAM AKOIJAM, R/O- KWAKEITHEL NGANAPI THONG, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMAI, DIST.- IMPHAL (WEST), MANIPUR, PIN- 795001. 1:DR. VASHUM MATHEW THOMAS S/O- LATE JOSEPH THOMAS, R/O- NAGARAM NEAR STADIUM VIEW HOTEL LAIPHAM LHUNAO, P.O. LAMLONG, P.S. HEINGANG, DIST.- IMPHAL (EAST), MANIPUR, PIN- 795001, AND OFFICE OF SENIOR DMO, RAILWAY HOSPITAL, N.F. RAILWAY, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND, PIN- 797112. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Date : 04-11-2019 Heard Mr. J. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Page No.# 2/2 Issue notice on the respondent by registered post with A/D, returnable by 4 (four) weeks. Steps within 3 (three) days.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "The petition under Section 10(1)(x) read with Section 15 of the Divorce Act, 1989 was preferred by the appellant herein for a dissolution of a marriage with the respondent. By the Order of 14.09.2018, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup arrived at a conclusion that the appellant is a Hindu by birth and religion, whereas, the respondent is a Christian by birth and religion belonging to the Scheduled Caste community and therefore, they could not have solemnized their marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act . By referring to section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it was taken note of that a marriage may be solemnized under the Act between only two Hindus and therefore a marriage solemnized under the Hindu rites and rituals between one Hindu and one Christian cannot be treated as a valid married, and accordingly the petition stood disallowed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102827841/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2019, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "102827841", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102827841/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Gauhati High Court", "Case Title": "Mrs. Neikhol Changsan @ Neikhol Halolai vs Mr. Thongkomang Armstrong Changsan on 30 June, 2022", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2022-06-30", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14, Section 19, Section 3, Section 5, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Page No.# 1/24 GAHC010240362015 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/209/2015 MRS. NEIKHOL CHANGSAN @ NEIKHOL HALOLAI DR. R.P. ROAD, BEHIND MLA - HOSTEL, P.O. and P.S.- DISPUR, GHY- 6, KAMRUP M, ASSAM. MR. THONGKOMANG ARMSTRONG CHANGSAN INDIAN FOREIGN SERVICE, C/O DIPLOMATIC BAG, SOUTH BLOCK, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. ALSO AT- MR. THONGKOMANG ARMSTRONG CHANGSAN, S/O- LT. V. CHANGSAN, MOLNOM VENG, SONGPIJANG, HAFLONG, DIMA HASAO, PIN- 788819, ASSAM. ALSO AT Advocate for the Appellant : Mr. H. S. Kalsi, Advocate Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. A. K. Das, Senior Advocate Mr. R. J. Barua, Advocate Amicus Curiae : Mr. T. J. Mahanta, Senior Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Page No.# 2/24 Heard Mr. H. S. Kalsi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. K. Das, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. J. Barua, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. I have also heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Page No.# 1/24 GAHC010240362015 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/209/2015 MRS. NEIKHOL CHANGSAN @ NEIKHOL HALOLAI DR. R.P. ROAD, BEHIND MLA - HOSTEL, P.O. and P.S.- DISPUR, GHY- 6, KAMRUP M, ASSAM. MR. THONGKOMANG ARMSTRONG CHANGSAN INDIAN FOREIGN SERVICE, C/O DIPLOMATIC BAG, SOUTH BLOCK, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. ALSO AT- MR. THONGKOMANG ARMSTRONG CHANGSAN, S/O- LT. V. CHANGSAN, MOLNOM VENG, SONGPIJANG, HAFLONG, DIMA HASAO, PIN- 788819, ASSAM. ALSO AT Advocate for the Appellant : Mr. H. S. Kalsi, Advocate Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. A. K. Das, Senior Advocate", "Issues": "10. The record further shows that on 27.02.2014, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had given his no objection. Thereupon the petitioner approached a legal firm 'Consortium of Lawyers' and through the legal firm the petitioner wrote a letter dated 03.03.2014 to the President of KUKI INPI ASSAM, the highest Governing Body of the Kuki tribe seeking information relating to customary laws relating to divorce and marriage. Various queries were made including the procedure for getting divorce under the Kuki Customary Law and as to whether the Christian marriage performed in a church can be dissolved by the Kuki Forum/Village Committee/Gaonbura under the Page No.# 7/24 Customary Laws of Kukis and if yes, then under what circumstances. To the said communication dated 03.03.2014, the KUKI INPI ASSAM vide a communication dated 17.03.2014 answered to the queries. In doing so, it had categorically mentioned that the Kuki Customary...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "23. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take into consideration the question of maintainability of the application under Article 227 of the Page No.# 19/24 Constitution, more so taking into consideration that the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that a matrimonial appeal was filed along with an application for condonation of delay against the order dated 23.02.2011 impugned in the instant proceedings and the said application for condonation of delay was withdrawn which resulted in the order dated 23.02.2011 attaining finality. For the purpose of deciding the maintainability of the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution it would be relevant to take note of the impugned order and the jurisdiction which the learned court below exercised. 26. At this stage, this Court would like to take into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that apart from Christian marriage which was solemnized before the Presbyterian Church, Songpijang (Ngalsong), the petitioner and the respondent have also married as per the Kuki customs...", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "33. Before parting with the record, this Court expresses gratitude to the learned Amicus Curiae for taking the pains inspite of his busy schedule to place on record the position of law.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181312363/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2022, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "181312363", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181312363/", "Chunks Indexed": 15 }, { "Court": "Gauhati High Court", "Case Title": "Ka Dymmiew Silty Giri vs U. Moonly Passah on 9 July, 1981", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1981-07-09", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. We have noticed certain shortfalls in the proceedings which cannot be overlooked. To obtain relief under the Divorce Act, 1869 , for short, 'the Act', the conditions set out in the provisions of 'the Act' must be strictly complied by the parties. The Act is applicable to the partie? who profess Christian religion. However, if one of the parties profess Chritian faith it would give jurisdiction to the Court to give relief under 'the Act'. Dissolution of a marriage is a serious thing and the Court trying matrimonial cases should carefully follow the provisions of 'the Act'. The grounds on which a Christian marriage may be dissolved have been set forth in Section 10 of \"the Act\". Section 11 makes it obligatory on a husband, in a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery, to make the adulterer a co-respondent unless he is exempted or excused by the Court on one of the three grounds mentioned in the Section. Leave for such \"excuse\" must be applied for and duly obtained. Collusion to obtain a decree for dissolution of a marriage has been expressly prohibited under Section 12 of 'the Act'. Collusion in judicial proceeding is a secret agreement between two persons that one should institute a suit against the other, in order to obtain the decision...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. We have noticed certain shortfalls in the proceedings which cannot be overlooked. To obtain relief under the Divorce Act, 1869 , for short, 'the Act', the conditions set out in the provisions of 'the Act' must be strictly complied by the parties. The Act is applicable to the partie? who profess Christian religion. However, if one of the parties profess Chritian faith it would give jurisdiction to the Court to give relief under 'the Act'. Dissolution of a marriage is a serious thing and the Court trying matrimonial cases should carefully follow the provisions of 'the Act'. The grounds on which a Christian marriage may be dissolved have been set forth in Section 10 of \"the Act\". Section 11 makes it obligatory on a husband, in a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery, to make the adulterer a co-respondent unless he is exempted or excused by the Court on one of the three grounds mentioned in the Section. Leave for such \"excuse\" must be applied for and duly obtained. Collusion to obtain a decree for dissolution of a marriage has been expressly prohibited under Section 12 of 'the Act'. Collusion in judicial proceeding is a...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "2. What is the standard of proof in a divorce proceeding? the expression \"satisfied on the evidence\" came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in E.J. Tahite v. Mrs. K.O White AIR 1958 SC 444. Their Lordships have held that the words imply that the duty of the Court is to pronounce a decree if satisfied that the case for the petitioner has been proved but dismiss the petition, if not satisfied. To prove a case, the evidence must be clear and satisfactory beyond the mere balance of probabilities and conclusive in the sense that it will satisfy what Sir William Scot described in Loveden v. Loveden (1810) 161 ER 648 as \"the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just man\". Their Lordships quoted with approval the observations of Lord Mac Dermott in Preston Jones v. Preston Jones, (1951) AC 391 at page 417, \"The jurisdiction in divorce involves the status of the parties and the public interest requires that the marriage bond shall not be set aside lightly or without strict enquiry. The terms of the statute recognise this plainly, and I think it would be quite out of keeping with the anxious nature of its provisions to...", "Decision": "7. As a result of the foregoing discussions we confirm the decree for dissolution of the marriage made by the learned Judge under Section 17 of the Act. However, there will be no order as to costs as the respondents have not turned up to contest the proceedings before this Court as well.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/756271/ | AIR1982GAU74, AIR 1982 GAUHATI 74, (1982) 2 DMC 362", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1981, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1982GAU74, AIR 1982 GAUHATI 74, (1982) 2 DMC 362", "Kanoon Doc ID": "756271", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/756271/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Gauhati High Court", "Case Title": "Smt. Baby Deb vs Ajit Deb on 12 October, 2007", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2007-10-12", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 111, Section 12, Section 13, Section 13A, Section 13B, Section 14, Section 15, Section 19, Section 2, Section 20, Section 21, Section 23, Section 24, Section 25, Section 26, Section 28, Section 401, Section 44, Section 482, Section 55, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19; Unsound Mind", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. The present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24-1-2007 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in T.S. (Divorce) No. 228 of 2008 indicating that a title suit for divorce was to be presented in the form of the plaint and since the relief claimed through such petition is declaratory in nature, therefore, the court-fee of Rs. 20/- has to be paid under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short ' Court Fees Act '). 3. The petitioner presented a petition, i.e. T.S. (Divorce) No. 228 of 2006, before learned Family Court on 18-5-2006 under Section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short called Hindu Marriage 'Act') for dissolution of marriage between the parties by way of decree of divorce. While presenting the petition for divorce court-fee of an amount of Re. 1/- was affixed by the petitioner but the Sheristradar of the Family Court reported deficit of court-fee of Rupees 19/- on the petition presented by the petitioner.", "Fact/ Respondent": "(a) A written statement of the grounds of complaint made to Court of law asking for the grievance to be redressed.", "Issues": "D) Whether the petitioner or opposite party is a minor or of unsound mind, a statement of that fact. E) The facts constituting the cause of action. F) The facts showing that the Court has jurisdiction. And also the relief claimed. And basically, these are the ingredients of a plaint which has to be covered in an application or petition. 7. The Trial Court below interpreted the terms 'Petition' on the basis of dictionary meaning holding that a petition is a formal written request, made to a Judge or a Superior, a document embodying such a formal request petition and application mean the same thing. 8. Serial 1(c), 17(iii) and Serial 20 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (Tripura) provide as under: 1. (c) Application or petition xx xx xx when presented to a Collector or other officer making a settlement of land revenue, or to the Chief...", "Petitioner Argument": "1. Heard Mr. C. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Debnath, learned Counsel for the opposite-party. At the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances this petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. The present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24-1-2007 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in T.S. (Divorce) No. 228 of 2008 indicating that a title suit for divorce was to be presented in the form of the plaint and since the relief claimed through such petition is declaratory in nature, therefore, the court-fee of Rs. 20/- has to be paid under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short ' Court Fees Act '). 35. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and I have perused the records and also gone through the relevant provisions of law and I find that though divorce has been sought for by presenting a Title Suit (Divorce) No. 228 of...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "27. The view taken by learned Family Court that word \"petition\" and \"application\" carry the same meaning and/or are same In Act relying on the decision of Nanjappa v. Vimala Devi AIR 1957 Mysore 44 is incorrect as the High Court has used the inter-changeability of the word, \"petition\" and \"application\" in respect of consideration of the respective stand of the parties in the interlocutory application and High Court in Nanjappa (supra) has not held that both \"petition\" and \"application\" are same and as such, the view of Family Court is erroneous. 28. It appears the legislature has used different words, e.g. petition and application for the appropriate purpose at different places in different sections of the Act. Somewhere the legislature have used \"upon application by petition\". A simple plain language and the word used in a statute has to be understood in the general form, for the purpose the legislature has used it. In my respectful consideration the word \"petition\" as well as \"application\" cannot be same and these are different as has been prescribed by the legislature in the 'Act'. When the language of section is very clear, it has to be given natural meaning. Different words used...", "Decision": "36. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154000/ | AIR2008GAU49, AIR 2008 GAUHATI 49, 2008 AIHC NOC 368, (2008) 5 GAU LR 903, (2008) MATLR 346, 2008 (3) AKAR (NOC) 358 (GAU.), 2008 AIHC (NOC) 368 (GAU.) = AIR 2008 GAUHATI 49", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19; unsound_mind", "Judgment Year": 2007, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR2008GAU49, AIR 2008 GAUHATI 49, 2008 AIHC NOC 368, (2008) 5 GAU LR 903, (2008) MATLR 346, 2008 (3) AKAR (NOC) 358 (GAU.), 2008 AIHC (NOC) 368 (GAU.) = AIR 2008 GAUHATI 49", "Kanoon Doc ID": "154000", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154000/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Gauhati High Court", "Case Title": "Salil Mochari vs Smti Bani Mochari on 25 February, 2020", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2020-02-25", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A, Section 125, Section 37, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010019512018 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Mat.App. 11/2018 1:SALIL MOCHARI S/O SRI SIMON MOCHARI R/O RLY QTR. NO.253/A CENTRAL GOTANAGAR, GOSHALA, MALIGAON P.S. JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI 781032 DIST KAMRUP(M),ASSAM. 1:SMTI BANI MOCHARI W/O SRI SALIL MOCHARI R/O KOKAJHAR, P.S.- KOKRAJHAR BARSAPARA INDUSTRIAL ROAD DIST KOKRAJHAR, BTAD, ASSAM AND C/O SRI SUMAN GAYARI RLY QTR.NO 1(A) CENTRAL GOTANAGAR, GOSHALA , MALIGAON P.S. JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI 781032 DIST KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R B BORA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S ALIM Linked Case : I.A.(Civil) 589/2020 1:BANI MOCHARI W/O. SRI SALIL MOCHARI R/O. KOKRAJHAR P.S. KOKRAJHAR BARSAPARA INDUSTRIAL ROAD DIST. KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM AND C/O. SRI SUMAN GAYARI RLY QTR. GHY-32 DIST. KAMRUUPU(M) ASSAM PRESENT ADD. R/O. WARD NO. 10 BODOLAND TRANSPORT P.O. AND DIST. KOKRAJHAR (BTR) ASSAM. 1:SALIL MOCHARI S/O. SRI SIMON MOCHARI R/O. RAILWAY QUARTER NO.253/A CENTRAL GOTANAGAR GOSHALA MALIGAON P.S. JALUKBARI GHY-32 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S ALIM Advocate for the Respondent : MRS. R B BORA -BEFORE- HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAI LAMBA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA 1. In deference to order dated 11.02.2020, a sum of ` 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) has been handed over by the...", "Fact/ Respondent": "Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010019512018 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Mat.App. 11/2018 1:SALIL MOCHARI S/O SRI SIMON MOCHARI R/O RLY QTR. NO.253/A CENTRAL GOTANAGAR, GOSHALA, MALIGAON P.S. JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI 781032 DIST KAMRUP(M),ASSAM. 1:SMTI BANI MOCHARI W/O SRI SALIL MOCHARI R/O KOKAJHAR, P.S.- KOKRAJHAR BARSAPARA INDUSTRIAL ROAD DIST KOKRAJHAR, BTAD, ASSAM AND C/O SRI SUMAN GAYARI RLY QTR.NO 1(A) CENTRAL GOTANAGAR, GOSHALA , MALIGAON P.S. JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI 781032 DIST KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R B BORA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S ALIM Linked Case : I.A.(Civil) 589/2020 1:BANI MOCHARI W/O. SRI SALIL MOCHARI R/O. KOKRAJHAR P.S. KOKRAJHAR BARSAPARA INDUSTRIAL ROAD DIST. KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM AND C/O. SRI SUMAN GAYARI RLY QTR. GHY-32 DIST. KAMRUUPU(M) ASSAM PRESENT ADD. R/O. WARD NO. 10 BODOLAND TRANSPORT P.O. AND DIST. KOKRAJHAR (BTR) ASSAM. 1:SALIL MOCHARI S/O. SRI SIMON MOCHARI R/O. RAILWAY QUARTER NO.253/A CENTRAL GOTANAGAR GOSHALA MALIGAON P.S. JALUKBARI GHY-32 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S ALIM Advocate for the Respondent : MRS. R B BORA -BEFORE- HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAI LAMBA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA", "Issues": "\"10A. Dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, a petition for dissolution of marriage may be presented to the District Court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement* of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of two years or more, that they have not been able to live together and they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "15. The marriage between the parties is hereby dissolved by mutual consent.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/65194385/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; unclear", "Judgment Year": 2020, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "65194385", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/65194385/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Patna High Court", "Case Title": "Rasan Trigun Barla vs Rilan Sandhya Toppno And Anr. on 2 April, 1998", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1998-04-02", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)for dissolution of his marriage with defendant No. 1 on the ground of adultery. The alleged adulterer was impleaded as defendant No. 2. In the suit notice were issued to the defendant, who appeared and prayed for time for filing written statement. But thereafter they remained absent, resulting in ex parte judgment dissolving the marriage of the plaintiff with defendant No. 1. The ex parte judgment was recalled on the application of defendant No. 1 under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure . Thereafter written statement was filed. On 15.10.1996 a joint application was filed by both the parties, i.e. husband and wife, in the Court below seeking dissolution of marriage and for passing consent decree of divorce. The Court below after hearing the parties decreed the suit in terns of the compromise. On 18.11.1996 the decree for dissolution of marriage was prepared. The said decree has been sent for confirmation under Sections 17 and 20 of the Act to this Court. 3. We have ourself perused the whole records of the case. It appears that the case for dissolution of marriage set up by the plaintiff has almost been admitted-by the defendants. There is neither...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)for dissolution of his marriage with defendant No. 1 on the ground of adultery. The alleged adulterer was impleaded as defendant No. 2. In the suit notice were issued to the defendant, who appeared and prayed for time for filing written statement. But thereafter they remained absent, resulting in ex parte judgment dissolving the marriage of the plaintiff with defendant No. 1. The ex parte judgment was recalled on the application of defendant No. 1 under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure . Thereafter written statement was filed. On 15.10.1996 a joint application was filed by both the parties, i.e. husband and wife, in the Court below seeking dissolution of marriage and for passing consent decree of divorce. The Court below after hearing the parties decreed the suit in terns of the compromise. On 18.11.1996 the decree for dissolution of marriage was prepared. The said decree has been sent for confirmation under Sections 17 and 20 of the Act to this Court.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "4. In view of the the facts and circumstances the case, we confirm the decree of divorce dated 17.10.1996/2.11.1996 passed by the 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in matrimonial Title Suit No. 24 of 1993. Divorce decree confirmed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1426023/ | [2005(2)JCR552(PAT)]", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 1998, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: [2005(2)JCR552(PAT)]", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1426023", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1426023/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Patna High Court", "Case Title": "Danda Samaul Raj vs Smt. Shila Agnush Raj And Anr. on 12 December, 1983", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1983-12-12", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for confirmation of the decree nisi for the dissolution of marriage granted by the learned District Judge, Giridih. 2. Danda Samaul Raj had preferred the petition against his wife, Smt. Shila Agnush Raj, averring that both of them were married according to the Christian rites in the Bijulia Baptist Church at Ramgarh in the district of Hazaribagh. Later, both of them lived together at Ramgarh as also at Pipradih within Gomia Police Station. Out of the said wedlock, two children, namely, Rajesh Niresh Raj and Manish Raj were born to them.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. Danda Samaul Raj had preferred the petition against his wife, Smt. Shila Agnush Raj, averring that both of them were married according to the Christian rites in the Bijulia Baptist Church at Ramgarh in the district of Hazaribagh. Later, both of them lived together at Ramgarh as also at Pipradih within Gomia Police Station. Out of the said wedlock, two children, namely, Rajesh Niresh Raj and Manish Raj were born to them.", "Issues": "6. The aforesaid evidence of the petitioner was corroborated by the testimony of Amar Bahadur Singh, A,W. 2. He deposed that he knew the parties for more than 5-6 years and the petitioner's wife was not living with him, but instead was living at Ramgarh. He narrated that about 1 or 1 1/2 years (ago) he had noticed the two respondents travelling together in a rickshaw and further when he talked to respondent No. 1, Shila Agnush Raj, and enquired whether she would return to the home of the petitioner at Gomia, she replied that she would live at Ramgarh and would continue to do so.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "10. In the result, I allow the reference and confirm the decree nisi.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/376042/ | AIR1985PAT139, AIR 1985 PATNA 139", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 1983, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1985PAT139, AIR 1985 PATNA 139", "Kanoon Doc ID": "376042", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/376042/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Patna High Court", "Case Title": "Binod Anand Lakra vs Smt. Belulah Lakra And Anr. on 2 March, 1982", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1982-03-02", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 26, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This case arises out of an application by the petitioner filed under Section 17 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) In 1978 he filed an application under Section 10 of the Act before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, who by his judgment dated 18-8-1979 granted a decree of divorce. The petitioner has now moved this Court for confirming the decree. 2. The petitioner and his wife, respondent No. 1, are Christians and were married in 1966 at a Church in Ranchi town. According to the petitioner's case he and his wife had been living at different places, all within the jurisdiction of the Ranchi Court and led a normal conjugal life for several years. In 1976 the petitioner discovered close friendly relationship between his wife and Umesh Sinha co-respondent in this case, which he did not like. The wife did not react reasonably when the petitioner protested. Their relation then started cooling down and she started neglecting and refusing to fulfil her matrimonial obligations. The petitioner went to his village home in January, 1978 and on his return on 22-1-1978, he found the co-respondent staying in their house. On the petitioner demanding an explanation, his wife told him that the co-respondent was looking after her on being invited to do so. The petitioner found certain...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The petitioner and his wife, respondent No. 1, are Christians and were married in 1966 at a Church in Ranchi town. According to the petitioner's case he and his wife had been living at different places, all within the jurisdiction of the Ranchi Court and led a normal conjugal life for several years. In 1976 the petitioner discovered close friendly relationship between his wife and Umesh Sinha co-respondent in this case, which he did not like. The wife did not react reasonably when the petitioner protested. Their relation then started cooling down and she started neglecting and refusing to fulfil her matrimonial obligations. The petitioner went to his village home in January, 1978 and on his return on 22-1-1978, he found the co-respondent staying in their house. On the petitioner demanding an explanation, his wife told him that the co-respondent was looking after her on being invited to do so. The petitioner found certain personal effects of the correspondent in the bed room, indicating that he was staying in the house even during the nights. This was confirmed by some friends and neighbours. In May, 1978 the co-respondent insulted the petitioner and openly declared his love for the respondent....", "Issues": "10. The house in which the couple were living belongs to the respondent's father. To give a ring of truth to his story, the petitioner stated in his evidence that he changed his residence after the incident and first stayed with his relative Mr. Kujur and thereafter in the Heavy Engineering Corporation's quarter where he is working. The respondent has asserted that the petitioner was living with her till 9-4-1980 when he after informing her about the present proceeding changed his residence. The change of residence is relevant for ascertaining the truth of the incident as also on the question whether the petitioner must be deemed to have condoned the respondent's misbehaviour (if found to be correct). The petitioner in the first instance did not explain as to why he cut his leave short to return back to Ranchi suddenly. In support of his case that he left the respondent's...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "14. In the result the decree nisi pronounced by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, is set aside, but the parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout This reference case is accordingly disposed of.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/345554/ | AIR1982PAT213, 1982(30)BLJR372, AIR 1982 PATNA 213, (1982) 2 DMC 128, (1982) MATLR 156, 1982 BBCJ 486, (1982) BLJ 416, 1982 MATLR 416, 1982 BLT (REP) 234, 1982 PATLJR 156, 1982 BLJ 128, 1982 BLJR 372, (1982) PAT LJR 314", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1982, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1982PAT213, 1982(30)BLJR372, AIR 1982 PATNA 213, (1982) 2 DMC 128, (1982) MATLR 156, 1982 BBCJ 486, (1982) BLJ 416, 1982 MATLR 416, 1982 BLT (REP) 234, 1982 PATLJR 156, 1982 BLJ 128, 1982 BLJR 372, (1982) PAT LJR 314", "Kanoon Doc ID": "345554", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/345554/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Patna High Court", "Case Title": "Mrs. Sweta Dcruz vs Vinod Joseph Sebestian on 5 October, 2026", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2026-10-05", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Miscellaneous Appeal No.83 of 2025 CNR No. BRHC010090932025 ====================================================== Mrs. Sweta Dcruz, Wife of Vinod Jaseph Sebestian, Daughter of Navin Kumar @ N. Deruz, Resident of Ward No-7, Jarahabhatha, Omnagar, Bilaspur, Municipal, Corporation, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh-495001 ... ... Appellant/s Vinod Joseph Sebestian, Son of K.J Sebestian Resident of 1/10 New Patloputra, Colony Church Road, Disrtict-Patna, Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sagar Suman, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rohitabh Das, Advocate ====================================================== and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI) Date: 05-10-2026 1. The instant matrimonial appeal is directed against the judgement and decree of dismissal of Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 5313 of 2014, decided by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Patna under Section 10(1) of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. 2/13 Patna High Court MA No. 83 of 2025 dt.05-10-2026 2. Indisputably, the marriage between the parties were solemnized on 24th of January, 2010 according to christian rights and ceremonies in a church at Patliputra Colony, Patna, Bihar. 3. The applicant / wife was a resident of Bilashpur in the State of Chhattisgarh. For the purpose of marriage, she along with her family members had to come to Patna and stay there for few days before marriage for solemnization of marriage. It is...", "Fact/ Respondent": "Miscellaneous Appeal No.83 of 2025 CNR No. BRHC010090932025 ====================================================== Mrs. Sweta Dcruz, Wife of Vinod Jaseph Sebestian, Daughter of Navin Kumar @ N. Deruz, Resident of Ward No-7, Jarahabhatha, Omnagar, Bilaspur, Municipal, Corporation, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh-495001 ... ... Appellant/s Vinod Joseph Sebestian, Son of K.J Sebestian Resident of 1/10 New Patloputra, Colony Church Road, Disrtict-Patna, Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sagar Suman, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rohitabh Das, Advocate ====================================================== and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI) Date: 05-10-2026 1. The instant matrimonial appeal is directed against the judgement and decree of dismissal of Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 5313 of 2014, decided by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Patna under Section 10(1) of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. 2/13 Patna High Court MA No. 83 of 2025 dt.05-10-2026 2. Indisputably, the marriage between the parties were solemnized on 24th of January, 2010 according to christian rights and ceremonies in a church at Patliputra Colony, Patna, Bihar. 3. The applicant / wife was a resident of Bilashpur in the State of Chhattisgarh. For the purpose of marriage, she along with her family...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (desertion) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "20. With the above order, the instant appeal is disposed of.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195485687/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "195485687", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195485687/", "Chunks Indexed": 1 }, { "Court": "Patna High Court", "Case Title": "Antala Gope Alias Antilal Gope vs Smt. Sarbo Gopain And Anr. on 27 April, 1962", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1962-04-27", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 13, Section 2, Section 20, Section 21, Section 25, Section 28, Section 34, Section 47, Section 75, Section 96", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This matter has come before us in the following circumstances. One Antalal Gope alias Antilal Gope filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce against Sarbo Gopain and impleaded another person as a co-respondent on the allegation that he had committed adultery with respondent No. 1, the applicant's wife. In that application, he had also asked for a damage of Rs. 500/- against respondent No. 2. His application failed so far as both the reliefs were concerned, and he has preferred an appeal to this Court, which has been numbered as First Appeal No. 228 of 1961. 2. The Stamp Reporter of this Court pointed out that, on the memorandum of appeal, the appellant was to pay a court-fee of Rs. 22.50 under Article 17 (vi) of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act so far as the relief of divorce was concerned. He was also of the view that the same court-fee was payable on the original application.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This matter has come before us in the following circumstances. One Antalal Gope alias Antilal Gope filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce against Sarbo Gopain and impleaded another person as a co-respondent on the allegation that he had committed adultery with respondent No. 1, the applicant's wife. In that application, he had also asked for a damage of Rs. 500/- against respondent No. 2. His application failed so far as both the reliefs were concerned, and he has preferred an appeal to this Court, which has been numbered as First Appeal No. 228 of 1961.", "Issues": "\"(1) any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party--(i) is living in adultery : etc\".", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "8. For the reasons given above, we are of the view that the memorandum of appeal arising out of an order passed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act either granting a decree for divorce or refusing the same will be treated as an appeal contemplated under Article 11 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act . The claim for money by way of damages will be liable to ad valorem court-fee.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120511/ | AIR1962PAT489, AIR 1962 PATNA 489, ILR 41 PAT 757", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1962, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1962PAT489, AIR 1962 PATNA 489, ILR 41 PAT 757", "Kanoon Doc ID": "120511", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120511/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Patna High Court", "Case Title": "Rabindra Prasad vs Sita Devi on 12 February, 1985", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1985-02-12", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 18, Section 23, Section 28, Section 29, Section 5", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This appeal arises out of a suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The divorce is at the instance of the husband. Divorce has been refused. Hence this appeal has been preferred under Section 28 of the said Act. The marriage admittedly was solemnised on 27-4-1977. 2. Four grounds were taken in support of suit for dissolution of marriage, namely, (a) on the date of the marriage the bridegroom did not complete the age of 18 years. He was only 17 years 5 months. The marriage, therefore, was solemnised in contravention of Section 5(iii) of the Act. (b) on 3rd of May, 1977 the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent, (c) The consent of the bridegroom and/or of the guardian was obtained by practising fraud; hence vitiated under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. The fact that the bride was suffering from physical infirmity i.e. she had no right breast was suppressed, (d) the bride was leading an adulterous life and, therefore, the marriage be dissolved under Section 13(1) of the Act.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This appeal arises out of a suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The divorce is at the instance of the husband. Divorce has been refused. Hence this appeal has been preferred under Section 28 of the said Act. The marriage admittedly was solemnised on 27-4-1977.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "19. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 250/-.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/431765/ | AIR1986PAT128, AIR 1986 PATNA 128, (1986) 1 CIV LJ 255, 1986 BBCJ 58, (1986) 2 DMC 31, (1985) 2 HINDULR 69, (1985) BLJ 737, (1986) 2 HINDULR 52", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1985, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1986PAT128, AIR 1986 PATNA 128, (1986) 1 CIV LJ 255, 1986 BBCJ 58, (1986) 2 DMC 31, (1985) 2 HINDULR 69, (1985) BLJ 737, (1986) 2 HINDULR 52", "Kanoon Doc ID": "431765", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/431765/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Patna High Court", "Case Title": "Saba Praveen vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 31 March, 2016", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2016-03-31", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 15, Section 164, Section 17, Section 18, Section 2, Section 24, Section 4, Section 482, Section 5, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Criminal Miscellaneous No.24990 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -376 Year- 2014 Thana -BODHGAYA District- GAYA =========================================================== 1. Saba Praveen wife of Arbind Paswan, daughter of Md. Kamrul Hoda resident of Mohalla - Manpur Koyali Pokhar, P.S. - Buniyadganj, District - Gaya at present resident of village - Rati Bigha, P.S. - Bodh Gaya, District - Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Md. Islam Ansari son of late Md. Siddik Ansari resident of village - Bakraur, P.S. - Bodh Gaya, District - Gaya. .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Adv. For the State : Mr. Raj Kishore Singh, APP For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Nagendra Kumar, Adv. =========================================================== ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 31-03-2016 By way of the present application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short „ CrPC ‟), the petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 30th April, 2015 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Cr. Revision No. 2/15/7/15, whereby he has affirmed the order dated 13th January, 2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya (for short „CJM‟) in Bodh Gaya P.S.Case No. 376 of 2014 by which...", "Fact/ Respondent": "Criminal Miscellaneous No.24990 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -376 Year- 2014 Thana -BODHGAYA District- GAYA =========================================================== 1. Saba Praveen wife of Arbind Paswan, daughter of Md. Kamrul Hoda resident of Mohalla - Manpur Koyali Pokhar, P.S. - Buniyadganj, District - Gaya at present resident of village - Rati Bigha, P.S. - Bodh Gaya, District - Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Md. Islam Ansari son of late Md. Siddik Ansari resident of village - Bakraur, P.S. - Bodh Gaya, District - Gaya. .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Adv. For the State : Mr. Raj Kishore Singh, APP For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Nagendra Kumar, Adv. =========================================================== ORAL JUDGMENT", "Issues": "19. A marriage under Muslim law is perfectly valid if parties have attained puberty and satisfied all other conditions specified by law. The law with regard to marriage with a non-Muslim is different under Sunni law and Shia law. A Muslim woman cannot marry a non- Muslim man. A marriage of a Muslim female with a non-Muslim male, whether he is a Christian, or a Jew or an Idolater or a Fire- worshipper is not permissible. According to Mulla, such marriage is irregular. But according to Fyzee, such a marriage is totally void. Under Shia law a marriage with a non-Muslim is void. Both the spouses are required to be Muslims. 20. In India, marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim can only take place under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 . 25. In the present case, this court has already held the orders passed by the courts below in...", "Petitioner Argument": "24. Coming back to the facts of the present case, an argument has been advanced by Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, a Muslim girl has married one Arbind Paswan, a Hindu boy in a temple. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the opinion that such a marriage is neither permissible under the Hindu Law nor under the Muslim Law. It has got no legal sanctity. It is an admitted position that the marriage was not performed under the Act of 1954.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "37. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the application is allowed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/74359794/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2016, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "74359794", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/74359794/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Patna High Court", "Case Title": "Ranjana Mina (Simen) Jones vs Arun Kumar Stauly Jones on 16 December, 2016", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2016-12-16", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 100, Section 17, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Matrimonial Reference No.1 of 2007 =========================================================== Ranjana Mina (Siman) Jones, wife of Arun Kumar Stauly Jones, resident of Mohalla- Nawada, Government Ministerial Quarter No. 29A, Nawada, near Railway Station Arrah, P.O.- Arrah, District- Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Arun Kumar Stauly Jones, son of Mr. Stanly Jones, at Mohalla- Gazadharganj, Near Railway Station- Buxar, P.O.- Buxar, P.S.- Buxar, District- Buxar. .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Bandana Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : =========================================================== and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 16-12-2016 The present reference has been sent by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur, Arrah on 24th of February, 2007 for confirmation of decree of divorce in Divorce Suit No. 33/98 instituted on 2nd of November, 1998.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Matrimonial Reference No.1 of 2007 =========================================================== Ranjana Mina (Siman) Jones, wife of Arun Kumar Stauly Jones, resident of Mohalla- Nawada, Government Ministerial Quarter No. 29A, Nawada, near Railway Station Arrah, P.O.- Arrah, District- Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Arun Kumar Stauly Jones, son of Mr. Stanly Jones, at Mohalla- Gazadharganj, Near Railway Station- Buxar, P.O.- Buxar, P.S.- Buxar, District- Buxar. .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Bandana Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : =========================================================== and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "7. As a consequence thereof, since the decree for divorce granted by the District Judge is legal and valid and requires no confirmation and has come into force from the day it was granted, the reference is thus not required to be answered.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61469909/ | AIR 2017 PATNA 105, (2017) 1 RECCIVR 1006, (2017) 171 ALLINDCAS 703 (PAT), (2017) 2 CIVLJ 33, (2017) 2 KER LT 39, (2017) 1 PAT LJR 282", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2016, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR 2017 PATNA 105, (2017) 1 RECCIVR 1006, (2017) 171 ALLINDCAS 703 (PAT), (2017) 2 CIVLJ 33, (2017) 2 KER LT 39, (2017) 1 PAT LJR 282", "Kanoon Doc ID": "61469909", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61469909/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur", "Case Title": "Shri N.D. Mantri vs Smt. Kamla Mantri on 11 November, 1980", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1980-11-11", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 19, Section 28, Section 3, Section 488", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Nullity Sec19; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (No. XXV of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the decree dated February 12, 1979 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 5-A/76, by which, he dismissed the petition for divorce filed by the appellant under Section 13 read with Section 10 of the Act. 2. The husband-appellant filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 read with Section 10 of the Act before the District Judge, Jodhpur on July 11, 1974. The wife-respondent filed her reply on October 9, 1977. Thereafter, the petition was amended by the husband and the amended petition was filed on May 15, 1978. The reply to the amended petition was filed on July 5, 1978. The petition was, however, transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur for disposal.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The husband-appellant filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 read with Section 10 of the Act before the District Judge, Jodhpur on July 11, 1974. The wife-respondent filed her reply on October 9, 1977. Thereafter, the petition was amended by the husband and the amended petition was filed on May 15, 1978. The reply to the amended petition was filed on July 5, 1978. The petition was, however, transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur for disposal.", "Issues": "5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issue were framed by the learned Additional District Judge on July 29, 1978: 1. Whether Non-Petitioner has throughout her marital career with the petitioner acted in a manner which caused him such mental agony which amounted to cruety? (P) 2. Whether the conduct of the Non-Petitioner with the Petitioner during their married life has been such as occasioned the Petitioner physical and mental ill-health? (P) 3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to divorce? (P) 4. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the petition? (P) 5. Whether the application has not been filed bonafide and the petitioner is taking benefit of his own wrong? 6. Whether the petitioner has condoned the wrong of the non-petitioner upto 1968? 7. Relief. The appellant examined himself as P.W. 1, Suraj Narain Rathi, (P.W. 2) Girdharsingh, (P.W. 3) Om Prakash, (P.W. 4)...", "Petitioner Argument": "4. The appellant was married to the respondent in May, 1944 at Ramsar Village, District Ajmer according to the Hindu customs. According to the respondent, the marriage was solemnsed in the Year 1942 or 1944. After solemnisation of the marriage, the appellant lived with the respondent periodically and also cohabited with her occasionally, at Srinagar, District Ajmer from 1944 to 1950, 1951, 1953, 1955, 1957 to 1962, 1963 to 1967. As a result of that, they have nine issues (seven sons and two daughters). The appellant has stated that at intervals, the respondent in 1946, 1948, 1952, 1956 and 1968 made several accusations and as a result of that he had to lead life alone. He has further stated that the respondent treated him with cruelty, by abusing, using filthy language and hurling all sort of defamatory accusations and thus made his life miserable both in private and public. Such instances, according to the appellant, took place at Ajmer in 1946, 1948, 1952 and at Jodhpur in the Year 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1967. It was also stated that the...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "23. The result is that this appeal has no force and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as costs of this appeal.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1344413/ | 1980WLN584", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; nullity_sec19; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1980, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1980WLN584", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1344413", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1344413/", "Chunks Indexed": 13 }, { "Court": "Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur", "Case Title": "Babulal And Ors. vs Otmal on 19 September, 1983", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1983-09-19", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 18, Section 25, Section 27, Section 35, Section 45, Section 5, Section 76, Section 86", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The alleged debtors Babulal and others have filed this appeal against the order of the learned District Judge, Jalore, dated 26-2-83, directing the return of the application of the creditor for adjudicating the appellants insolvents, for proper presentation. 5. So far as the first contention goes, the earned Counsel has strenuously urged that under the Act, the only provision for disposing of an application is under Section 25 and that does not envisage a return of the application. He also contended that the provisions of Order 7, Rule 10 CPC would not be applicable to an application under the Act with the aid of Section 5 of the Act. In this connection, he has placed reliance upon a few authorities to which f presently refer. He also specifically drew my attention to Section 12 , 14 , 18 , 19 and 27 of the Act. In my opinion, the contention of the earned Counsel for the appellants cannot be sustained. Section 5 of the Act clearly provides that subject to the provisions the Act, the Court, in regard to proceedings under this Act, shall have the same powers and shall follow the same procedure as it has and follows in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction. Then Section 12 of the Act provides for the verification of the insolvency...", "Fact/ Respondent": "5. So far as the first contention goes, the earned Counsel has strenuously urged that under the Act, the only provision for disposing of an application is under Section 25 and that does not envisage a return of the application. He also contended that the provisions of Order 7, Rule 10 CPC would not be applicable to an application under the Act with the aid of Section 5 of the Act. In this connection, he has placed reliance upon a few authorities to which f presently refer. He also specifically drew my attention to Section 12 , 14 , 18 , 19 and 27 of the Act. In my opinion, the contention of the earned Counsel for the appellants cannot be sustained. Section 5 of the Act clearly provides that subject to the provisions the Act, the Court, in regard to proceedings under this Act, shall have the same powers and shall follow the same procedure as it has and follows in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction. Then Section 12 of the Act provides for the verification of the insolvency petition in the same manner as is prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure fur signing and verifying plaints....", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "10. The result, therefore, is that this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs in this court.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1791873/ | 1983WLN408", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 1983, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1983WLN408", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1791873", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1791873/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur", "Case Title": "Smt. Edvina Samuel vs Abhishek Walter (2025:Rj-Jd:19348) on 21 April, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-04-21", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 24", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "[2025:RJ-JD:19348] JODHPUR S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 190/2024 Smt. Edvina Samuel W/o Shri Abhishek Walter, Aged About 31 Years, D/o Shri Shashi Samuel Resident Of Plot No 66, Sector 4 , Navdurga Vihar, Jhalamand, Jodhpur ----Petitioner Abhishek Walter S/o Late Shri Sunil Walter, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Plot No 28, Mission Compound, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahesh Joshi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT 1. The instant civil transfer application has been filed by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of Case No.165/2024 \"Abhishek Walter Vs. Edvina Samuel\" preferred by the respondent-husband under Section 10 of the Divorce Act seeking divorce pending before Family Court No.1, Jaipur Metro to the Family Court, Jodhpur.", "Fact/ Respondent": "[2025:RJ-JD:19348] JODHPUR S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 190/2024 Smt. Edvina Samuel W/o Shri Abhishek Walter, Aged About 31 Years, D/o Shri Shashi Samuel Resident Of Plot No 66, Sector 4 , Navdurga Vihar, Jhalamand, Jodhpur ----Petitioner Abhishek Walter S/o Late Shri Sunil Walter, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Plot No 28, Mission Compound, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahesh Joshi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "(Downloaded on 24/04/2025 at 09:50:08 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37988096/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "37988096", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37988096/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur", "Case Title": "Veena Danial vs Sunil Danial on 26 July, 1993", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1993-07-26", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This reference has been made by the Distt. Judge. Bharatpur for confirming the decree nisi passed in favour of the appellant against the respondent. The respondent and the appellant were married in accordance with the Christian Rites in June, 1984. Shortly, after the marriage the respondent in order to satisfy his lust asked the appellant to have intercourse with him by indulging in sodomy. She resisted but the respondent succeeded in committing sodomy with the appellant. Thereafter, appellant left the place of her husband and come to her mother's house in Bharatpur in December, 1984. The respondent thereafter came to Bharatpur to take her. The mother of the appellant intervened and wanted to settle the matter in between them. But she could not succeed as a result whereof the appellant and the respondent could not have marital relations. The appellant, thereafter, filed an application before the Distt, Judge Bharat-our for passing of a decree for dissolution of marriage. The learned Distt. Judge issued notice to the respondent of the application. But that returned unserved The appellant produced evidence to prove the allegations made by her in the application. The Court was satisfied that she was entitled to a decree and granted the same of which confirmation had been sought by the Distt. Judge from the High Court by this...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This reference has been made by the Distt. Judge. Bharatpur for confirming the decree nisi passed in favour of the appellant against the respondent. The respondent and the appellant were married in accordance with the Christian Rites in June, 1984. Shortly, after the marriage the respondent in order to satisfy his lust asked the appellant to have intercourse with him by indulging in sodomy. She resisted but the respondent succeeded in committing sodomy with the appellant. Thereafter, appellant left the place of her husband and come to her mother's house in Bharatpur in December, 1984. The respondent thereafter came to Bharatpur to take her. The mother of the appellant intervened and wanted to settle the matter in between them. But she could not succeed as a result whereof the appellant and the respondent could not have marital relations. The appellant, thereafter, filed an application before the Distt, Judge Bharat-our for passing of a decree for dissolution of marriage. The learned Distt. Judge issued notice to the respondent of the application. But that returned unserved The appellant produced evidence to prove the allegations made by her in the application. The Court was satisfied that she was entitled to a decree...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "3. In the result, the reference application is allowed and the decree of divorce granted by the Court below is confirmed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/951643/ | I(1994)DMC375", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 236)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 1993, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: I(1994)DMC375", "Kanoon Doc ID": "951643", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/951643/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur", "Case Title": "Smt. Veena Danial vs Sunil Danial on 26 July, 1991", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1991-07-26", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This reference has been made by the Distt. Judge, Bharatpur for confirming the decree nisi passed in favour of the appellant against the respondent. The respondent and the appellant were married in accordance with the Christian Rites in June, 1984. Shortly, after the marriage the respondent in order to satisfy his lust asked the appellant to have intercourse with him by indulging in sodomy. She resisted but the respondent succeeded in committing sodomy with the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant left the place of her husband and came to her mother's house in Bharatpur in December, 1984. The respondent thereafter came to Bharatpur to take her. The mother of the appellant intervened and wanted to settle the matter in between them. But she could not succeed as a result whereof, the appellant and the respondent could not have marital relations. The appellant, thereafter, filed an application before the Distt. Judge Bharatpur for passing of a decree for dissolution of marriage. The learned Distt. Judge issued notice to the respondent of the application. But that returned unserved. The appellant produced evidence to prove the allegations made by her in the application. The court was satisfied that she was entitled to a decree and granted the same of which confirmation had been sought by the Distt. Judge from the High Court by...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This reference has been made by the Distt. Judge, Bharatpur for confirming the decree nisi passed in favour of the appellant against the respondent. The respondent and the appellant were married in accordance with the Christian Rites in June, 1984. Shortly, after the marriage the respondent in order to satisfy his lust asked the appellant to have intercourse with him by indulging in sodomy. She resisted but the respondent succeeded in committing sodomy with the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant left the place of her husband and came to her mother's house in Bharatpur in December, 1984. The respondent thereafter came to Bharatpur to take her. The mother of the appellant intervened and wanted to settle the matter in between them. But she could not succeed as a result whereof, the appellant and the respondent could not have marital relations. The appellant, thereafter, filed an application before the Distt. Judge Bharatpur for passing of a decree for dissolution of marriage. The learned Distt. Judge issued notice to the respondent of the application. But that returned unserved. The appellant produced evidence to prove the allegations made by her in the application. The court was satisfied that she was entitled to a...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "3. In the result, the reference application is allowed and the decree of divorce granted by the court below is confirmed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/820397/ | 1992(1)WLC84, 1991(2)WLN325", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 235)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 1991, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1992(1)WLC84, 1991(2)WLN325", "Kanoon Doc ID": "820397", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/820397/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur", "Case Title": "Darshan Singh vs Mst. Daso on 3 August, 1979", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1979-08-03", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 13, Section 13B, Section 16, Section 2, Section 21, Section 23, Section 25, Section 26, Section 28, Section 37, Section 55, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Partly_Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 17-10-1978 passed by the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, whereby the appellant's petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\"), was dismissed and the petitioner-appellant was ordered to pay maintenance to the non-petitioner-respondent for herself and her daughter to the tune of Rs. 300/- per month. 2. The appellant's case was that the parties were married about seven years ago according to Hindu rites. They lived as husband and wife at Chak 3 M.D., Tehsil Anupgarh, and a daughter was born out of the wedlock. About three years ago, the non-petitioner left the company of the petitioner without any reasonable excuse and went to her parents. Despite several efforts, she did not return to her matrimonial home. The non-petitioner admitted the other facts as averred by the petitioner. She, however, denied the allegations made against her with regard to leaving the company of the petitioner without any reasonable excuse. After traversing these allegations, it was averred by her that the petitioner in her absence married one Mst. Puni about 3-4 years ago without her consent and when her father came to leave her at the petitioner's house, the petitioner refused to accept her. The non-petitioner had no alternative, but under compulsion had to go...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 17-10-1978 passed by the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, whereby the appellant's petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\"), was dismissed and the petitioner-appellant was ordered to pay maintenance to the non-petitioner-respondent for herself and her daughter to the tune of Rs. 300/- per month.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "5. I have heard Shri M. L. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and Shri S. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the non-petitioner-respondent. 6. As regards the relief of restitution of conjugal rights, Shri Garg has not seriously contested the appeal and in my opinion, rightly so. The finding of the learned District Judge on issue No. 1, relating to second marriage by the petitioner, is unimpeachable. The petitioner has led no evidence and as such there was no escape for the learned District Judge except to hold that the petitioner married a second wife and on that basis further it has been found that there was reasonable cause for the non-petitioner not to live with the petitioner. The statement of Mst. Daso and her father Jangir-singh {D. W. 3) were to the effect that the non-petitioner was turned out from the house and not accepted by the petitioner in view of his second marriage, although Mst. Daso stated that she is still prepared to live with the petitioner, provided she is kept with love. There are no reasons to...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "20. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The decree of the learned District Judge dismissing the appellant's petition for restitution of conjugal rights shall stand. However, the order granting maintenance is set aside. Under the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/388485/ | AIR1980RAJ102, 1979()WLN412", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 1979, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1980RAJ102, 1979()WLN412", "Kanoon Doc ID": "388485", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/388485/", "Chunks Indexed": 14 }, { "Court": "Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur", "Case Title": "Chistopher Andrew Neelakantan vs Mrs. Anne Neelakantan on 23 February, 1959", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1959-02-23", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 27, Section 31, Section 39, Section 96", "Legal Topics": "Desertion", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a miscellaneous first appeal against an order of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, dated the 2nd December, 1958, under Section 39 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, (No. XLIII of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a divorce matter. 2. The petitioner is the husband Chistopher Andrew Neelakantan. His case is that he is a citizen of India and is an officer in the Air Force of the Government of India, and has been holding the post of Wing Commander in the Air Force at Jodhpur for the past several years. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the respondent Mrs. Anne Neela-kantan were married in England on the 20th Febru-ary, 1955, and a copy of the certificate of marriage (Annexure I) is produced in support of this.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The petitioner is the husband Chistopher Andrew Neelakantan. His case is that he is a citizen of India and is an officer in the Air Force of the Government of India, and has been holding the post of Wing Commander in the Air Force at Jodhpur for the past several years. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the respondent Mrs. Anne Neela-kantan were married in England on the 20th Febru-ary, 1955, and a copy of the certificate of marriage (Annexure I) is produced in support of this.", "Issues": "7. Again, in Dicey's Conflict of Laws, Seventh Edition, Chapter XII at page 289, it has been laid down that the principles now finally adopted by English courts is that jurisdiction in matters of divorce depends upon domicile, or, in other words, the question whether parties to a marriage ought to be divorced is one which concerns the community of the country where they live and have their legal home, and, therefore, it is the courts of the country where the parties are so living at the time of the demand for divorce to which should be referred the question whether the marriage between the parties should or should not be dissolved. 8. This, to my mind, clearly establishes the principle that it is the court of domicile which will have jurisdiction to deal with a matter like the present. Thus again at page 103 of his book on Private...", "Petitioner Argument": "4. The contention o£ learned counsel, however, is that the matter should not be held to be concluded by this. His submission is that it is well-established that on general principles it is the court of domicile which has or can have jurisdiction in matters of divorce. It is further argued that a woman on her marriage acquires the domicile of her husband. From this it is contended that the respondent acquired an Indian domicile in spite of the fact that she is an English woman and has never been to India.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "15. The result of the above discussion is that in my view the application of the petitioner should not have been thrown out summarily by the learned District Judge as it has been, and, consequently, I allow this appeal and send the case back to the learned District Judge with a direction to restore it to its original number and dispose of it in accordance with law.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/359575/ | AIR1959RAJ133", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion", "Judgment Year": 1959, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1959RAJ133", "Kanoon Doc ID": "359575", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/359575/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur", "Case Title": "Purshotam Kewalia vs Smt. Devki on 26 September, 1972", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1972-09-26", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 144, Section 15, Section 2, Section 21, Section 23, Section 25, Section 37, Section 47, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Desertion", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a husband's appeal directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Bikaner dated 25-2-1970 whereby the learned Judge dis-missed the husband's application under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter to be referred as the \"Act\", for judicial separation and while dismissing the application the learned Judge awarded an amount of Rs. 40/- per month as permanent maintenance to the wife under Section 25 of the Act. 2. The appellant Purshotam Kewalia and Smt. Devki respondent were married according to Hindu rites in July, 1937. At that tune they were both children, while the husband was 15, the wife was 10 years of age. According to the husband, the wife started living with the husband's parents at Jaisalmer and at that time the husband's relatives came to know that the wife was mentally deranged and was of violent nature. Then the wife had left her in-laws some two or three days thereafter without informing anyone and for no cause. The wife never returned to her husband and there was no cohabitation between the couple at any time. The husband proceeded to state that he continued to make efforts to fetch his wife, but the wife did not show her willingness to return. According to the husband, the wife did not even communicate with him...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a husband's appeal directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Bikaner dated 25-2-1970 whereby the learned Judge dis-missed the husband's application under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter to be referred as the \"Act\", for judicial separation and while dismissing the application the learned Judge awarded an amount of Rs. 40/- per month as permanent maintenance to the wife under Section 25 of the Act.", "Issues": "2. The appellant Purshotam Kewalia and Smt. Devki respondent were married according to Hindu rites in July, 1937. At that tune they were both children, while the husband was 15, the wife was 10 years of age. According to the husband, the wife started living with the husband's parents at Jaisalmer and at that time the husband's relatives came to know that the wife was mentally deranged and was of violent nature. Then the wife had left her in-laws some two or three days thereafter without informing anyone and for no cause. The wife never returned to her husband and there was no cohabitation between the couple at any time. The husband proceeded to state that he continued to make efforts to fetch his wife, but the wife did not show her willingness to return. According to the husband, the wife did not even communicate with him for almost 22...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "8. In the result, I allow this appeal in part. While the order of the learned District Judge for the dismissal of the husband's application for judicial separation shall stand, his order granting maintenance to the wife is set aside. Since no one has appeared to oppose this appeal. I leave the appellant to bear his own costs.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1381097/ | AIR1973RAJ3, 1972()WLN654", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion", "Judgment Year": 1972, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1973RAJ3, 1972()WLN654", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1381097", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1381097/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur", "Case Title": "Chhaganlal vs Smt. Sakkha Devi And Anr. on 6 April, 1974", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1974-04-06", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14, Section 23, Section 24, Section 25, Section 28", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree for Judicial Separation Granted", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This appeal is brought under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter to be referred as the \"Act\" by a husband against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Ajmer, dated 30-11-1972 whereby the learned District Judge passed a decree for judicial separation against the appellant-husband in favour of his wife Smt. Sakkha Devi and at the same time ordered the husband to pay interim maintenance to the wife at Rs. 30/- per month under Section 24 of the Act. 2. The petition under Section 10 of the Act was made by the wife Smt. Sakkha Devi on 28-2-1968. It was averred by her that Chhaganlal appellant and Smt. Sakkha Devi were married according to the Hindu rites in April, 1953 and that the parties lived together happily as husband and wife in village Tabijee near Ajmer till the month of October, 1963. Since October, 1963. the relations between the two spouses were strained. It was further averred by the wife that the husband had developed illicit intimacy with one Smt. Savari. a married woman, sometime in July, 1963. The coming in of a second woman between the two spouses resulted in the husband, being cruel to the wife. He was alleged to have behaved in a most insulting manner towards the wife and he disgraced her...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This appeal is brought under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter to be referred as the \"Act\" by a husband against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Ajmer, dated 30-11-1972 whereby the learned District Judge passed a decree for judicial separation against the appellant-husband in favour of his wife Smt. Sakkha Devi and at the same time ordered the husband to pay interim maintenance to the wife at Rs. 30/- per month under Section 24 of the Act.", "Issues": "4. The learned District Judge framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:-- \"1. Whether the respondent No. 1 developed illegal intimacy with respondent No. 2 in July 1963 and is leading an adulterous life with her ? 3. Whether the respondent No. 2 is entitled to special damages ? 4. What should the relief be ?\" \"As regards the question whether the adultery on the part of the wife has been established the learned Additional District Judge is no doubt, right in saying, that it is not necessary to prove the fact of adultery toy direct evidence. It would be unreasonable to expect direct evidence and such evidence, if produced, would be normally suspect and is likely to be discarded. Normally the matrimonial offence of adultery is expected to be established by circumstantial evidence, but in that event the circumstances must be such as...", "Petitioner Argument": "2. Whether the respondent No. 1 is guilty of cruelty towards the petitioner as alleged in para 4 of the petition; and, if so, its effect ?", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "13. In the result, therefore, I dismiss Chhagan Lal's appeal qua grant of interim maintenance, but allow it so far as the decree for judicial separation is concerned. The decree for judicial separation granted in favour of Smt. Sakkha Devi is reversed and her application for judicial separation is ordered to be dismissed. There will be", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1739277/ | AIR1975RAJ8, 1974(7)WLN301", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1974, "Relief Status": "judicial_separation", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1975RAJ8, 1974(7)WLN301", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1739277", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1739277/", "Chunks Indexed": 12 }, { "Court": "Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur", "Case Title": "B.D. Charles vs Smt. Nora Benjamin And Anr. on 26 March, 1979", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1979-03-26", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 17, Section 28, Section 34, Section 47, Section 497, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. F. B. Civil Misc. Reference (Divorce) No. 120 of 1978 has come up before us exercising jurisdiction over matrimonial causes under Sec, 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (No. IV of 1869) (for short, 'the Act' hereafter) for confirmation of a decree nisi passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated January 3, 1978. S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 32 of 1978 under Sec. 55 of the Act is directed against the aforesaid order of the learned District Judge by which he awarded Rs. 1,000/- as damages to the petitioner-husband by the appellant-non-petitioner No. 2 (alleged adulterer). The reference and the appeal were heard together. As common questions of law and fact are involved, it is convenient to decide them by a common judgment. 2. B. D. Charles is the husband, Smt. Nora Benjamin is his wife and Ravikumar Goswami is the alleged adulterer, who will hereafter be referred to as the 'husband', 'the wife' and 'the adulterer' respectively. In the petition of the husband under Sec. 10 of the Act, the wife and the adulterer were impleaded as non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The case of the husband is that he and his wife are Christians and they were married in Tudala City, District Agra on Oct. 20, 1958 according to Christian rites and that...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. F. B. Civil Misc. Reference (Divorce) No. 120 of 1978 has come up before us exercising jurisdiction over matrimonial causes under Sec, 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (No. IV of 1869) (for short, 'the Act' hereafter) for confirmation of a decree nisi passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated January 3, 1978. S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 32 of 1978 under Sec. 55 of the Act is directed against the aforesaid order of the learned District Judge by which he awarded Rs. 1,000/- as damages to the petitioner-husband by the appellant-non-petitioner No. 2 (alleged adulterer). The reference and the appeal were heard together. As common questions of law and fact are involved, it is convenient to decide them by a common judgment.", "Issues": "1. Whether non-petitioner No. 1 (wife) has been living in adultery with non-petitioner No. 2 (adulterer) for more than three years ? 2. Whether non-petitioner No. 1 (wife) and non-petitioner No. 2 (adulterer) lived in adultery with the connivance of the petitioner (husband) and whether the petitioner has condoned the same ? 3. Relief. 14. It is well settled that condonation means forgiveness of all such material offences which are known to or believed by the offended spouse so as to restore, between him/her and the offending spouse, the position which existed prior to the commission of the matrimonial offence, i.e. restoration between them the status quo ante. It is equally well settled that whether or not there has been condonation is a question of fact in every case. 15. Connivance in the cases of adultery is such conduct by one spouse as intentionally or recklessly allowing the adultery on...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "17. For the reasons mentioned above, we confirm the findings of the learned District Judge, which he recorded in respect of issues Nos. 1 and 2. There appears to be no collusion between the husband and the wife. On the basis of the evidence led in the case, the learned District Judge was right in granting a decree for dissolution of the marriage as prayed for by the husband on the ground that the wife has been guilty of adultery.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/724500/ | AIR1979RAJ156", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 245)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1979, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1979RAJ156", "Kanoon Doc ID": "724500", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/724500/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur", "Case Title": "Vinay Kumar vs Smt. Purnima Devi on 15 September, 1972", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1972-09-15", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 24", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a husband's appeal directed against an order of the learned District Judge, Jhunihunu, dated 22-12-1971 awarding pendente lite maintenance to the respondent wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter to be referred as the \"Act\", during the trial of the application moved by the wife under Section 10 of the Act for judicial separation. 2. Respondent Smt. Purnima Devi had filed the application against the appellant-husband in the court of the learned District Judge under Section 10 of the Act. The respondent also filed the application under Section 24 of the Act on 26-7-1971. She averred in this application that she had no movable or immovable property and had no source of income. As regards the appellant's income she averred that his monthly income was Rs. 400/-. Therefore, she prayed that an amount of Rs. 125/- per month be granted to her as pendente lite maintenance and Rs. 561/- be awarded as litigation expenses. The appellant-husband contested the application. He submitted that his own income was only Rs. 200/- per month and that the respondent wife had been earning rupees 4 to 5 daily on account of tailoring or sewing work.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a husband's appeal directed against an order of the learned District Judge, Jhunihunu, dated 22-12-1971 awarding pendente lite maintenance to the respondent wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter to be referred as the \"Act\", during the trial of the application moved by the wife under Section 10 of the Act for judicial separation.", "Issues": "\"The various elements prescribed in the section must be enquired into and it is the bounden duty of the Court to record findings after enquiry on each of the elements and then come to the conclusion whether interim maintenance and expenses of the proceeding should be awarded. The learned District Judge failed to exercise his jurisdiction in refusing to go into this question on the ground that a consolidated sum of Rupees 100/- had already been received by the petitioner to defray the expenses. Judicial determination cannot be deferred on other consideration. The order under appeal cannot be upheld\". It is true, the various elements prescribed in the section have to be inquired into, but I am afraid, the mode of inquiry need not always be as in the case of the trial of a regular suit or for that matter regarding the main petition. The mode of inquiry normally...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the learned District Judge had a wide discretion in the matter and he could pass an order on the basis of the affidavits that were before him and it was not necessary for him to record any evidence of the parties. He further submitted that whereas the wife had filed a proper affidavit in support of her application, the affidavit filed by the husband in answer is defective in the extreme as it does not conform to the requirements of Order 19, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code in that the deponent had not disclosed what paragraphs of the affidavit were based on his personal knowledge end what paragraphs were based on his belief; the deponent having said in one breath that the several paragraphs in the affidavit were true to his knowledge find belief. Learned counsel then pointed out that this amount of Rs. 55/- per month covers both maintenance as well as expenses of litigation and in the circumstances is reasonable.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "11. The result is that the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The parlies are, however, left to bear their own costs.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157107/ | AIR1973RAJ32, 1972()WLN698", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 1972, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1973RAJ32, 1972()WLN698", "Kanoon Doc ID": "157107", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157107/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur", "Case Title": "Pankaj Bhatnagar vs Smt. Shanti Devi @ Pappi & Anr on 22 August, 2013", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2013-08-22", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 23, Section 24, Section 25, Section 28, Section 3, Section 420, Section 498A", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "[1] JODHPUR (1) S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.212/2001 Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Pankaj (2) S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.776/1999 Pankaj Bhatnagar Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi & Anr. Appeals under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act ::P R E S E N T:: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. M.D. Boob, for the appellant-wife. Mr. Shatish Sharma, for the respondent-husband. *** Reportable BY THE COURT: These two appeals under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') are directed against the judgment and decree and order dated 20.08.1999 under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1955 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.1, Bikaner, involving matrimonial dispute between the rival parties and therefore both are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.", "Fact/ Respondent": "[1] JODHPUR (1) S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.212/2001 Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Pankaj (2) S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.776/1999 Pankaj Bhatnagar Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi & Anr. Appeals under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act ::P R E S E N T:: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. M.D. Boob, for the appellant-wife. Mr. Shatish Sharma, for the respondent-husband. *** Reportable BY THE COURT:", "Issues": "On the basis of pleadings of the rival parties, the learned trial Court framed following issues for determination: 1. आय व पक द न क 05.12.87 स अक रण प र स अलग जयपर म रह रह ह और उसन प र क! मपतय सबध& स च(त ककय हआ ह। यद ऐस ह त! कय प र व ह व च/ क0 ड2क0 प न क अचधक र ह ? 2. आय य च(क म रण5त तथय& क आध र पर व पक क वय ह र प र क स र क8रत प8ण5 रह ह। यद ऐस ह त! कय प र व ह व च/ क0 ड2क0 प न क अचधक र ह ? 3. रस ? After framing of the issues by the learned trial Court, the rival parties tendered their evidence. On conclusion of the evidence of both the parties, the learned trial Court heard final...", "Petitioner Argument": "Assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 7th of May 1998, the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. M.D. Boob has strenuously argued that the learned Court below has not appreciated the evidence tendered by the rival parties in right perspective and therefore the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the appellant would urge that the respondent-husband has miserably failed to prove physical and mental cruelty against the appellant inasmuch as according to learned counsel, no evidence has been tendered on behalf of the respondent to show that conduct of the appellant was of [8] such type that it was not reasonably expected from the respondent to live with her. Mr. Boob has contended that there is no evidence worth the name tendered by the respondent indicating that the treatment accorded to him by the appellant has caused such apprehension in his mind so as to think that cohabitation with the appellant would be harmful or injurious and it is not reasonably possible for the respondent to live with the appellant in such circumstances. The learned counsel for...", "Respondent Argument": "9. Shyam Sunder Kohli V/s. Sushma Kohli @ Satya Devi 2005 (1) CCC 85 (SC) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- husband has vociferously defended the impugned judgment and decree and submitted that the learned court below has thrashed out the matter in its right perspective and that being so it has rightly passed the decree for annulment of marriage. Buttressing his submissions with full emphasis, the learned counsel for the respondent would urge that on meaningful consideration of the statement of the respondent and other supporting witnesses, there remains [10] no room of doubt that appellant has failed to discharge her marital obligations and has treated the respondent with cruelty. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that a cumulative reading of the evidence tendered by the respondent clearly goes to show that appellant has always adopted a stubborn posture and cultivated the habit of leaving matrimonial home from time to time on trifle matters. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the appellant never maintained cordial relations with the respondent as well as his family...", "Factors to be Considered": "19. This, in our opinion, is as well the law in this country under the Act. 20. The other matter is this. Once desertion, as defined earlier, is established there is no obliga- tion on the deserted husband (taking the case where he is the deserted spouse) to appeal to the deserting spouse to change her mind, and the circumstance that the deserted husband makes no effort to take steps to effect a reconciliation with the wife does not debar him from obtaining the relief of judicial separation, for once deser- tion is proved the deserting spouse, so long as she evinces no sincere intention to effect a rec- onciliation and return to the matrimonial home, is presumed to continue in desertion, of course, the matter would wear a different complexion and different considerations would arise where before the end of the statutory period of 2 years or even thereafter before the filing of the petition for judicial separation the conduct of the desert- ed spouse was such as to make the deserting spouse desist from making any attempt at recon- ciliation. If he or she so acts as to make it plain to the deserting spouse that any offer...", "Decision": "81. Some jurists have also expressed their apprehension for introduction of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for grant of the decree of divorce. In their opinion, such an amendment in the Act would put human ingenuity at a premium and throw wide open the doors to litigation, and will create more problems then are sought to be solved.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17731280/ | AIR 2014 RAJASTHAN 59, (2014) 3 DMC 700, (2014) 133 ALLINDCAS 3 (RAJ), (2014) 4 CIVILCOURTC 520, (2014) 3 WLC(RAJ) 767, 2014 (133) ALLINDCAS 3 SOC, (2014) 1 RAJ LW 899", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2013, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR 2014 RAJASTHAN 59, (2014) 3 DMC 700, (2014) 133 ALLINDCAS 3 (RAJ), (2014) 4 CIVILCOURTC 520, (2014) 3 WLC(RAJ) 767, 2014 (133) ALLINDCAS 3 SOC, (2014) 1 RAJ LW 899", "Kanoon Doc ID": "17731280", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17731280/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur", "Case Title": "Chand Narain Gautam vs Smt. Saroj Gautam on 1 November, 1974", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1974-11-01", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 18, Section 24, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Captain Chand Narain Gautam, the appellant before us, obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights from the court of the learned District Judge, Jaipur. Smt. Saroj Gautam, the wife of the appellant, appealed to this Court against that decree and the learned single Judge reversed the same, aggrieved by which the husband comes up in an appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. 2. It is not disputed that Captain Chand Narain Gautam and Smt. Saroj Gautam, hailing from Brahmin families, were married at Bundi on February 11, 1963. They have no issue from this union. At the time of marriage the husband held a Master's Degree in English Literature while the wife was studying in the final year of the Bachelor of Arts. She also obtained later a Master's degree in Political Science. The husband after marriage obtained a Commission in the Army and the couple came to live at Panjim (Gpa) and Panchmarhi (M. P.) and last resided together at Chaksu near Jaipur. The husband is now employed in the Border Security Force.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. Captain Chand Narain Gautam, the appellant before us, obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights from the court of the learned District Judge, Jaipur. Smt. Saroj Gautam, the wife of the appellant, appealed to this Court against that decree and the learned single Judge reversed the same, aggrieved by which the husband comes up in an appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance.", "Issues": "In Oldroyd v. Oldroyd ((1896) P. 175)) the test laid down is whether it has become a practical impossibility for the two spouses to live together.", "Petitioner Argument": "14. Before we come to examine the facts of this case on the principles aforesaid, we might dispose of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant is correct that the pleadings in the present case leave much to be desired. It is time that it was recognised that cruelty is a matter specifically within the knowledge of the complaining party and it was, therefore, right that every specie of cruelty in respect of which evidence is proposed to be led should be specifically pleaded. But we cannot equally ignore the principle that muffasil pleadings as a matter of necessity are to be liberally construed. The wife has not pleaded, it is correct, the husband's drunkenness on the first night after their wedding but such a fact was elicited in cross-examination. But even if this fact is ignored for the sake of argument then too, as we shall presently see, there is plenty of material to come to the conclusion to which the learned single Judge had reached. The argument of variance between...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "15. It was also argued on behalf of the appellant, relying on Earnest John White v. Mrs. Kathleen Olive White , AIR 1958 SC 441 that the quantum of evidence required in matrimonial matters is the same as is required in a criminal charge. White 's case has founded its reasoning on the observations of Sir William Scott in Preston Jones v. Preston Jones, (1951 AC 391 at p. 417),-- 'The jurisdiction in divorce involves the status of the parties and the public interest requires that the marriage bond shall not be set aside lightly or without strict enquiry. The terms of the statute recognise this plainly, and I think it would be quite out of keeping with the anxious nature of its provisions, to hold that the Court might be 'satisfied' in respect of a ground for dissolution, with something less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. I should, perhaps, add that I do not base my conclusion as to the appropriate standard of proof on any analogy drawn from the criminal law, I do not think it is possible to say, at any rate since the decision of this House in Mordaunt v. Moncreiffee, ((1874) 30 LT 649) that...", "Decision": "9. The remedy of restitution of conjugal rights owes its origin to the Ecclesiastical Courts of the West. Such courts by a decree of restitution of conjugal rights compelled the recalcitrant spouse to discharge the due obligations towards the complaining spouse. For disobedience of such a decree the punishment in the Ecclesiastical Courts was by way of excommunication but by a statute of George III imprisonment was substituted. Later in England the remedy was recognised by the various Matrimonial Causes Acts passed from time to time and we might add that with effect from 1-1-1970 the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights is no longer available in England.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/522159/ | AIR1975RAJ88, 1974(7)WLN808", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1974, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1975RAJ88, 1974(7)WLN808", "Kanoon Doc ID": "522159", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/522159/", "Chunks Indexed": 12 }, { "Court": "Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur", "Case Title": "B.D. Charles vs Smt. Nora Benjamin And Anr. on 26 March, 1979", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1979-03-26", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 17, Section 28, Section 31, Section 34, Section 47, Section 497, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. FB Civil Misc Reference (Divorce) No. 120 of 1978 has come up before us exercising jurisdiction over matrimonial causes under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (No. IV of 1869)(for short, 'the Act' hereafter) for confirmation of a decree nisi passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated January 3, 1978 SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 32 of 1978 under Section 55 of the Act is directed against the aforesaid order of the learned District Judge by which he awarded Rs. 1,000/- as damages to the petitioner-husband by the appellant-non-petitioner No. 2 (alleged adulterer). The reference and the appeal were heard together. As common questions of law and fact are involved, it is convenient to decide them by a common judgment. 2. BD Charles is the husband, Smt. Nora Benjamin is his wife and Ravikumar Guswsami is the alleged adulterer, who will hereafter be referred to as 'the husband', 'the wife' and 'the adulterer' respectively. In the petition of the husband under Section 10 of the Act, the wife and the adulterer were impleaded as non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The case of the husband is that he and his wife are Chirstians & they were married in Tudala City, District Agra on October 20, 1958 according Christian rites and that out of this wedlock, Savita...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. FB Civil Misc Reference (Divorce) No. 120 of 1978 has come up before us exercising jurisdiction over matrimonial causes under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (No. IV of 1869)(for short, 'the Act' hereafter) for confirmation of a decree nisi passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated January 3, 1978 SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 32 of 1978 under Section 55 of the Act is directed against the aforesaid order of the learned District Judge by which he awarded Rs. 1,000/- as damages to the petitioner-husband by the appellant-non-petitioner No. 2 (alleged adulterer). The reference and the appeal were heard together. As common questions of law and fact are involved, it is convenient to decide them by a common judgment.", "Issues": "1. Whether bon petitioner No. 1 (wife) has been living in adultery with non-petitioner Np. 2 (adulterer) for more than three years? 2. Whether non-petitioner No. 1 (wife) and non-petitioner No. 2 (adulterer) lived in adultery with the connivance of the petitioner (husband) and whether the petitioner has condoned the same? 3. Relief. 14. It is well settled that condonation, means forgiveness all such material offences which are known to or believed by the offended spouse so as to restore, between him/her & the offending spouse, the position which existed prior to the commission of the matrimonial offence i.e. restoration, between them the status quo ante. It is equally well settled that whether or not there has been condonation is as question of act in every case. 15. Connivance in the cases of adultery is such conduct by one spouse as intentionally or recklessly allowing the adultery on the part...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "17. For the reasons mentioned above, we confirm the findings of the learned District Judge, which he recorded in respect of issue Nos. 1 and 2. There appears to be no collusion between the husband and the wife. On the basis of the evidence led in the case, the learned District Judge was right in granting a decree for dissolution of the marriage as prayed for by the husband on the ground that the wife has been guilty of adultery.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1625359/ | 1979WLN217", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 241)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1979, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 1979WLN217", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1625359", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1625359/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur", "Case Title": "Ajay Pram vs Smt. Abha Pram on 14 March, 2005", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2005-03-14", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A, Section 14, Section 151, Section 36", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. This appeal under Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act, 1869') read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order, dated 24.8.2004 of the learned Family Court No. 1, Jaipur. Under the impugned order the learned Family Court allowed the application filed by the respondent wife and directed to husband to pay to her Rs. 1000/- per month maintenance allowance; Rs. 1000/- for litigation expenses and Rs. 300/- for expenses towards her appearance in the court for each date to and fro Ajmer-Jaipur with one assistant. 3. During the pendency of the appeal the parties have settled their dispute and agreed to get their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent; accordingly they filed a joint application under Section 10A of the Act, 1869. The compromise entered into between the parties have been attested by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) under the directions of the Court.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. This appeal under Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act, 1869') read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order, dated 24.8.2004 of the learned Family Court No. 1, Jaipur. Under the impugned order the learned Family Court allowed the application filed by the respondent wife and directed to husband to pay to her Rs. 1000/- per month maintenance allowance; Rs. 1000/- for litigation expenses and Rs. 300/- for expenses towards her appearance in the court for each date to and fro Ajmer-Jaipur with one assistant.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (mutual consent 10A) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "10. The learned Trial Court is directed to draw a decree of divorce accordingly in the matter.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1134759/ | RLW2005(3)RAJ2022", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; unclear", "Judgment Year": 2005, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: RLW2005(3)RAJ2022", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1134759", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1134759/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Sandeep Malachi Son Of Shri L.D. Malachi ... vs State Of H.P. And Another ... on 22 April, 2015", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2015-04-22", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 307, Section 34, Section 482, Section 498", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": ". Cr.MMO No. 185 of 2014 ________________________________________________________ Sandeep Malachi son of Shri L.D. Malachi & others ....Petitioners State of H.P. and another ....Non-petitioners ________________________________________________________ The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana, J. petitioner No. 1 and non-petitioner No. 2 solemnized their marriage on dated 15.4.2005 at Shimla in accordance with Christian rites. It is pleaded that out of wedlock no issue was born and both parties resided together as husband and wife at Chandigarh upto 21.4.2006 when non-petitioner No. 2 left the matrimonial house and both parties are residing separately from each other after 21.4.2006. It is pleaded that thereafter non-petitioner No. 2 filed complaint against petitioner No.1 and further pleaded that thereafter criminal case under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC was registered in P.S. (East) Shimla vide FIR No. 196/2006 on dated 4.4.2007. It is pleaded that thereafter challan was filed before learned CJM Shimla and case No. 41-2 of 2007 is pending for disposal. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner No.1 and non-", "Fact/ Respondent": "petitioner No. 1 and non-petitioner No. 2 solemnized their marriage on dated 15.4.2005 at Shimla in accordance with Christian rites. It is pleaded that out of wedlock no issue was born and both parties resided together as husband and wife at Chandigarh upto 21.4.2006 when non-petitioner No. 2 left the matrimonial house and both parties are residing separately from each other after 21.4.2006. It is pleaded that thereafter non-petitioner No. 2 filed complaint against petitioner No.1 and further pleaded that thereafter criminal case under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC was registered in P.S. (East) Shimla vide FIR No. 196/2006 on dated 4.4.2007. It is pleaded that thereafter challan was filed before learned CJM Shimla and case No. 41-2 of 2007 is pending for disposal. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner No.1 and non-", "Issues": "Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. ______________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate. For Non-petitioner No.1: Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Additional Advocate General. for quashing of FIR No.196 of 2006 dated 4.4.2007 registered under Sections 498-A / 34 IPC at P.S. (East) Shimla H.P. with further prayer for quashing the proceedings of criminal case 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. No. 41-2 of 2007 titled State of H.P. vs. Sandeep and others pending disposal before learned CJM Shimla. It is pleaded that .", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "April 22,2015 (P.S. Rana) ms. Judge ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:02:14 :::HCHP", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23445856/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2015, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "23445856", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23445856/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Sandeep Daniel vs Mary David on 5 July, 2019", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2019-07-05", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 125, Section 2001", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Conversion", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Decided on: 5.7.2019 . Sandeep Daniel .....Appellant Mary David .....Respondent The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the appellant: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral) CMP No. /2019 By medium of this application, the parties have jointly prayed that the present proceedings be converted to the one under Section 10(A) of the Divorce Act, 1869, which is applicable to the parties and reads as under:­ \"10A Dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Decided on: 5.7.2019 . Sandeep Daniel .....Appellant Mary David .....Respondent The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the appellant: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral)", "Issues": "IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (HMA) No.2/2019 Decided on: 5.7.2019 . Sandeep Daniel .....Appellant Versus Mary David .....Respondent Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the appellant: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, a petition for dissolution of marriage may be 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes( ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:24:51 :::HCHP 2 presented to the District Court by both the parties to a 2 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized allowed andbefore the FAO No. 2/2019 or after is ordered oftothe the commencement be Indian converted to Divorce .", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "7 Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the marriage between the parties is dissolved under Section 10(A) of the Indian Divorce Act leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173661105/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; conversion", "Judgment Year": 2019, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "173661105", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173661105/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Smt. Shushila Devi vs Dhani Ram And Anr. on 10 July, 1964", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1964-07-10", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 24, Section 28", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This appeal is directed against an order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Bilaspur, awarding maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings, to the appellant. 2. The appellant had filed a petition, under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for judicial separation, from respondent No. 1, her husband. She had, also, moved an application, under Section 24 of the Act, for the grant of maintenance pendente lite, and expenses of the proceedings. It was alleged, in the application, that the appellant was poor and had no independent income to support herself and for the necessary expenses of the proceedings and that respondent No. 1 was a rich man and his monthly income was Rs. 500/- The appellant had prayed that she be granted maintenance of Rs. 100/- per mensem, pendente lite, and a sum of Rs. 500/-, as expenses of the proceedings.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The appellant had filed a petition, under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for judicial separation, from respondent No. 1, her husband. She had, also, moved an application, under Section 24 of the Act, for the grant of maintenance pendente lite, and expenses of the proceedings. It was alleged, in the application, that the appellant was poor and had no independent income to support herself and for the necessary expenses of the proceedings and that respondent No. 1 was a rich man and his monthly income was Rs. 500/- The appellant had prayed that she be granted maintenance of Rs. 100/- per mensem, pendente lite, and a sum of Rs. 500/-, as expenses of the proceedings.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "13. The stay granted, on 8-11-63 is hereby vacated.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/850708/ | AIR1965HP12", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 1964, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1965HP12", "Kanoon Doc ID": "850708", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/850708/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Kubja Devi vs Shri Ishwar Dass on 24 November, 2016", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2016-11-24", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 13, Section 23, Section 25, Section 40, Section 6, Section 60, Section 61", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": ". Kubja Devi. ......Appellant. Shri Ishwar Dass. ......Respondent. of rt The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. For the appellant : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Megha Kapur Gautam, Advocate. Appellant, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, is divorced wife of the respondent. She is aggrieved by the order Mandi in an application under Section 25(2) of Hindu Marriage Act registered as HMP No. 30 of 2005 whereby her prayer for enhancement of maintenance allowance/alimony amount from `450/- per month to `6000/- per month has been dismissed.", "Fact/ Respondent": ". Kubja Devi. ......Appellant. Shri Ishwar Dass. ......Respondent. of rt The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. For the appellant : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Megha Kapur Gautam, Advocate.", "Issues": "IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO(HMA) No. 138 of 2010. . Date of decision: November 24, 2016. Kubja Devi. ......Appellant. Versus Shri Ishwar Dass. ......Respondent. of Coram rt The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. For the appellant : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Megha Kapur Gautam, Advocate. Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral) Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes. 2. The facts are not in controversy. The petitioner was admittedly wife of the respondent. The petitioner-wife had filed . 3. Learned trial Judge has framed the following issues in the petition: . 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the alimony amount, if so, to what extent? OPR 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 3. Whether the petition is...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "November 24, 2016, (vs) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:37:04 :::HCHP", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33713263/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2016, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "33713263", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33713263/", "Chunks Indexed": 18 }, { "Court": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Mt. Padma vs Parma Ram on 6 May, 1959", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1959-05-06", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 22, Section 24, Section 28, Section 488, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree for Judicial Separation Granted", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. These two appeals can be conveniently disposed of by means of one judgment. Misc. First Appeal 22 of 59 arises out of a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, instituted by Mt. Padma against her husband, Parma Ram, for judicial separation (case No. 74 instituted in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi, exercising powers of a District Court under the above Act on 27-5-1958). Misc. First Appeal No. 23 of 59 arises out of a petition under Section 9 (case No. 63 for restitution of conjugal rights) instituted by Parma Ram against Mt. Padma in the same Court on 28-4-1958. The learned Judge granted Parma Ram's petition, but dismissed that of Mt. Padma, by means of his judgments D/-6-2-1959. Aggrieved by these decisions, Mt. Padma has come up in appeal under Section 28 of the Act in both cases. Mt. Padma was married to Parma Ram some years ago and there is a child of the marriage. The marriage was what is known as an exchange marriage, i. e., while Mt. Padma was married to Parma Ram, Parma Ram's sister, Mt. Vidya was married to Saran, brother of Mt. Padma. Mt. Padma's case was that Mt. Vidya had contracted liaison with Nokhu and declined to live with her husband, Saran. Parma Ram put...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. These two appeals can be conveniently disposed of by means of one judgment. Misc. First Appeal 22 of 59 arises out of a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, instituted by Mt. Padma against her husband, Parma Ram, for judicial separation (case No. 74 instituted in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi, exercising powers of a District Court under the above Act on 27-5-1958). Misc. First Appeal No. 23 of 59 arises out of a petition under Section 9 (case No. 63 for restitution of conjugal rights) instituted by Parma Ram against Mt. Padma in the same Court on 28-4-1958. The learned Judge granted Parma Ram's petition, but dismissed that of Mt. Padma, by means of his judgments D/-6-2-1959. Aggrieved by these decisions, Mt. Padma has come up in appeal under Section 28 of the Act in both cases. Mt. Padma was married to Parma Ram some years ago and there is a child of the marriage. The marriage was what is known as an exchange marriage, i. e., while Mt. Padma was married to Parma Ram, Parma Ram's sister, Mt. Vidya was married to Saran, brother of Mt. Padma.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "The Court below has not relied upon this incident on the ground that it did not find a place in Mt. Padma's written-statement in case No. 63 of 58. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that it was not necessary tor Mt. Padma to enumerate in her written-statement details of the evidence to be produced by her later on at the trial. In case No. 74 of 1958, the trial Court has held that the incident of Magh, 2014 (when Mt. Padma was beaten by Parma Ram resulting in injuries to her nose) was condoned by her subsequent conduct in continuing to live with Parma Ram. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that condonation, if any, by Mt. Padma was conditional upon the future good behaviour of Parma Ram and if the offences were repeated, the right to make the condoned offences a ground for divorce would revive. Reliance was placed upon Morena v. Morena, ILR 47 Cal 1068, where a Division Bench of that High Court remarked that: \"Condonation of past matrimonial offences...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "It was, therefore, pleaded that Parma Ram went ia search of her and finding her on the road near Pandoh, was merely persuading her to return. From the statements of Phandi, cleaner (and Dila Ram and Dr. Om Parkash in case No. 74 of 58) it is evident that something more than persuasion had been used by Parma Ram, i. e. Mt. Padma was dragged and slapped. I am unable to agree with the trial Court that this incident cannot be deemed to be an act of such cruelty as could cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of Mt. Padma that it would be injurious for her to go back to her husband's house.", "Decision": "13. To sum up, therefore, I am satisfied that Mt. Padma was justified in apprehending that it would be harmful and injurious for her to live with Parma Ram. It, therefore, follows that she was entitled to a decree for judicial separation under Section 10(1)(b) of the Act and as a necessary corollary it follows that Parma Ram's petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 should fail.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/287442/ | AIR1959HP37", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1959, "Relief Status": "judicial_separation", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1959HP37", "Kanoon Doc ID": "287442", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/287442/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Sunil Dutt Sharma vs Sangeeta Sharma on 18 August, 2015", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2015-08-18", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 3, Section 406", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Reserved on: 17.8.2015 Decided on. 18.8.2015 . _________________________________________________________________ Sunil Dutt Sharma ..Appellant Sangeeta Sharma ..........Respondent _________________________________________________________________ of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 yes. For the Appellant rt : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge: 2. \"Key facts\" necessary for the adjudication of the on 19.10.1994 at Amritsar, Punjab. Parties lived together at Dharamshala and Thakurdwara District Kangra after marriage. A daughter was born on 11.6.1996. Parties lived happily at Dharamshala till 24.12.1996 lastly at Thakurdwara at Kangra.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Reserved on: 17.8.2015 Decided on. 18.8.2015 . _________________________________________________________________ Sunil Dutt Sharma ..Appellant Sangeeta Sharma ..........Respondent _________________________________________________________________ of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 yes. For the Appellant rt : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge:", "Issues": "IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO(HMA) No. 415/2007 Reserved on: 17.8.2015 Decided on. 18.8.2015 . _________________________________________________________________ Sunil Dutt Sharma ..Appellant Versus Sangeeta Sharma ..........Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Coram: of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 yes. For the Appellant rt : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated 11.7.2007 rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh in HMP No. 18-P/04/01. 2. \"Key facts\" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are marriage between the parties was solemnised on 19.10.1994 at Amritsar, Punjab. Parties lived together at Dharamshala and Thakurdwara District Kangra after marriage. A daughter was born on 11.6.1996. Parties lived happily at Dharamshala till 24.12.1996 lastly at Thakurdwara at Kangra. Whether the reporters of the local papers may...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Respondent in her statement has categorically deposed that appellant and his family members used to harass her for bringing insufficient dowry. She has even paid Rs. 25,000 from GPF to the appellant. Respondent remained admitted in PGI for 5 months and appellant has not cared to look after her. He has not paid any money towards the treatment of the respondent. Respondent was constrained to file complaint against the appellant about ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:46:19 :::HCHP 9 harassment meted out to her. It was her legal right to file complaint before the senior superintendent of police. Now, as far as proceedings under section 406 and 498A IPC are concerned, . she was within her legal right to file the same. Appellant has filed proceedings before Punjab and Haryana High Court for quashing the proceedings, however High Court Punjab and Haryana has not quashed the proceedings instituted against him initially at of Amritsar, which was transferred to Gurdaspur. These proceedings as per the record are still pending. Onus was on the appellant to prove that he was subjected to cruelty by the respondent. rt Averments made in petition are vague and sketchy. No tangible evidence has been led by...", "Decision": "Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge August 18, 2015 (vikrant) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:46:19 :::HCHP", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/130847643/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2015, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "130847643", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/130847643/", "Chunks Indexed": 24 }, { "Court": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Prabhat Singh vs Maya Devi on 6 August, 2015", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2015-08-06", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 125, Section 13, Section 3, Section 498", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Reserved on: 5.8.2015 Decided on. 6.8.2015 . _________________________________________________________________ Prabhat Singh ..Appellant Maya Devi ..........Respondent _________________________________________________________________ of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No. For the Appellant rt : Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo _________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge: 2. \"Key facts\" necessary for the adjudication of the Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent for dissolution of marriage. Marriage between the parties was solemnised in the month of November, 1988 according to the Hindu rites and customs. A male child Ishwar Dass was borne in 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:42:47 :::HCHP 2 the year 1994. Initially behaviour of the respondent was cordial with the appellant for abut 4-5 years. Thereafter, her behaviour changed towards the appellant and his family members. Appellant .", "Fact/ Respondent": "Reserved on: 5.8.2015 Decided on. 6.8.2015 . _________________________________________________________________ Prabhat Singh ..Appellant Maya Devi ..........Respondent _________________________________________________________________ of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No. For the Appellant rt : Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo _________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge:", "Issues": "IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO(HMA) No. 263/2015 Reserved on: 5.8.2015 Decided on. 6.8.2015 . _________________________________________________________________ Prabhat Singh ..Appellant Versus Maya Devi ..........Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Coram: of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No. For the Appellant rt : Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo _________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated 8.5.2015 rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh in HMA No. 32/12/11. which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical the court will have no problem to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental the problem presents difficulty. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment. Second, the impact of such treatment in the mind...", "Petitioner Argument": "4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and . also gone through the judgment carefully. 5. Marriage was solemnised between the parties in November, 1988. Appellant has led evidence by filing affidavit Ext. PW-1/A He retired from Indian Army in the year 2006. He has of never kept respondent with him during his entire service period. He used to come to his house for 15-20 days in a year. Son was born after five years of marriage. He used to send his salary to his rt mother. He has denied the suggestion that his mother and two brothers used to beat the respondent. He had gone to bring his wife home in 1998, 2002 and 2005 with Pradhan Khyali Ram and Ward Member Murli Ram. However, respondent did not come back. 6. PW-2 Ashok Kumar deposed that respondent used to leave his house without any reason and demanded his entire salary. However, he did not know in which year, respondent has gone to her parental house and when appellant has gone to bring her back. 7. PW-3...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Appellant used to consumer liquor. His mother filed cases under Section 498-A and 323 IPC and Section 125 CrPC against appellant at Dalhausie. He was studying at Government Senior Secondary School Ghulara. 10. RW-3 Yudhveer Singh also furnished his evidence in the shape of affidavit Ext. RW-3/A. According to him, in 2001, father of respondent Roshan Lal came to his house and stated that . his son-in-law who has come on leave and under the influence of liquor gave beatings to his daughter. A complaint was filed before the Panchayat. Appellant told the Chowkidar that matter has been compromised. On 8.4.1011, respondent filed a written complaint of to him pertaining to beatings given by appellant to her. He sent the complaint to the Police Post Sihunta. 11. RW-4 Mukh Ram has proved petition Ext. RW-4/A, rt reply Ext. RW-4/B and compromise Ext. RW-4/C. 12. RW-5 HHC Jaram Singh has proved Ext. RW-5/A. 13. Appellant has admitted that he has never kept respondent with him. Though he has stated that he used to send money to his wife but there is no proof of the same. According to him, respondent has left the matrimonial home in the year 2001 and he...", "Decision": "\"Under Section 10 (1) (a) a decree for judicial separation can be granted on the ground that the other party has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. According to the Explanation the expression \"desertion\" with its grammatical variation and cognate expression means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:42:47 :::HCHP 27 such party and includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage. The argument raised on behalf of the wife is that the husband had contracted a second marriage on May .", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182881949/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2015, "Relief Status": "judicial_separation", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "182881949", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182881949/", "Chunks Indexed": 14 }, { "Court": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Chanchal Rana vs Vibha Tanu Shree Pathania on 24 May, 2024", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2024-05-24", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 106, Section 128, Section 165, Section 20, Section 24, Section 28, Section 340, Section 5, Section 6, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Chandel and Mr. Kamaljeet Sharma, Advocates. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Satyen Vaidya, Judge The petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 02.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Una, District Una, H.P. in case No. 205/2023 whereby the application of respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been granted.", "Fact/ Respondent": "------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Satyen Vaidya, Judge The petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 02.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Una, District Una, H.P. in case No. 205/2023 whereby the application of respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been granted.", "Issues": "Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Chandel and Mr. Kamaljeet Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Mohit Jaitak, Advocate. 2. Petitioner has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce against respondent, which is pending adjudication before learned Additional Principal 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order?", "Petitioner Argument": "Judge-II, Family Court, Una. It is alleged by the petitioner that his marriage with respondent, that had taken place on 16.01.2020, could not be consummated and the respondent . has been alleged to be responsible therefor. As averred in the petition for divorce, the petitioner had submitted an application dated 2.11.2020 to Secretary, DLSA, Una for counselling of the parties and respondent in particular but on the same day, respondent had left the matrimonial home parents. r to forever and since then has been residing in the house of her", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "(Satyen Vaidya) 24th May, 2024 Judge (GR) ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:29 :::CIS", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114911119/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2024, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "114911119", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114911119/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Mahender Baroor vs Reena Kumari Alias Bhawna on 31 March, 2015", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2015-03-31", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 125, Section 13, Section 3, Section 34, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Mahender Baroor ......Appellant. Reena Kumari alias Bhawna .......Respondent. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the appellant: Mr. J.R.Poswal Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. 2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) has instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the respondent. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 27.2.2004 according to Hindu rites and customs. A son and daughter were born out of the wed lock. According to the averments contained in the petition, the respondent had been using abusive and filthy language and thereby created unhealthy atmosphere at home. She also threatened the petitioner and his family members with dire consequences. The appellant's father had allotted them a separate house, however, the respondent never used to clean the house. She had been leaving the matrimonial house without any information. False complaints were filed by the respondent against the appellant and his family members.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Mahender Baroor ......Appellant. Reena Kumari alias Bhawna .......Respondent. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the appellant: Mr. J.R.Poswal Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate.", "Issues": "Mahender Baroor ......Appellant. Versus Reena Kumari alias Bhawna .......Respondent. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the appellant: Mr. J.R.Poswal Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Rajiv Sharma, J (oral). This FAO is directed against the judgment dated 14.5.2014, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P. in HMA No. 18/3 of 2008. the English law those essential conditions must continue throughout the course of the three years immediately preceding the institution of the suit for divorce, under the Act, the period is four years without specifying that it should immediately precede the commencement of proceedings for divorce. Whether the omission of the last clause has any ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:55:37 :::HCHP 7 practical result need not detain us, as it does not call for decision in the present case. Desertion is a...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) has instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the respondent. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 27.2.2004 according to Hindu rites and customs. A son and daughter were born out of the wed lock. According to the averments contained in the petition, the respondent had been using abusive and filthy language and thereby created unhealthy atmosphere at home. She also threatened the petitioner and his family members with dire consequences. The appellant's father had allotted them a separate house, however, the respondent never used to clean the house. She had been leaving the matrimonial house without any information. False complaints were filed by the respondent against the appellant and his family members. 3. The petition was contested by the respondent. She denied the averments made in the petition. She has never threatened the appellant . with dire consequences; rather she was ill-treated by the appellant and his parents. She has never demanded separate house. She was turned out of the matrimonial home in September, 2008. She was neither provided proper food nor...", "Decision": "\"Under Section 10 (1) (a) a decree for judicial separation can be granted on the ground that the other party has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. According to the Explanation the expression \"desertion\" with its grammatical variation and cognate expression means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party and includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage. The argument raised on behalf of the wife is that the husband had contracted a second marriage on May 17, 1955. The petition for judicial separation was filed on August 8, 1955 under the Act which came into force on May 18, 1955. The burden under the section was on the husband to establish that the wife had deserted him for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. In the presence of the Explanation...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3277500/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2015, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "3277500", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3277500/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "______________________________________________________ vs Sneh Lata on 19 August, 2015", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2015-08-19", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 125, Section 13, Section 3", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "rt Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Appellant : Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate. 2. \"Key facts\" necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 5.5.1995 according to Hindu ritual, rites and custom prevalent in the area. Appellant has filed petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. According to the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:46:35 :::HCHP 2 appellant, conduct of the respondent always remained arrogant, cruel and quarrelsome. Respondent without any .", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. \"Key facts\" necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 5.5.1995 according to Hindu ritual, rites and custom prevalent in the area. Appellant has filed petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. According to the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:46:35 :::HCHP 2 appellant, conduct of the respondent always remained arrogant, cruel and quarrelsome. Respondent without any .", "Issues": "rt Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Appellant : Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo. ____________________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.5.2015 rendered by the Additional District Judge- Shimla in Case No.12-R/3 of 2010. elements in the two spouses respectively. Here a difference between the English law and the law as enacted by the Bombay Legislature may be pointed out. Whereas under the English law those essential conditions must continue throughout the course of the three years immediately preceding the institution of the suit for divorce, under the Act, the period is four years without specifying that it should immediately precede the commencement of proceedings for divorce. Whether the omission of the of last clause has any practical result need not detain us, as it does not call for decision in the present case. Desertion is...", "Petitioner Argument": "5. Mr. Anuj Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that his client has been subjected to cruelty by the respondent. Respondent has deserted the of appellant without any reasonable cause. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant 7. rt and have gone through the judgment carefully. Appellant has appeared as PW-1. According to him, he was treated by the respondent with cruelty. She used to abuse him with intention to humiliate him. She used to leave the house without permission. Respondent has left his company without any reason and cause. 8. PW-2 Roshan Singh has shown ignorance to the specific case of respondent that the appellant has contracted second marriage with Yashoda Devi. PW-4 Gulab Singh has also shown ignorance regarding second wife of the appellant having two children. PW-5 Mehar Sain has also shown ignorance regarding contracting second marriage by the appellant. However, fact of the matter is that these witnesses ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:46:35 :::HCHP 4 have not denied the case of respondent that appellant has contracted second marriage specifically....", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "2/A to Ex.RW-2/D. RW-3 Kusum Clerk from Sarswati Vidya Mandir School, Samala, Rohru has proved school record Ex.RW-2/D. It is evident from the school record that appellant has contracted second marriage with Yashodha Devi. Date of birth of Bharat Bhushan is 5.12.2002 and date of birth of Jaiwanti is 25.12.2003. Name of the mother of Bharat Bhushan and Jaiwanti in the school register is recorded as Yashodha Devi. The averments made by the appellant in the petition against the respondent were vague and sketchy. It was upon the appellant to prove cruelty against the respondent. It is the appellant, who has caused ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:46:35 :::HCHP 5 mental cruelty towards respondent by contracting second marriage with Yashodha though first marriage was .", "Decision": "19.8.2015 *awasthi* ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:46:36 :::HCHP", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21201721/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2015, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "21201721", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21201721/", "Chunks Indexed": 12 }, { "Court": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Ajay Kumar vs Anita Devi on 6 August, 2015", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2015-08-06", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 3", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Reserved on: 5.8.2015 Decided on. 6.8.2015 . _________________________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar ..Appellant Anita Devi ..........Respondent _________________________________________________________________ of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1Yes. For the Appellant rt : Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : None _________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This appeal has been instituted against Judgment Sirmaur District at Nahan in HMA Petition No. 6-N/3 of 2003.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Reserved on: 5.8.2015 Decided on. 6.8.2015 . _________________________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar ..Appellant Anita Devi ..........Respondent _________________________________________________________________ of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1Yes. For the Appellant rt : Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : None _________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge:", "Issues": "IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO(HMA) No. 61/2008 Reserved on: 5.8.2015 Decided on. 6.8.2015 . _________________________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar ..Appellant Versus Anita Devi ..........Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Coram: of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1Yes. For the Appellant rt : Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : None _________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated 29.10.2007 rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in HMA Petition No. 6-N/3 of 2003. 20. Therefore, cruelty in matrimonial behaviour defies any definition and its categories can never be closed. Whether the husband is cruel to his wife or the wife is cruel to her husband has to be ascertained and judged by taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the given case and not by any predetermined rigid formula. Cruelty in...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "5. It will be necessary to bear in mind that there has been marked change in the life around us. In matrimonial duties and responsibilities in particular, we find a sea change. of They are of varying degrees from house to house or person to person. Therefore, when a spouse makes complaint about the treatment of cruelty by rt the partner in life or relations, the Court should not search for standard in life. A set of facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance. We, the judges and lawyers, therefore, should not import our own notions of life. We may not go in parallel with them. There may be a generation gap between us and the parties. It would be better if we keep aside our customs and manners. It would be also better if we less depend upon precedents. Because as Lord Denning said in Sheldon v. Sheldon, [1966] 2 All E.R. 257 (259) \"the...", "Decision": "\"Under Section 10 (1) (a) a decree for judicial separation can be granted on the ground that the other party has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. According to the Explanation the expression \"desertion\" with its grammatical variation and cognate expression means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:42:46 :::HCHP 27 such party and includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage. The argument raised on behalf of the wife is that the husband had contracted a second marriage on May .", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/166159972/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2015, "Relief Status": "judicial_separation", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "166159972", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/166159972/", "Chunks Indexed": 13 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "Abhishek Kerketta vs Shobha Kujur on 14 July, 2026", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2026-07-14", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 19, Section 2, Section 3, Section 32, Section 621", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2026:JHHC:20890-DB ------ Abhishek Kerketta, aged about 44 years, son of Late Eliyas Kerketta, permanent residing at Bajra Kumba Toli, Near ITI Bus Stand, PO Hehal, PS Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi, presently residing at Gorabari, PO Jagadalla, PS-Bankura, Distt. Bankura, West Bengal. ... ... Appellant Shobha Kujur, aged about 43 years, wife of Mr. Abhishek Kerketta, daughter of Mr. Vincent Kujur, R/o Pathalkudwa Church Lane, PS - Lower Bazar, PO-GPO, District-Ranchi. ... ... Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ..... For the Appellant : Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate. ..... C.A.V. on 22.06.2026 Pronounced on 14/07/2026 1. The instant appeal has been filed under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 for challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on 03.07.2025 and decree signed on 14.07.2025 by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No. 246 of 2022 filed by the appellant-husband under Section 10(ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 for a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty, has been dismissed.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2026:JHHC:20890-DB ------ Abhishek Kerketta, aged about 44 years, son of Late Eliyas Kerketta, permanent residing at Bajra Kumba Toli, Near ITI Bus Stand, PO Hehal, PS Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi, presently residing at Gorabari, PO Jagadalla, PS-Bankura, Distt. Bankura, West Bengal. ... ... Appellant Shobha Kujur, aged about 43 years, wife of Mr. Abhishek Kerketta, daughter of Mr. Vincent Kujur, R/o Pathalkudwa Church Lane, PS - Lower Bazar, PO-GPO, District-Ranchi. ... ... Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ..... For the Appellant : Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate. ..... C.A.V. on 22.06.2026 Pronounced on 14/07/2026", "Issues": "I. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? II. Whether the appellant has valid cause of action for the suit? III. Whether the respondent wife has treated the appellant husband with cruelty? IV. Whether the respondent wife has deserted the appellant husband since 24.10.2015? V. Whether the appellant husband is taking advantage of his own wrong? VI. Whether the appellant is entitled to get the decree of divorce? VII. Whether the appellant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs? 41. The aforesaid issues were decided against the appellant-husband and in favour of respondent-wife and the suit was dismissed on contest. 42. The appellant-husband, being aggrieved with the judgment passed on 03.07.2025 and decree signed on 14.07.2025 by learned Additional Principal Judge, 13 Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi approached this Court by filing the instant appeal. Submission made on behalf of the appellant-husband 43. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband...", "Petitioner Argument": "63. Since the learned counsel for the appellant has raised the issue of perversity by contending that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court while answering issue no. (iii) i.e. issue of cruelty are perverse, therefore, before addressing the aforesaid seminal issue it would be apt to discuss herein the appropriate meaning of word \"perverse\". 64. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant on the issue of perversity needs to 36 refer herein the interpretation of the word \"perverse\" as has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence. 65. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr. , (2009) 10 SCC 206 while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice...", "Respondent Argument": "54. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, defending the impugned order, has submitted that appellant and respondent are legally married couple and she has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal right but the appellant does not want to keep her and has deserted her without any rhyme and reason. 55. It has further been submitted that the respondent is still ready to reside with the appellant-petitioner and the allegation levelled against her by the appellant-husband are false and fabricated as she never subjected him with cruelty rather it is the appellant-husband who has deserted her. 56. It has been submitted that still she wants to live with appellant and prayed to dismiss the suit filed by appellant. 57. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife on the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned judgment requires no interference by this Court. Analysis 58. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant- husband as also learned counsel for the respondent-wife and 16 perused the material available on record and the finding recorded in the impugned order. 59. This Court, before looking into...", "Factors to be Considered": "72. Learned Additional Principal Judge, taking into consideration the fact that since even otherwise there is no desertion on the part of respondent-wife as she has filed original suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Thus, although the husband appellant had filed petition under Section 10 (ix) and (x) of the Indian Divorce Act but no cogent evidence was led in this respect, as such the same was discarded by the learned family court. 73. It needs to refer herein that the word 'desertion' has been given in Section 3 (9) of the Divorce Act wherein it has been stated that the expression \"desertion\", implies an abandonment against the wish of the person charging it. 74. It is pertinent to note that the word 'desertion', as has been defined in Section 3 (9) of the Divorce Act, means abandonment against the wish of the person charging it and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly. 41 75. Further, it requires to refer herein that the word 'desertion' means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the willful...", "Decision": "123. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the learned family court, dismissing the suit for decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty under Section 10(ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act , requires no interference.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/185961565/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 5); Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "185961565", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/185961565/", "Chunks Indexed": 16 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "Junul Topno vs Phibi Franciska Kongari Daughter Of ... on 5 January, 2026", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2026-01-05", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14, Section 19, Section 5", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2026:JHHC:19-DB First Appeal No. 172 of 2025 With I.A No.12917 of 2025 Junul Topno, aged about 66 years, son of Late Ashiyan Topno, resident of village-Maindan Toli Khunti, P.O & P.S-Khunti, District-Khunti (Jharkhand) .........Plaintiff/ Petitioner/Appellant Phibi Franciska Kongari daughter of Late Mangaldan Kongari, resident of Village-Ukauli, PO-Bano, PS-Bano, District-Gumla, at present residing at Village-Serendih, Chaibasa Road, Khunti, P.O & PS-Khunti, District- Khunti .... ..... Defendant/Respondent/Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the Respondent : ............... 1. The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 17.12.2024 and the decree learned Principal District Judge, Khunti whereby and whereunder the petition filed under sections 10(1) , (i) and 10(1) (ix) of Divorce Act, 1869 by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife has been dismissed on contest.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2026:JHHC:19-DB First Appeal No. 172 of 2025 With I.A No.12917 of 2025 Junul Topno, aged about 66 years, son of Late Ashiyan Topno, resident of village-Maindan Toli Khunti, P.O & P.S-Khunti, District-Khunti (Jharkhand) .........Plaintiff/ Petitioner/Appellant Phibi Franciska Kongari daughter of Late Mangaldan Kongari, resident of Village-Ukauli, PO-Bano, PS-Bano, District-Gumla, at present residing at Village-Serendih, Chaibasa Road, Khunti, P.O & PS-Khunti, District- Khunti .... ..... Defendant/Respondent/Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the Respondent : ...............", "Issues": "2. We have penned down a detailed order in that case and we see no purpose in repeating the same reasoning again except to record what are stated to be the facts on which the delay is sought to be condoned. On 5-1-2019, it is stated that the Government Advocate was approached in respect of the judgment delivered on 13-11-2018 [ Chaitram Maywade v. State of M.P. , 2018 SCC OnLine HP 1632] and the Law Department permitted filing of the SLP against the impugned order on 26-5-2020. Thus, the Law Department took almost about 17 months' time to decide whether the SLP had to be filed or not. What greater certificate of incompetence would there be for the Legal Department. 3. We consider it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh to look into the aspect of revamping the Legal Department as it appears...", "Petitioner Argument": "4. In the divorce suit, the respondent-wife had appeared and filed her written statement denying all the allegations levelled against her by her husband. The factum of marriage has been admitted but it is denied that she had withdrawn herself from the life of the petitioner and deserted him. It has been alleged that the petitioner did not like company of the wife and he used to continuously give her ill-treatment. The petitioner always misbehaved with her but she ignored the same hoping that the matter would be resolved in future. It is alleged that the petitioner used to misbehave with his son, namely, Anup Topno and never paid any expenses to his son. It has been alleged that the petitioner always quarreled with her as he kept another lady, namely, Manju Tirkey with him and due to that reason dispute arose between them. The petitioner is leading an adulterous life with the said Manju Tirkey and his behaviour 3 2026:JHHC:19-DB with the respondent was very inhuman. On the aforesaid ground, she has prayed that the suit for divorce may...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "42. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161958801/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 260); Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; adultery", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "161958801", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161958801/", "Chunks Indexed": 17 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "Junul Topno vs Phibi Franciska Kongari Daughter Of ... on 5 January, 2026", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2026-01-05", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14, Section 19, Section 5", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2026:JHHC:19-DB First Appeal No. 172 of 2025 With I.A No.12917 of 2025 Junul Topno, aged about 66 years, son of Late Ashiyan Topno, resident of village-Maindan Toli Khunti, P.O & P.S-Khunti, District-Khunti (Jharkhand) .........Plaintiff/ Petitioner/Appellant Phibi Franciska Kongari daughter of Late Mangaldan Kongari, resident of Village-Ukauli, PO-Bano, PS-Bano, District-Gumla, at present residing at Village-Serendih, Chaibasa Road, Khunti, P.O & PS-Khunti, District- Khunti .... ..... Defendant/Respondent/Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the Respondent : ............... 1. The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 17.12.2024 and the decree learned Principal District Judge, Khunti whereby and whereunder the petition filed under sections 10(1) , (i) and 10(1) (ix) of Divorce Act, 1869 by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife has been dismissed on contest.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2026:JHHC:19-DB First Appeal No. 172 of 2025 With I.A No.12917 of 2025 Junul Topno, aged about 66 years, son of Late Ashiyan Topno, resident of village-Maindan Toli Khunti, P.O & P.S-Khunti, District-Khunti (Jharkhand) .........Plaintiff/ Petitioner/Appellant Phibi Franciska Kongari daughter of Late Mangaldan Kongari, resident of Village-Ukauli, PO-Bano, PS-Bano, District-Gumla, at present residing at Village-Serendih, Chaibasa Road, Khunti, P.O & PS-Khunti, District- Khunti .... ..... Defendant/Respondent/Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the Respondent : ...............", "Issues": "2. We have penned down a detailed order in that case and we see no purpose in repeating the same reasoning again except to record what are stated to be the facts on which the delay is sought to be condoned. On 5-1-2019, it is stated that the Government Advocate was approached in respect of the judgment delivered on 13-11-2018 [ Chaitram Maywade v. State of M.P. , 2018 SCC OnLine HP 1632] and the Law Department permitted filing of the SLP against the impugned order on 26-5-2020. Thus, the Law Department took almost about 17 months' time to decide whether the SLP had to be filed or not. What greater certificate of incompetence would there be for the Legal Department. 3. We consider it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh to look into the aspect of revamping the Legal Department as it appears...", "Petitioner Argument": "4. In the divorce suit, the respondent-wife had appeared and filed her written statement denying all the allegations levelled against her by her husband. The factum of marriage has been admitted but it is denied that she had withdrawn herself from the life of the petitioner and deserted him. It has been alleged that the petitioner did not like company of the wife and he used to continuously give her ill-treatment. The petitioner always misbehaved with her but she ignored the same hoping that the matter would be resolved in future. It is alleged that the petitioner used to misbehave with his son, namely, Anup Topno and never paid any expenses to his son. It has been alleged that the petitioner always quarreled with her as he kept another lady, namely, Manju Tirkey with him and due to that reason dispute arose between them. The petitioner is leading an adulterous life with the said Manju Tirkey and his behaviour 3 2026:JHHC:19-DB with the respondent was very inhuman. On the aforesaid ground, she has prayed that the suit for divorce may...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "42. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80182007/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 259); Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; adultery", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "80182007", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80182007/", "Chunks Indexed": 17 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "Sangeeta Kujur vs Vijay Kujur Son Of Fedrick Kujur on 1 November, 2022", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2022-11-01", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 3", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) ----- Sangeeta Kujur, wife of Mr. Vijay Kujur, daughter of Flora Lakra, resident of Tiril Road, Kokar, Bariatu, PO & PS Bariatu, District Ranchi at present residing at Office of French Embassy, 68-Sundar Nagar, PS Nizamuddin PO Zorbagh, New Delhi-110003. ... .... Appellant Vijay Kujur son of Fedrick Kujur, resident of village Kokar, Tiril, PO & PS Bariatu, District-Ranchi ... .... Respondent ------- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ------ For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, Advocate Mr.Neel Kamal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Shyam Narsaria, Advocate ------ We have examined the additional documents sought to be produced by the appellant as additional documents. However, keeping in mind the principles under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure , we do not find it necessary to take these documents on record as additional documents because these documents are completely unrelated to the issue arising in this case and are not necessary to pronounce judgment in the present case.", "Fact/ Respondent": "(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) ----- Sangeeta Kujur, wife of Mr. Vijay Kujur, daughter of Flora Lakra, resident of Tiril Road, Kokar, Bariatu, PO & PS Bariatu, District Ranchi at present residing at Office of French Embassy, 68-Sundar Nagar, PS Nizamuddin PO Zorbagh, New Delhi-110003. ... .... Appellant Vijay Kujur son of Fedrick Kujur, resident of village Kokar, Tiril, PO & PS Bariatu, District-Ranchi ... .... Respondent ------- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ------ For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, Advocate Mr.Neel Kamal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Shyam Narsaria, Advocate ------", "Issues": "\"10. Grounds for dissolution of marriage.--(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, may, on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent-- ............................................................................................ (x) has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent.\"", "Petitioner Argument": "6. Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, the learned counsel for the appellant has urged that in her evidence the appellant referred to the divorce petition and while so the allegations made by her in the petition for divorce can be read into the evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the complaint filed by the appellant a copy of which was marked as Ext-X (for identification), if read in the background of the allegations made by the appellant in the divorce suit, would amount to mental cruelty as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 3 FA No. 409 of 2018 \" Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh \" (2007) 4 SCC 511. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the following judgments: 10. In \" Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh \" (2007) 4 SCC 511, on which the learned counsel for the appellant has placed heavy reliance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: \"101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "3. Sangeeta Kujur filed a petition under section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 seeking dissolution of her marriage solemnized with Vijay Kujur on 22nd April 2007. This petition was registered as Original Suit No. 473 of 2016 (in short, \"divorce suit\") which has been dismissed on contest by the judgment dated 30th July 2018. 4. This First Appeal has been preferred by the wife on the ground that the Family Court has misconstrued meaning of the expression 'cruelty' as envisaged under section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, inasmuch as, false accusations on her character by the respondent would amount to mental cruelty which shall be a ground for divorce. 5. For examining the aforesaid plea, it is necessary to have a glance 2 FA No. 409 of 2018 through discussions by the Family Court in the divorce suit, which are as follows: \"9. From the fact mentioned in the present suit, it appears that petitioner Sangeeta Kujur is presently residing at Delhi. According to case of petitioner marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.04.2007 as per Christian (Catholic) rituals at Kokar Ranchi. In the petition allegation about the alleged cruelty and bad habits of respondent is made...", "Decision": "25. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment dated 30th July 2018 passed in Original Suit No. 473 of 2016 and, accordingly, this First Appeal is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 1st November, 2022 SB/Nibha-AFR", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83534216/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2022, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "83534216", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83534216/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "Sobha Minz vs Ajay Lakra on 4 October, 2023", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2023-10-04", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Desertion; Cruelty; Adultery", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "First Appeal No. 07 of 2020 ........... [Against the judgment dated 27.08.2019 and decree dated 04.09.2019 passed by Shri Sandeep Srivastava, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla in Original Suit No. 28 of 2016] ........... Sobha Minz ... ... Appellant Ajay Lakra ... ... Respondent ........... HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ........... For the Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the Respondent : None ........... C.A.V. on 24.08.2023 Pronounced on 04.10.2023 Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the", "Fact/ Respondent": "First Appeal No. 07 of 2020 ........... [Against the judgment dated 27.08.2019 and decree dated 04.09.2019 passed by Shri Sandeep Srivastava, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla in Original Suit No. 28 of 2016] ........... Sobha Minz ... ... Appellant Ajay Lakra ... ... Respondent ........... HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ........... For the Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the Respondent : None ........... C.A.V. on 24.08.2023 Pronounced on 04.10.2023", "Issues": "6. Based on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed for adjudication: (I) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ? (II) Whether the petitioner has got valid cause of action for this suit ? (VI) Whether the petitioner is entitled for reliefs as prayed for ? 7. The petitioner has examined three witnesses in support of his case. 8. P.W.1 (Ajay Lakra) is the petitioner himself who has stated about his marriage having been solemnized with Sobha Minz on 06.05.2014 at Aamgaon Church. He has posted in the Railways as a Loco Pilot Driver while his wife works in Punjab National Bank. After the marriage from 17.05.2015 disputes started between both the sides and the respondent no. 1 did not want to lead a conjugal life with him as the respondent no. 1 was having an illicit relationship with respondent no. 2. He has...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.08.2019 and decree dated 04.09.2019 passed by Shri Sandeep Srivastava, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla in Original Suit No. 28 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the petitioner (respondent herein) for dissolution of marriage u/s 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 has been allowed and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent has been dissolved. 3. For the sake of convenience both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status in the learned court below. 4. The petitioner (respondent herein) had filed a suit against the respondent (appellant herein) u/s 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 wherein it has been stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 06.05.2014 at Aamgaon Church as per Christian religion and customs. The petitioner is an employee in the Railways and he was posted at Rourkela while the respondent is an employee in a Bank and posted at Bihar Sharif. The marital dispute started on -2- 17.05.2015 as the...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/99646487/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; desertion; cruelty; adultery", "Judgment Year": 2023, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "99646487", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/99646487/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "Salon Lomga vs Hanna Lomga on 15 March, 2023", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2023-03-15", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "First Appeal No. 247 of 2018 Salon Lomga --- --- Appellant Hanna Lomga --- --- Respondent --- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan --- For the Appellant : Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate Mr. Nitin Nitesh Bhengra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate --- 24/15.03.2023: Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Yogendra Prasad and", "Fact/ Respondent": "First Appeal No. 247 of 2018 Salon Lomga --- --- Appellant Hanna Lomga --- --- Respondent ---", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan --- For the Appellant : Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate Mr. Nitin Nitesh Bhengra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate --- 24/15.03.2023: Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Yogendra Prasad and learned counsel Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia representing the respondent as a legal aid counsel.", "Respondent Argument": "5. Learned counsel for the respondent has contested the plea. She however submits that the only reason for the respondent not to appear and -3- contest the matrimonial suit was lack of awareness and enough resources to defend the suit for dissolution of marriage instituted by her husband. However, on being asked she has conveyed her intention to continue with the marriage and live with the appellant. It is submitted that efforts for amicable settlement of the matrimonial dispute through mediation have failed twice because the appellant is not interested in keeping her. The grounds of desertion or mental cruelty made out by the appellant, are not made out by any cogent piece of evidence. The appellant has never properly taken care of the respondent who lives in penury and has no regular sources of income to maintain. She had to abandon nursing course because of lack of finance and presently is engaged on temporary basis from time to time as an Aaya to the nursing assistant. She is spending her life in misery and penury. Therefore, the marriage may...", "Factors to be Considered": "2. By the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2016 and decree dated 09.09.2016 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Original Suit No.14/2015 the Suit for dissolution of marriage under Section 10(ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act 1869 has been dismissed ex-parte since the respondent even after valid service of notice and through paper publication also did not appear to contest the Suit. The pleadings as made out in the plaint have therefore remained unrebutted. Appellant had adduced two witnesses: himself as P.W.2 and one Ishwar Lomga P.W.1 in support of his case. As per the pleadings of the Suit preferred by the petitioner/appellant herein, parties entered into marital relationship on 7th February 2012 at G.E.L. Church, Kadma (Khunti) and lived together for four days at the paternal place of the appellant at village Budungkel, P.O. Gudri, P.S. Sonuwa, District West Singhbhum as husband and wife. Thereafter without any rhyme or reason she left the place and has never returned despite efforts made by the plaintiff and their family members. There are no offspring born out of the wedlock. Appellant is employed in Indian Railways as a Clerk and is presently posted at Gujarat. 3. During pendency...", "Decision": "11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Decree accordingly. Impugned judgment dated 30.08.2016 and decree dated 09.09.2016 are set aside. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to pay the admissible legal remuneration to the learned counsel Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia representing the respondent. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Shamim/", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73398738/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2023, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "73398738", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73398738/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "Sudhira Minj vs Amit Anuj Minj on 4 July, 2018", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2018-07-04", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Sudhira Minj --- ---- Appellant Amit Anuj Minj --- --- Respondent --- For the Appellant: Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate Reserved on: 25/06/2018 Pronounced on: 04/07/2018 --- Aparesh Kumar Singh, J: Wife is the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated", "Fact/ Respondent": "Sudhira Minj --- ---- Appellant Amit Anuj Minj --- --- Respondent --- For the Appellant: Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "5. PW-2 has also supported the case of the petitioner and stated that it was impossible for the petitioner to lead happy matrimonial life with her. 6. PW-3 besides supporting the case of the petitioner on the point of marriage and employment and her behavior, has also stated that despite compromise between the parties at the police station, Respondent did not live with the petitioner and is living separately. 7. PW-4, father of the petitioner, has also stated about his employment in Electricity Department and the Respondent being employed as Nurse in Central University, Brambe, Ranchi. He talked about humiliation of the petitioner at her hands. He also stated about an incidence when she and her family members 3 attacked the petitioner. On hearing alarm, he reached to the place and somehow got rid of this risk of assault. He had also sustained injury on his person. He referred to an application by the Respondent before the Mandar P.S. which bore her signature. Certified copy of the petition dated 15.02.2015 was marked as Ext-2.", "Respondent Argument": "10. Learned counsel for the Respondent has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. He submits that the appellant despite several efforts made including service of notice through paper publication, never turned up to contest the suit. Therefore, she cannot complain against the conduct of the proceeding ex-parte before the Learned Family Court. Respondent despite being unwilling to continue with marital relationship with the appellant has filed this appeal with a vengeful attitude. Appellant's persistent misbehavior, as borne out from the evidence of the petitioner and his other witnesses, clearly gets established. Ext-2 further corroborates it. Taking an overall view of the matter, Learned Family Court has allowed the suit and dissolved their marriage. Therefore, no interference should be made.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear.", "Decision": "12. In view of the discussions made above, findings rendered by the Learned Family Court cannot be upheld. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. Appeal stands allowed. Decree accordingly.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143329289/ | AIR 2018 JHARKHAND 189, AIRONLINE 2018 JHA 119", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2018, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR 2018 JHARKHAND 189, AIRONLINE 2018 JHA 119", "Kanoon Doc ID": "143329289", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143329289/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "Neha Neelima Ekka vs Abhishek Rohit Khalkho on 8 December, 2020", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2020-12-08", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Neha Neelima Ekka --- --- Appellant Abhishek Rohit Khalkho --- --- Respondent ....... HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY Through Video Conferencing For the Appellant : Mr. Awinash Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Priyanka Bobby, Advocate 06/08.12.2020 Heard learned counsel Mr. Awinash Kumar for the appellant and Ms. Priyanka Bobby for the respondent on the prayer for condonation of delay of 141 days in preferring the instant memo of appeal, made through I.A. No. 3858 of 2020.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Neha Neelima Ekka --- --- Appellant Abhishek Rohit Khalkho --- --- Respondent .......", "Issues": "2. 8986601912 On their approaching, learned Member Secretary, JHALSA would place the matter before the learned Mediator, JHALSA for undertaking mediation. Parties may indicate beforehand to the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA whether they want to join mediation exercise physically or through online. Since the appellant wife is from Ranchi, she can very well join the mediation physically. It is open for the respondent husband, who is stationed at Bokaro, to either join mediation physically or request the Member Secretary, JHALSA to permit him to join mediation online. In case, he makes such a request for availing facility at concerned D.L.S.A., Bokaro for joining online, he should do so beforehand so that proper arrangement may be made on the date on which proceedings are to be held. Parties are expected to cooperate in the mediation process and attend each of the sittings. Needless to say, if the parties are able to...", "Petitioner Argument": "Learned counsel for the appellant wife contends that the impugned judgment was not timely communicated by her counsel and after having procured, she undertook steps to contact her counsel in the High Court. The appeal was drafted and ultimately filed on 07.01.2020. Appellant was undergoing financial crisis and was not able to incur expenses in filing appeal. There is opposition to the prayer by learned counsel for the respondent. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds urged in instant I.A., delay is condoned. I.A. stands disposed of. Let the parties participate in the mediation process for amicable settlement of the matrimonial dispute before adjudicating it on merits. Accordingly, parties are directed to approach the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA on 16.12.2020 between 10.00 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. for commencing the mediation online. Learned Member Secretary, JHALSA can be approached on the following numbers: 1. 0651-2482392", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "Appellant wife is aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.07.2019 and decree dated 20.07.2019 passed in Original Suit No. 562 of 2018/ Original Suit No. 365 of 2017 ( Bokaro) by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi whereby the suit instituted by the petitioner / respondent herein under Section 10(vii)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 has been decreed by granting divorce in favour of the petitioner husband / respondent herein.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182032015/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2020, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "182032015", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182032015/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "Deo Prakash vs Smt. Usha Roy on 11 August, 2023", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2023-08-11", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 19, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) First Appeal No. 346 of 2017 --------- Deo Prakash, S/o Sri Narad Saran Sant, Present Address- Qr. No- C.D- 417, Sector-III, PO & PS- Dhurwa, Ranchi, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. Smt. Usha Roy, W/o Deo Prakash, D/o Sri Nathun Roy, Present Address-Zone No-1.B, Birsanagar, Town- Jamshedpur, PO & PS- Birsanagar, District- East Singhbhum. ... Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Appellant : Mrs. (Dr.) Vandana Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate --------- The husband has challenged the judgment in Matrimonial Suit No.380 of 2010 by filing this First Appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.", "Fact/ Respondent": "(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) First Appeal No. 346 of 2017 --------- Deo Prakash, S/o Sri Narad Saran Sant, Present Address- Qr. No- C.D- 417, Sector-III, PO & PS- Dhurwa, Ranchi, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. Smt. Usha Roy, W/o Deo Prakash, D/o Sri Nathun Roy, Present Address-Zone No-1.B, Birsanagar, Town- Jamshedpur, PO & PS- Birsanagar, District- East Singhbhum. ... Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Appellant : Mrs. (Dr.) Vandana Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate ---------", "Issues": "5. The following issues were framed by the Family Court Judge on the basis of pleadings of the parties: \"I. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? II. Whether the petitioner has got valid cause of action for the suit ? III. Whether the petitioner wife has been suffered cruelty from the hands of the respondent? IV. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for period of more than two year preceding the date of filing of this case? V. Whether the petitioner wife is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion? VI. To what other relief or reliefs the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case?\" \"10. ... If a spouse abandons the other spouse in a state of temporary passion, for example, anger or disgust, without intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it will not amount to desertion....", "Petitioner Argument": "\"20. It is settled law that for proving desertion, the factum of separation and the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end, animus deserendi, are required to be proved. In the instant case, as evident from the discussion of the evidences made above, the parties are living separately from 20.10.2005 that is for more than five years prior to filing of this case and now for more than 12 years but it is also evident that the respondent husband has obtained ex- parte decree for restitution of his conjugal right against the petitioner wife and the said decree is still in existence. The document filed on behalf of the respondent husband shows that the reconciliation proceeding before the JHALSA and before the High Court legal services authorities were terminated unsettled because of the none appearance of the petitioner wife. The record further shows that the mediation attempts during pendancy of this case has failed because the wife was not willing to reside with the respondent husband. Thus, the material available on record clearly shows that the animus deserendi on...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "6. Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that when the husband or the wife withdraws from the society of the other without any reasonable excuse the aggrieved party may apply for restitution of conjugal rights. Whereas, section 13 provides the various grounds on which a petition for divorce can be filed in the Court. The decree in Matrimonial Suit No.41 of 2009 is an ex-parte decree and, not to forget, the respondent has made serious allegations of demand of dowry and her torture and harassment in the matrimonial home and, in connection therewith, she has filed a complaint case vide C/1 Case No.43 of 2009. The Family Court Judge has rightly held that the decree in Matrimonial Suit No.41 of 2009 shall not constitute res judicata and, rightly so, on that ground Matrimonial Suit No.41 of 2009 could not have been held not maintainable. 7. On the issue of desertion in respect of which Issue No.IV was framed, the Family Court Judge has held that the respondent could not prove the requisite animus deserendi which would have established her intention to permanently put an end to cohabitation. The Family Court Judge has discussed Issue No.IV in the following...", "Decision": "22. Lord Tucker has once said that Judges have always carefully refrained from attempting a comprehensive definition of cruelty for the purposes of matrimonial suits and experience has shown the wisdom of this course [refer, \"Jamieson and Jamieson\" 1952 A.C. 525]. Therefore, an enquiry as to educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system has to be made to examine whether the offending acts would constitute cruelty and such cruelty satisfies the judicial conscience of the Court to grant a decree of divorce. The respondent lodged a complaint case making allegations of demand of dowry and harassment in the matrimonial home. This also has to be kept in mind that the concept of proof beyond doubt is applied in criminal trial and it has no application in civil matters. Therefore, the Court has to weigh evidence of both the parties to find out in whose favour there is a preponderance of probability. In \"Samar Ghosh\" the Hon'ble", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33552463/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2023, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "33552463", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33552463/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "Alfondius Soren Son Of Late Simon Soren vs Bina Bhengra Wife Of Alfondius Soren on 1 September, 2026", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2026-09-01", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14, Section 19, Section 5", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "[2026:JHHC:26602-DB] ----- Alfondius Soren son of late Simon Soren, aged about 51 years, resident of vill-Gopalpur, P.O. and P.S. Shikaripara, District-Dumka, Jharkhand ... ... Appellant Bina Bhengra wife of Alfondius Soren, aged about 49 years, resident of village-Makrampur, Baganpara, P.O. Makrampur, P.S. Lal Bazar, District-Birbhum, West Bengal ... ... Respondent ------- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ------- For the Appellant : Mr. J.J. Sanga, Adv. : Mr. Randhir Kumar Sharma, Adv. : Ms. Angel Khalkho, Adv. For the Respondent : Ms. Shivani Jhaluka, Adv. ------ th 1. The instant first appeal, under Section 19(1) of Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the order/judgment Court, Dumka in Original Suit No.57 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the appellant under Section 10(vii) of Divorce Act has been dismissed. I.A. No. 17127 of 2025", "Fact/ Respondent": "[2026:JHHC:26602-DB] ----- Alfondius Soren son of late Simon Soren, aged about 51 years, resident of vill-Gopalpur, P.O. and P.S. Shikaripara, District-Dumka, Jharkhand ... ... Appellant Bina Bhengra wife of Alfondius Soren, aged about 49 years, resident of village-Makrampur, Baganpara, P.O. Makrampur, P.S. Lal Bazar, District-Birbhum, West Bengal ... ... Respondent ------- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ------- For the Appellant : Mr. J.J. Sanga, Adv. : Mr. Randhir Kumar Sharma, Adv. : Ms. Angel Khalkho, Adv. For the Respondent : Ms. Shivani Jhaluka, Adv. ------ th", "Issues": "11. The expression \"sufficient cause\" should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. ( Vide Madanlal v. Shyamlal [( 2002) 1 SCC 535] and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [(2002) 3 SCC 195] .) 12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. \"A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to...", "Petitioner Argument": "6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on delay condonation application and before considering the same, this Court, deems it fit and proper to refer certain legal proposition as has been propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court with respect to the approach of the Court in condoning the inordinate delay. 2 [2026:JHHC:26602-DB] 7. There is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the filing of appeal suffers from inordinate delay, then the duty of the Court is to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the lis. 8. It requires to refer herein that the Law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time,...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "29. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand dismissed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/104844798/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 268)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "104844798", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/104844798/", "Chunks Indexed": 14 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "Alfondius Soren Son Of Late Simon Soren vs Bina Bhengra Wife Of Alfondius Soren on 1 September, 2026", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2026-09-01", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14, Section 19, Section 5", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "[2026:JHHC:26602-DB] ----- Alfondius Soren son of late Simon Soren, aged about 51 years, resident of vill-Gopalpur, P.O. and P.S. Shikaripara, District-Dumka, Jharkhand ... ... Appellant Bina Bhengra wife of Alfondius Soren, aged about 49 years, resident of village-Makrampur, Baganpara, P.O. Makrampur, P.S. Lal Bazar, District-Birbhum, West Bengal ... ... Respondent ------- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ------- For the Appellant : Mr. J.J. Sanga, Adv. : Mr. Randhir Kumar Sharma, Adv. : Ms. Angel Khalkho, Adv. For the Respondent : Ms. Shivani Jhaluka, Adv. ------ th 1. The instant first appeal, under Section 19(1) of Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the order/judgment Court, Dumka in Original Suit No.57 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the appellant under Section 10(vii) of Divorce Act has been dismissed. I.A. No. 17127 of 2025", "Fact/ Respondent": "[2026:JHHC:26602-DB] ----- Alfondius Soren son of late Simon Soren, aged about 51 years, resident of vill-Gopalpur, P.O. and P.S. Shikaripara, District-Dumka, Jharkhand ... ... Appellant Bina Bhengra wife of Alfondius Soren, aged about 49 years, resident of village-Makrampur, Baganpara, P.O. Makrampur, P.S. Lal Bazar, District-Birbhum, West Bengal ... ... Respondent ------- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ------- For the Appellant : Mr. J.J. Sanga, Adv. : Mr. Randhir Kumar Sharma, Adv. : Ms. Angel Khalkho, Adv. For the Respondent : Ms. Shivani Jhaluka, Adv. ------ th", "Issues": "11. The expression \"sufficient cause\" should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. ( Vide Madanlal v. Shyamlal [( 2002) 1 SCC 535] and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [(2002) 3 SCC 195] .) 12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. \"A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to...", "Petitioner Argument": "6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on delay condonation application and before considering the same, this Court, deems it fit and proper to refer certain legal proposition as has been propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court with respect to the approach of the Court in condoning the inordinate delay. 2 [2026:JHHC:26602-DB] 7. There is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the filing of appeal suffers from inordinate delay, then the duty of the Court is to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the lis. 8. It requires to refer herein that the Law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time,...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "29. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand dismissed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71833813/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 267)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "71833813", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71833813/", "Chunks Indexed": 14 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "Sushil Kumar Ray vs Terresa Murmu Daughter Of Charies Murmu ... on 30 June, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-06-30", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14, Section 19, Section 32, Section 4, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": ".... .... Petitioner/Husband/Appellant Terresa Murmu daughter of Charies Murmu wife of Sushil Kumar Rai, Resident of C/o William Bara, at South Gandhi Maidan, Matwari, P.O. and P.S. Korrah, District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand-825301, present address Supervisor, Child Development Project (Bal Vikash Pariyojna), P.O.-Simariya, P.S.-Simariya, District-Chatra, Jharkhand. For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Rashidi, Advocate Md. Azam, Advocate Ms. Aulia Begum Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh, Advocate", "Fact/ Respondent": ".... .... Petitioner/Husband/Appellant Terresa Murmu daughter of Charies Murmu wife of Sushil Kumar Rai, Resident of C/o William Bara, at South Gandhi Maidan, Matwari, P.O. and P.S. Korrah, District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand-825301, present address Supervisor, Child Development Project (Bal Vikash Pariyojna), P.O.-Simariya, P.S.-Simariya, District-Chatra, Jharkhand.", "Issues": "13. This Court, after having considered the argument advanced on behalf of the parties and material available on record, is required to consider the following issues;", "Petitioner Argument": "1. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is not pressing the instant interlocutory application since the document which has been sought for by way of additional evidence in view of the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC has been exhibited and considered by the learned Family Judge and in that view of the matter, the instant application is not being pressed. 2. Accordingly, interlocutory application being I.A. No.12826 of 2024 is dismissed as not pressed. 1 2025:JHHC:17157-DB First Appeal No.131 of 2023 Prayer Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-husband 7. Mr. A.K. Rashidi, Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Family Judge has not taken into consideration the factual aspect of the matter that the respondent wife was well aware with respect to the pending suit of restitution of conjugal right being Original Suit No.68 of 2018, as such, there was no requirement to communicate anything apprising the respondent wife regarding the decree passed in the aforesaid original suit being O.S. No.68 of 2018 filed for restitution of...", "Respondent Argument": "Arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent-wife 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the decree passed by the learned Family Judge therefore needs no interference. Analysis 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "3. The instant appeal preferred under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2023 (decree signed on 26.05.2023) passed in Original Suit No.170 of 2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag, whereby and whereunder, the dissolution of marriage on the ground, as available under Section 10(viii) & (ix) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act, 1869\") has been refused to be granted in favour of the husband, appellant herein. Factual Matrix 4. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the memo of appeal, as also, based upon the pleading made in the plaint, read as under: - It is the case that the parties are legally married, i.e., husband, (appellant herein) and the wife (respondent herein). Their marriage was solemnized on 17.01.1990 at Dula Bitha Kaitholic Mission Church, Giridih, as per Christian rites and customs. After marriage, they led conjugal life at Mohalla-Sindur, Karkari, P.S.-Sadar, District-Hazaribagh. Out of their wedlock, two sons, namely, Amit Kumar and Sumit Nayan were...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/65577305/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 270); Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "65577305", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/65577305/", "Chunks Indexed": 18 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "Sushil Kumar Ray vs Terresa Murmu Daughter Of Charies Murmu ... on 30 June, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-06-30", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14, Section 19, Section 32, Section 4, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": ".... .... Petitioner/Husband/Appellant Terresa Murmu daughter of Charies Murmu wife of Sushil Kumar Rai, Resident of C/o William Bara, at South Gandhi Maidan, Matwari, P.O. and P.S. Korrah, District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand-825301, present address Supervisor, Child Development Project (Bal Vikash Pariyojna), P.O.-Simariya, P.S.-Simariya, District-Chatra, Jharkhand. For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Rashidi, Advocate Md. Azam, Advocate Ms. Aulia Begum Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh, Advocate", "Fact/ Respondent": ".... .... Petitioner/Husband/Appellant Terresa Murmu daughter of Charies Murmu wife of Sushil Kumar Rai, Resident of C/o William Bara, at South Gandhi Maidan, Matwari, P.O. and P.S. Korrah, District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand-825301, present address Supervisor, Child Development Project (Bal Vikash Pariyojna), P.O.-Simariya, P.S.-Simariya, District-Chatra, Jharkhand.", "Issues": "13. This Court, after having considered the argument advanced on behalf of the parties and material available on record, is required to consider the following issues;", "Petitioner Argument": "1. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is not pressing the instant interlocutory application since the document which has been sought for by way of additional evidence in view of the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC has been exhibited and considered by the learned Family Judge and in that view of the matter, the instant application is not being pressed. 2. Accordingly, interlocutory application being I.A. No.12826 of 2024 is dismissed as not pressed. 1 2025:JHHC:17157-DB First Appeal No.131 of 2023 Prayer Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-husband 7. Mr. A.K. Rashidi, Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Family Judge has not taken into consideration the factual aspect of the matter that the respondent wife was well aware with respect to the pending suit of restitution of conjugal right being Original Suit No.68 of 2018, as such, there was no requirement to communicate anything apprising the respondent wife regarding the decree passed in the aforesaid original suit being O.S. No.68 of 2018 filed for restitution of...", "Respondent Argument": "Arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent-wife 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the decree passed by the learned Family Judge therefore needs no interference. Analysis 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "3. The instant appeal preferred under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2023 (decree signed on 26.05.2023) passed in Original Suit No.170 of 2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag, whereby and whereunder, the dissolution of marriage on the ground, as available under Section 10(viii) & (ix) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act, 1869\") has been refused to be granted in favour of the husband, appellant herein. Factual Matrix 4. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the memo of appeal, as also, based upon the pleading made in the plaint, read as under: - It is the case that the parties are legally married, i.e., husband, (appellant herein) and the wife (respondent herein). Their marriage was solemnized on 17.01.1990 at Dula Bitha Kaitholic Mission Church, Giridih, as per Christian rites and customs. After marriage, they led conjugal life at Mohalla-Sindur, Karkari, P.S.-Sadar, District-Hazaribagh. Out of their wedlock, two sons, namely, Amit Kumar and Sumit Nayan were...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145850094/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 269); Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "145850094", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145850094/", "Chunks Indexed": 18 }, { "Court": "Jharkhand High Court", "Case Title": "Parden Firda Kujur W/O Manoranjan Anand ... vs Manoranjan Anand @ Manoranjan Bakhla ... on 23 April, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-04-23", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 114, Section 14, Section 19, Section 27", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2025:JHHC:12053-DB First Appeal No.214 of 2023 ----- Parden Firda Kujur W/o Manoranjan Anand @ Manoranjan Bakhla and d/o late Paulus Kujur, aged about 26 years, r/o village-Nini, PO- Narinawadih, Ps-Kisko, District-Lohardaga ....... ... Appellant Manoranjan Anand @ Manoranjan Bakhla S/o late Vinod Bakhla r/o village-Jhaljamira, PO & PS-Senha, District-Lohardaga ... ... Respondent ------- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Nawin Kumar, Advocate ------ rd 1. The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 29.11.2022 and the decree Principal Judge, Family Court, Lohardaga (in short, learned Family Judge) whereby and whereunder the marriage between the appellant-wife, namely, Parden Firda Kujur and the respondent-husband, namely, Manoranjan Anand @ Manoranjan Bakhla has been dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2025:JHHC:12053-DB First Appeal No.214 of 2023 ----- Parden Firda Kujur W/o Manoranjan Anand @ Manoranjan Bakhla and d/o late Paulus Kujur, aged about 26 years, r/o village-Nini, PO- Narinawadih, Ps-Kisko, District-Lohardaga ....... ... Appellant Manoranjan Anand @ Manoranjan Bakhla S/o late Vinod Bakhla r/o village-Jhaljamira, PO & PS-Senha, District-Lohardaga ... ... Respondent ------- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Nawin Kumar, Advocate ------ rd", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "(v) It is alleged that the defendant is lady of bad character. She always remained busy in talking with her lover on mobile. She lived about 15 days in her matrimonial house and thereafter she fled away to Nainital with her Jija, namely, Anil Toppo without knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. After that plaintiff several times contacted the defendant on mobile, but she refused to live with plaintiff. Later on, she left receiving the mobile call sent by the plaintiff. 2 2025:JHHC:12053-DB (vi) In the month of December 2014, all of sudden the defendant wife came in her matrimonial house and resided few days. During that period, she resided separately in another room and denied to cohabit with plaintiff. After few days, she again left her matrimonial house without permission of the plaintiff. The plaintiff several times contacted the defendant and her family members, but she refused to come in her matrimonial house. In the month of November 2015, again defendant came in her matrimonial house and she lived there about one week. After that she went away to...", "Respondent Argument": "Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff: 7. While on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband who has appeared by virtue of the notice issued vide order dated 30.11.2023 submitted that the judgment and decree impugned passed by the learned Family Judge, Lohardaga cannot be said to be ex- parte, since, the notice has been deemed to be served as would be evident from the order dated 08.08.2022 of the learned Family Court. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, needs not fit to be quashed Analysis: 9. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, gone through the Trial Court Records, as also the impugned judgment and decree, the testimonies of the witnesses and the documents exhibited therein.", "Factors to be Considered": "(viii) On 08.01.2022, a meeting was held in N.W.G.E.L Church, Dari, but defendant refused in the said meeting to live with the plaintiff. There is no any cohabitation since after 15 days of marriage. The defendant has treated the plaintiff with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in mind of the plaintiff that it would be harmful or injurious for the plaintiff's life. (ix) The cause of action for the suit arose on 04.04.2013 on the date of marriage and several other days, when plaintiff husband was subjected to cruelty or torture and in November 2015 when defendant left her matrimonial house and lived in her maika. She has deserted the plaintiff since more than 6 years without any valid reason. Lastly on 08.01.2022, defendant refused to come and live with plaintiff. 3 2025:JHHC:12053-DB (x) Thereafter the plaintiff/husband had preferred a suit for decree of divorce under section 10 (ix) (x) of Divorce Act 1869 which has been instituted as Original Case No. 14 of 2022. (xi) Accordingly, notice was issued but respondent wife had not appeared thereafter, the learned Family Court has allowed the said suit ex parte by jotting down in paragraph 12 of the impugned...", "Decision": "29. The matter is remitted to the learned Family Court, Lohardaga by revival of the dispute being Original Case No.14 of 2022 to its original file so that the matter may be decided on its own merit in accordance with law.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/153169273/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "153169273", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/153169273/", "Chunks Indexed": 14 }, { "Court": "Orissa High Court", "Case Title": "Sanjeeb Deepak Sahu vs Sukanti Mala Bagh @ Sahu on 30 July, 2024", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2024-07-30", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "MATA No. 211 of 2022 Sanjeeb Deepak Sahu .... Appellant -versus- Sukanti Mala Bagh @ Sahu .... Respondent Advocates appear in the case: For appellant: Mr. Brundaban Rout, Advocate For respondent: None THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO 1. The appeal has been preferred by the husband. He says the parties are Christian and their marriage was solemnized on 6th February, 2007 in J.E.L. Church, Koraput by the Reverend. According to him respondent resided in` the matrimonial home for 45 days only, during which time she frequently visited her parent's house. In his Page 1 of 9 petition he said he had earlier filed petition under section 10 of Divorce Act, 1869, dismissed on 10th January, 2014. On 14th April, 2014 respondent along with her father, her advocate and others had formed unlawful assembly in front of residence of his mother. Complaint was lodged before the police, registered as F.I.R. on that day under sections 147, 148, 454, 294, 506 and 149 in Indian Penal Code , 1860. Police arrested, inter alia, respondent and she along with others were forwarded to the Court in G.R. Case no.213 of 2014. On 20th January, 2017 petitioner happened to meet husband of his sister- in-law. From him he came to know of respondent's promiscuity. Inter alia,...", "Fact/ Respondent": "MATA No. 211 of 2022 Sanjeeb Deepak Sahu .... Appellant -versus- Sukanti Mala Bagh @ Sahu .... Respondent Advocates appear in the case: For appellant: Mr. Brundaban Rout, Advocate For respondent: None THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO", "Issues": "\"10. Grounds for dissolution of marriage.- (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, may, on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (x) has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent.\" 9. In this case while appellant alleged that togetherness lasted 45 days since solemnization of the marriage, respondent alleged that togetherness was for four months. Togetherness ceased long before earlier prosecuted civil proceeding for divorce filed by appellant was dismissed on 10th January, 2014. There is no evidence on record that the parties reconciled soon thereafter....", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear.", "Decision": "(Arindam Sinha) Judge (M.S. Sahoo) Judge Sks Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167729395/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2024, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "167729395", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167729395/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Orissa High Court", "Case Title": "Smt. Kuni Dei @ Kuni Behadi vs Pabitra Mohan Behadi & Another on 7 August, 2013", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2013-08-07", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 11, Section 125, Section 13, Section 164, Section 19, Section 3, Section 30, Section 42, Section 497, Section 6", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK MATA No. 55 of 2006 & RPFAM No.15 of 2006 In the matter of an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and an application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. ---------- In MATA No. 55 of 2006 Smt. Kuni Dei @ Kuni Behadi ......... Appellant -versus- Pabitra Mohan Behadi & another ......... Respondents For appellant : M/s. Maheswar Satpathy, D. Sahu. For respondents : Mr. Rajani Chandra Mohanty, K.C. Swain. In RPFAM No. 15 of 2006 Kuni Bihadi @ Behadi ......... Petitioner -versus- Pabitra Behadi ......... Opposite Party For petitioner : M/s. Maheswar Satpathy, D. Sahu. For opp.party : Mr. Rajani Chandra Mohanty, K.C. Swain. THE HONOURABLE KUMARI JUSTICE S. PANDA AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI 2 Husband- Pabitra Mohan Behadi filed Civil Proceeding No.138 of 2000 seeking for a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of adulterous life of his wife Kuni Dei with Nilu.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Husband- Pabitra Mohan Behadi filed Civil Proceeding No.138 of 2000 seeking for a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of adulterous life of his wife Kuni Dei with Nilu.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "16. In the case in hand, since Pabitra and three sons are earning, it would be just and proper to direct them to pay maintenance of Rs.400/- per month from the date of passing of this order and we direct accordingly. Further, Kuni is also entitled to get arrear maintenance of Rs.200/- from 21.8.2006, the date the judgment in C.P. No.138 of 2000 was passed till date as she has not been paid anything because of grant of decree of divorce by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. Therefore, we direct Pabitra to pay the arrear maintenance of Rs.200/- per month from the date of the judgment passed in C.P. No.138 of 2000, i.e. 21.8.2006 till date as she was getting interim maintenance during pendency of the said proceeding. Such arrear shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/111745513/ | AIR 2014 (NOC) 172 (ORI.)", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 2013, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR 2014 (NOC) 172 (ORI.)", "Kanoon Doc ID": "111745513", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/111745513/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Orissa High Court", "Case Title": "Srikanta Pati vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 27 November, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-11-27", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 4, Section 482, Section 498, Section 528", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "CRLMC No.3706 of 2025 Srikanta Pati ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Lingaraj Sarangi -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Party Represented By Adv. - Santosh Chandra Atabudhi Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA 3. Both the Petitioner as well as the Opposite Party No.3 are respective counsels.", "Fact/ Respondent": "9. The Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.3 are present in person before this Court. On a specific query imposed by this Court to the Opposite Party No.3-Informant, she has stated that the matter has been amicably settled and that pursuant to the decree of divorce they have living separately. She further contended that since the matter has been amicably settled she does not want to proceed further in the present criminal case. The Opposite Party No.3 further specifically stated before this Court that she has no objection in the event the entire criminal proceeding against the Petitioner is quashed.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.3 as well as learned counsel for the State representing Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. Both the Petitioner as well as the Opposite Party No.3 are present in Court in person and are duly identified by their respective counsels. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-husband at the outset contended that due to a misunderstanding between the husband and wife the above noted criminal case was registered. He further contended that in the meantime, a C.P. has been filed before the learned judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar which was registered as C.P. No.34 of 2024. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the aforesaid C.P. has been disposed of on contest by judgment dated 8th October, 2025 and the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar has already granted a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended after dissolution...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "10. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, further taking into consideration the statement of the victim made before this Court, while being present in-person, as well as the report of the IIC, Maitri Vihar P.S. dated 22.11.2025 and keeping in view the decree of divorce dated 08.10.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in CP No.34 of 2024, this Court is of the view that the dispute involved in the present case specifically arises out of matrimonial discord between the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.3. Due to incompatibility between the two they have decided to part ways gracefully and, accordingly, a decree of divorce has already been granted. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the Opposite Party No.3-Informant is no more interested to continue the present criminal litigation, any further continuance of the present proceeding, according to this Court considered opinion, would be an abuse of process of law. Since the informant does not support the case of the prosecution the possibility of the matter ending in conviction...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158058978/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "158058978", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158058978/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Orissa High Court", "Case Title": "Anurag Suren vs Poonam Tirkey on 10 March, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-03-10", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Non Consummation", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 19-Mar-2025 17:23:54 MATA No.405 of 2023 Anurag Suren .... Appellant Mr. S. Harichandan, Advocate -versus- Poonam Tirkey .... Respondent Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH 2. Present appeal is filed assailing judgment dated 29th September, 2023 of learned Judge, Family Court, Jharsuguda passed in C.P. No.60 of 2022 wherein decree of divorce was granted in favour of the wife by dissolution of marriage along with direction for payment of permanent alimony to the tune of Rs.15,30,000/-.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 19-Mar-2025 17:23:54 MATA No.405 of 2023 Anurag Suren .... Appellant Mr. S. Harichandan, Advocate -versus- Poonam Tirkey .... Respondent Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (non consummation) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "03. 1. Heard Mr. S. harichandan, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Respondent. 2. Present appeal is filed assailing judgment dated 29th September, 2023 of learned Judge, Family Court, Jharsuguda passed in C.P. No.60 of 2022 wherein decree of divorce was granted in favour of the wife by dissolution of marriage along with direction for payment of permanent alimony to the tune of Rs.15,30,000/-.", "Factors to be Considered": "3. The substances of contentions of the wife in presenting petition under Section 10(1) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 is non-consummation of marriage. According to the wife the husband was incapable to consummate the marriage and suffering from erectile dysfunction. The husband was subjected to medical examination and as per medical opinion he is potent and free from any erectile dysfunction. It is also opined that the husband is capable of performing sexual intercourse. Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 19-Mar-2025 17:23:54 4. Despite such opinion of the medical officer it still remains admitted on the part of the husband that the marriage has not been consummated, and thus the statement of the wife regarding her allegation about non-consummation of marriage is found to be a truth. 5. Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act prescribes in one of its clauses that party has willfully refused to consummate the marriage and the marriage has not therefore been consummated. 6. It is seen from the facts and evidences brought on record that the marriage, took place on 7th December, 2020 could not be consummated till date. Though the husband is making allegation on the part of the...", "Decision": "8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree of learned Family Judge dated 29th September, 2023 is confirmed. The amount deposited before this court by the Appellant - husband pursuant to direction dated 31st January, 2024 shall be refunded to the Appellant on proper application. The husband is directed to pay entire amount of permanent alimony as directed by learned Judge, Family Court within a period of two months from today by depositing the same before learned Judge, Family Court, Jharsuguda, failing which the wife is at liberty to take steps in accordance with law.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/166005443/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Non Consummation", "All Grounds": "non_consummation", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "166005443", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/166005443/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Orissa High Court", "Case Title": "Sasmita Mishal @ Samita Misal vs Apurba Andrapu .... Opposite Party on 11 April, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-04-11", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 24, Section 32", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "TRP(C) No.89 of 2025 Sasmita Mishal @ Samita Misal .... Petitioner Mr. Soubhagya Kumar Dash, Advocate -versus- Apurba Andrapu .... Opposite Party HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN 2. This application has been filed by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for transfer of the C.P. No.5 of 2025, filed by the Opposite Party-husband under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for restitution of conjugal right pending before the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Paralakhemundi in the district of Gajapati to the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rayagada.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. This application has been filed by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for transfer of the C.P. No.5 of 2025, filed by the Opposite Party-husband under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for restitution of conjugal right pending before the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Paralakhemundi in the district of Gajapati to the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rayagada.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner-wife has filed Civil Proceeding No.6 of 2025 under Section 10(i)(ix) & (x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce at the instance of Opposite Party-husband before the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rayagada. Therefore, the said C.P. No.5 of 2025 pending before the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Paralakhemundi Page 1 of 2 in the district of Gajapati is required to be transferred to the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rayagada for convenience.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/58235279/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "58235279", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/58235279/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Orissa High Court", "Case Title": "Deepak Chetty @ vs Marthama Bisoi @ Putuki on 8 October, 2026", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2026-10-08", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 24", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "TRP(C) No.315 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010714072026 Deepak Chetty @ ..... Petitioner Deepak Kumar Chetty Mr. Bikash Karna, Advocate -versus- Marthama Bisoi @ Putuki ..... Opposite Party Bisoi JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA 3. This transfer petition has been preferred by the Petitioner-husband under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of proceeding of C.S. (MAT) No.02 of 2026, preferred by the Opposite Party- wife under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of marriage, pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Malkangiri, to the Court of learned District Judge, Koraput on the grounds detailed in the transfer petition.", "Fact/ Respondent": "3. This transfer petition has been preferred by the Petitioner-husband under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of proceeding of C.S. (MAT) No.02 of 2026, preferred by the Opposite Party- wife under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of marriage, pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Malkangiri, to the Court of learned District Judge, Koraput on the grounds detailed in the transfer petition.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "2. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 4. Reiterating the grounds urged in the transfer petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, the Petitioner is a daily labourer having uncertain income. That apart, the application for divorce, i.e., C.S. (MAT) No.02 of 2026 has been instituted by Opposite Party-wife Page 1 of 3. at Malkangiri. He has no relation or family members at Malkangiri, where he can stay on the date of attending the Court proceeding. That part, the distance from his village, i.e., Lulla, in the district of Koraput, to the Court of learned District Judge, Malkangiri would be around 150 KMs. 5. Neither it has been pleaded in the transfer petition nor the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is able to apprise the Court as to the status of the Opposite Party- wife, her income and other aspects, which may be good ground to consider the prayer for transfer, in addition to the grounds urged in the transfer petition, to demonstrate before this Court that the Opposite Party- wife is in a better footing than the Petitioner, deserving...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75756480/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "75756480", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75756480/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Orissa High Court", "Case Title": "Pratik Kumar Chouhan vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties on 14 July, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-07-14", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 4", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "ABLAPL No.3614 of 2025 Pratik Kumar Chouhan .... Petitioner Mr. A. Mohanty,Sr. Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha .... Opposite Parties 2. Rachana Mohanty Mr. S.N. Das, ASC Mr. L.K Maharana, Advocate (Informant) 2. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. Case No.248 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack, arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No.49 of 2025 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 115(2)/296/85 of BNS and Section 4 of DP Act.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Respondent contested the petition, denying allegations of unclear under Section 10 and submitting that no statutory grounds exist for dissolving the marriage.", "Issues": "7. Before releasing the learned Court shall verify as to whether this order has been assailed before the Apex Court and if so, the result thereof. 8. It is needless to state that the Petitioner shall cooperate with the ongoing investigation. 9. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of.", "Petitioner Argument": "02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as the Informant. 3. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that taking into account the litigation, inter se, between the parties, the Petitioner may be protected by pre-arrest bail. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Informant that just to wriggle out of the criminal liability, the Civil Suit has been instituted and merely because of the filing of the Civil Proceeding, which is filed admittedly, after the registration of F.I.R, the same not to weigh with this Court, in considering the prayer of the Petitioner. And, taking into account the nature of allegations, he ought not to be protected by pre-arrest bail. 6. On considering the rival submission, it is directed that on surrendering within three weeks hence and moving for bail, the Petitioner shall be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin on such terms as deemed just and proper.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "(V. NARASINGH) Judge Soumya Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134823960/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "134823960", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134823960/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Orissa High Court", "Case Title": "Madhumita James vs Tanmaya Mohanty on 25 November, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-11-25", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "MATA No. 445 of 2025 Madhumita James .... Appellants Represented by Adv.- Ms. P. Naidu, Advocate -Versus- Tanmaya Mohanty .... Respondent Represented by Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO 2. The appellant-wife is before this Court challenging the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No. 423 of 2019 under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869, thereby dissolving the marriage solemnized between the appellant-wife and respondent- husband on 02.01.2008 at Union Church, Bhubaneswar.", "Fact/ Respondent": "MATA No. 445 of 2025 Madhumita James .... Appellants Represented by Adv.- Ms. P. Naidu, Advocate -Versus- Tanmaya Mohanty .... Respondent Represented by Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Order No. 25.11.2025 (Hybrid mode) 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-wife.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "2. The appellant-wife is before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No. 423 of 2019 under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869, thereby dissolving the marriage solemnized between the appellant-wife and respondent- husband on 02.01.2008 at Union Church, Bhubaneswar. 3. Issue notice along with this order. Requisites for issuance of notice by Speed Post with AD be filed within five working days. Early returnable date be fixed. 4. The I.A. has been filed seeking interim stay of the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No.423 of 2019. 5. Issue notice as above. Accept one set of process fee as well as the postal requisites along with the appeal. 6. As an interim measure, it is directed that either of the parties i.e. appellant-wife and respondent-husband shall not marry again during pendency of the appeal. 7. List after SR. Liberty to mention. (Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Manoj/Ranjeeta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RANJEETA SAHOO...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66374243/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "66374243", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66374243/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Orissa High Court", "Case Title": "Tanmaya Mohanty vs Madhumita James on 8 April, 2026", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2026-04-08", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "MATA No.52 of 2026 Tanmaya Mohanty .... Appellant Represented by Adv.- Mr. Gajendra Nath Rout, Advocate -versus- Madhumita James .... Respondent Represented by Adv. Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA (Hybrid mode) I.A. No.84 of 2026 03. 1. The appellant as petitioner has preferred Civil", "Fact/ Respondent": "MATA No.52 of 2026 Tanmaya Mohanty .... Appellant Represented by Adv.- Mr. Gajendra Nath Rout, Advocate -versus- Madhumita James .... Respondent Represented by Adv. Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "4. Learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent may obtain the soft copies of the records from the Registry. 5. List this matter after the ensuing summer vacation along with MATA No.445 of 2025.", "Respondent Argument": "1. Heard Mr. Gajendra Nath Rout, learned counsel for the appellant-husband and Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, learned counsel for the respondent-wife. 2. Admit this appeal. 3. The appellant shall serve a copy of the memo of appeal on Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, learned counsel for the respondent-wife, if not already served.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "(Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge (Sibo Sankar Mishra) Judge Subhasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/67515852/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "67515852", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/67515852/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Orissa High Court", "Case Title": "Nithoniel Nayak vs Mimansa Sinha on 15 July, 2026", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2026-07-15", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "TRP(C) No.382 of 2025 Nithoniel Nayak .... Petitioner Mr. Ramdas Achary, Advocate -versus- Mimansa Sinha .... Opp. Party JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO 2. The petitioner before this Court is the husband in the marriage. He seeks transfer of C.P. No.763 of 2024 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The petitioner before this Court is the husband in the marriage. He seeks transfer of C.P. No.763 of 2024 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "3. It is submitted that both the parties to the litigation stay at Phulbani and there would be no difficulty for the Page 1 of 2 present Opp. Party, who is the petitioner in the C.P. to attend the matter at Phulbani, which is around 235 kms. from Cuttack. 4. Issue notice to the Opp. Party along with this order. Requisites for issuance of notice by Speed Post with Registration and proof of delivery shall be filed within five working days. 5. Returnable date be fixed to 17.08.2026. The matter shall be listed 'For Orders' in the week commencing 24.08.2026. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He reiterates his submissions as noted above. 7. Issue notice as above. Accept one set of process fee as well as postal requisites. The returnable date as well as next the date of listing shall be as directed above.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "8. In the interim, it is directed that the C.P. No.763 of 2024 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack shall be adjourned to a date beyond 31.08.2026 as would be convenient to the learned Court in seisin of the matter upon a prayer being made for the said Signature Not Verified purpose. Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, Urgent certified copy be issued as per Rules. CUTTACK", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/148550812/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "148550812", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/148550812/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Orissa High Court", "Case Title": "Salem Bikram Kumar And Others vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Party on 12 December, 2022", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2022-12-12", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "CRLMC No.14 of 2016 Salem Bikram Kumar and Others .... Petitioners Mr. R.K. Nayak, Advocate -Versus- State of Orissa .... Opposite Party Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK", "Fact/ Respondent": "Respondent contested the petition, denying allegations of unclear under Section 10 and submitting that no statutory grounds exist for dissolving the marriage.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Order 12.12.2022 No. 07. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. None appears for opposite party No.2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice was served on opposite party No.2 through local PS which is said to have been received by her father. Despite such service, opposite party No.2 has not entered appearance. In view of service of notice through local PS, it is held to be sufficient as against opposite party No.2.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/130878775/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2022, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "130878775", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/130878775/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Orissa High Court", "Case Title": "Diptimoyee Mondal vs Salem Gomango on 6 March, 2026", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2026-03-06", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "MATA No.212 of 2025 Diptimoyee Mondal .... Appellant Represented by Adv.- Mr. Hemanta Mohanta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Soubhagya Kumar Dash -versus- Salem Gomango .... Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN 2. The appellant, as a petitioner, earlier filed a petition under Section 10(1)(ix) of the Indian Divorce Act before the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Parlakhemundi, being Civil Proceeding No.08 of 2025, seeking a decree of dissolution of her marriage with the respondent-husband. The learned Judge, Family Court, Parlakhemundi, by Page 1 of 2 Proceeding No.08 of 2025 preferred by the appellant-wife. Hence, this appeal.", "Fact/ Respondent": "MATA No.212 of 2025 Diptimoyee Mondal .... Appellant Represented by Adv.- Mr. Hemanta Mohanta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Soubhagya Kumar Dash -versus- Salem Gomango .... Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "4. Learned counsel for the appellant files a memo in Court today seeking withdrawal of this appeal. The said memo is taken on record. 5. Accordingly, this appeal, being infructuous on the death of the respondent-husband, stands dismissed as withdrawn.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "2. The appellant, as a petitioner, earlier filed a petition under Section 10(1)(ix) of the Indian Divorce Act before the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Parlakhemundi, being Civil Proceeding No.08 of 2025, seeking a decree of dissolution of her marriage with the respondent-husband. The learned Judge, Family Court, Parlakhemundi, by judgment dated 08.05.2025, dismissed the said Civil Page 1 of 2 Proceeding No.08 of 2025 preferred by the appellant-wife. Hence, this appeal.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176263479/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "176263479", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176263479/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Orissa High Court", "Case Title": "Nithoniel Nayak vs Mimansa Sinha .... Opp. Party on 24 February, 2026", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2026-02-24", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "TRP(C) No.382 of 2025 Nithoniel Nayak .... Petitioner Mr. Parth Agrawal, Advocate On behalf of Mr. Ramdas Achary, Advocate -versus- Mimansa Sinha .... Opp. Party JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO Learned counsel after arguing some time has adjournment to address regarding the territorial jurisdiction where the proceeding under section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 can be initiated. As it is contended that the wife petitioner before the learned trial Court could not have moved the petition before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Learned counsel after arguing some time has adjournment to address regarding the territorial jurisdiction where the proceeding under section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 can be initiated. As it is contended that the wife petitioner before the learned trial Court could not have moved the petition before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Digitally Signed Judge Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Reason: Authentication Rajesh Location: OHC", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187479871/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "187479871", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187479871/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Orissa High Court", "Case Title": "Madhusmita Nayak vs Simadri Nayak And Anr. on 5 March, 1997", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1997-03-05", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A, Section 11, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Decree for dissolution of Marriage passed by Iearned Judge. Family Court, Cuttuck in Misc. Cane No. S9 of 1993 arising out of Civil Proceeding No. 83 of 1993 his come up before this Bench for Confirmation as required under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. 1869 (in short, the 'Act'). 2. Admittedly, parties are Christians and decree for dissolution of marriage can he passed if conditions mentioned in Section 10 of the Act are fulfilled, apart from compliance of Section 11 . The provisions run as follows :", "Fact/ Respondent": "Any husband may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court, praying that his marriage may be dissolved on the ground that his wife has, since the solemaization thereof been guilty of adultery. When wife may petition for dissolution.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "4. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to learned Judge. Family Court to re-hear the ease and dispose it of in accordance with law within three months from the date of appearance of parties.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/220561/ | AIR1997ORI162, AIR 1997 ORISSA 162, (1997) 3 CIVLJ 601 (1997) 84 CUT LT 132, (1997) 84 CUT LT 132", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1997, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1997ORI162, AIR 1997 ORISSA 162, (1997) 3 CIVLJ 601 (1997) 84 CUT LT 132, (1997) 84 CUT LT 132", "Kanoon Doc ID": "220561", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/220561/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Orissa High Court", "Case Title": "Sandeep Kumar Senapati vs Jyotirmayee Sahoo on 26 March, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-03-26", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "MATA No.12 of 2023 Sandeep Kumar Senapati .... Appellant -versus- Jyotirmayee Sahoo .... Respondent Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Appellant : Mr. G. N. Parida, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. A. P. Bose, Advocate JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH 2. Present Appeal is directed against the judgment and order Khurda passed in C.P. No.147 of 2017, wherein the learned Court refused to grant decree of divorce to the husband.", "Fact/ Respondent": "MATA No.12 of 2023 Sandeep Kumar Senapati .... Appellant -versus- Jyotirmayee Sahoo .... Respondent Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Appellant : Mr. G. N. Parida, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. A. P. Bose, Advocate JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (desertion) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "\"15. If so, the question arises what kind of cruel treatment does clause (i-a) contemplate? In particular, what is the kind of mental cruelty that is required to be established? While answering these questions, it must be kept in mind that the cruelty mentioned in clause (i-a) is a ground now for divorce as well as for judicial separation under Section 10. Another circumstance to be kept in mind is that even where the marriage has MATA No.12 of 2023 Page 2 of 8 irretrievably broken down, the Act, even after the 1976 (Amendment) Act, does not permit dissolution of marriage on that ground. This circumstance may have to be kept in mind while ascertaining the type of cruelty contemplated by Section 13(1)(i-a). 16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such...", "Decision": "In the case at hand, keeping in view the conduct of the husband and the facts discussed above where he has deliberately refused to restore marital life despite the wife's willingness to reconcile, we find no justification for granting a decree of divorce on this ground. The wife has consistently expressed her interest in reunion, yet the husband and his family members have deliberately denied her the opportunity for the same. Furthermore, the husband's remarriage to another woman underscores his lack of genuine effort towards reconciliation. In such circumstances, he cannot claim a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, as such conduct by one spouse cannot be used to their advantage in order to get a divorce.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85141704/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "85141704", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85141704/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Orissa High Court", "Case Title": "Prafulla Kumar Sahu vs Sarojabala Sahu And Anr. on 30 June, 1980", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1980-06-30", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 100, Section 17, Section 22", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a reference made under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 4 of 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the learned District Judge of Cuttack for confirmation of the decree for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Their marriage took place on 21-3-1969. It was alleged that the spouses lived together for about three months and the wife was taken by her father on the plea that wife's mother was seriously ill. Several attempts of the petitioner to bring back his wife failed. Intervention of well-wishers also did not prove effective. Petitioner applied under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the wife was produced in court. She made a statement that she did not like to reside with the husband. He thereupon applied for judicial separation and obtained a decree on 23-9-1971 (Ext. 2). The spouses never lived together thereafter. It was further alleged that the wife (respondent No. 1) had adulterous relationship with her own uncle (respondent No. 2). 2. The wife (respondent No. 1) did not enter contest. Respondent No. 2 alone entered contest and denied the allegation of adultery. Three witnesses were examined in support of the application and respondent No. 2 examined himself in support of his defence. The learned District Judge came to...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a reference made under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 4 of 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the learned District Judge of Cuttack for confirmation of the decree for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Their marriage took place on 21-3-1969. It was alleged that the spouses lived together for about three months and the wife was taken by her father on the plea that wife's mother was seriously ill. Several attempts of the petitioner to bring back his wife failed. Intervention of well-wishers also did not prove effective. Petitioner applied under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the wife was produced in court. She made a statement that she did not like to reside with the husband. He thereupon applied for judicial separation and obtained a decree on 23-9-1971 (Ext. 2). The spouses never lived together thereafter. It was further alleged that the wife (respondent No. 1) had adulterous relationship with her own uncle (respondent No. 2).", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "5. Adulterous conduct having been established, the condition indicated under Section 10 of the Act has been satisfied. In this view of the matter, we confirm the decree-nisi of the learned District Judge and the marriage solemnized between the spouses on 21-8-1969 stands dissolved by the present decree. Parties are directed to bear their own costs of this proceeding.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1289084/ | AIR1980ORI168, AIR 1980 ORISSA 168, (1980) 50 CUT LT 138", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1980, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1980ORI168, AIR 1980 ORISSA 168, (1980) 50 CUT LT 138", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1289084", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1289084/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Saumya Ann Thomas vs The Union Oof India on 25 February, 2010", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2010-02-25", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A, Section 13B, Section 28, Section 32B", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. SAUMYA ANN THOMAS, AC-18, ARTIEE COMFORT ... Petitioner Vs 1. THE UNION OOF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY 2. PRAVEEN THOMAS, THAZHETHIL ST. MARYS For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN For Respondent :SRI.PRATHEESH.P The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI O R D E R R. BASANT & ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Is the stipulation of a period of two years as the minimum mandatory period of separate residence in Sec.10A(1) of the Divorce Act right, just and fair? Is it arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive? Does that stipulation offend Art.14 and/or Art.21 of the Constitution? Does that stipulation deserve to be read down to \"one year\" to save the provision from the vice of unconstitutionality? These interesting contentions are raised for our consideration in this writ petition.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. SAUMYA ANN THOMAS, AC-18, ARTIEE COMFORT ... Petitioner Vs 1. THE UNION OOF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY 2. PRAVEEN THOMAS, THAZHETHIL ST. MARYS For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN For Respondent :SRI.PRATHEESH.P The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI O R D E R R. BASANT & ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------", "Issues": "\"10A. Dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.-- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, a petition for dissolution of marriage may be presented to the District Court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnised before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of two years or more, that they have not been able to live together and they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. (emphasis supplied) We have serious doubts about the proposition that a piece of personal law - whether statutory or precedent recognised or otherwise, will not be law or law in force within the meaning of Art.13 of the Constitution. This would go against the fundamental and core constitutional values as also the scheme of Art.13...", "Petitioner Argument": "4. The learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent have been heard. The learned counsel for the spouses assail the impugned order on the following grounds: 1. The period of two years stipulated under Sec.10A(1) and the period of six months stipulated under Sec.10A(2) of the Divorce Act must have been waived and dispensed with by the learned Judge of the Family Court. 2. The stipulation of a period of two years under Sec.10A(1) is arbitrary, capricious and fanciful; is not fair, just, right and reasonable and consequently offends the right to equality of the petitioner under Art.14 of the Constitution and her right to life under Art.21 of the Constitution. The same is liable to be read down as one year and consequently divorce under Sec.10A of the Divorce Act is liable to be granted. W.P.(C) No. 20076 of 2009 -: 4 :- 5. To appreciate this contention raised, we deem it necessary to extract Sec.10A of the Divorce Act. It reads thus: 13. It is contended that the incorporation and insistence...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "6. The first contention is that the period of two years under Sec.10A(1) and the period of six months under Sec.10A(2) of the Divorce Act must have been waived by the Family Court in its discretion. We find absolutely no merit in this contention at all. Under the body of Sec.10A(1) , four conditions must co-exist before an application can be made. They are: A. The marriage between the spouses must have been solemnized; B. They have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved by mutual consent; C. That they have not been able to live together; and W.P.(C) No. 20076 of 2009 -: 6 :- D. That they have been living separately for a period of two years or more. 7. We are satisfied that these are the essential requirements/ingredients/preconditions which must be established to justify an application for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Sec.10A(1) . These conditions must co- exist to justify an application for divorce. There is no provision - express or implied, which can enable the court to waive/reduce the mandatory minimum period of separate residence stipulated under Sec.10A . That contention cannot hence be accepted at all. 8. There was a contention...", "Decision": "(e) Invoking the powers of the Family Court under Sec.10A W.P.(C) No. 20076 of 2009 -: 37 :- of the Divorce Act as so read down, the marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent solemnized on 6/4/08 is hereby dissolved under Sec.10A of the Divorce Act.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/475313/ | 2010 A I H C 3118, (2010) 2 DMC 526, (2011) 2 CURCC 468, (2010) 2 HINDULR 72, (2010) 1 KER LT 869", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity", "Judgment Year": 2010, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2010 A I H C 3118, (2010) 2 DMC 526, (2011) 2 CURCC 468, (2010) 2 HINDULR 72, (2010) 1 KER LT 869", "Kanoon Doc ID": "475313", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/475313/", "Chunks Indexed": 18 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Benzine Sylvester vs Sibin Islin Kochuparambil on 24 October, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-10-24", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Mat.A Nos.434, 442 & 460 of 2020 1 2025:KER:79729 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2019 IN OP NO.1246 OF 2016 OF FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: BENZINE SYLVESTER, AGED 43 YEARS S/O. ANTONY CRUZ MARIA ANTONY, RESIDING AT 27/459, KUNUKUZHI LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695037. BY ADVS. SHRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER SMT.MEERA P. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: SIBIN ISLIN KOCHUPARAMBIL, AGED 40 YEARS D/O. KOCHUPARAMBIL CHACKO ISAC, RESIDING AT KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ISLIN NIVAS, ATHANI P.O., THRISSUR-680771. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA SHRI.AJAY BEN JOSE SRI.MANJUNATH MENON SMT.HANI P.NAIR SRI.R.GITHESH SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 24.10.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.442/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mat.A Nos.434, 442 & 460 of 2020 2 2025:KER:79729 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 442 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2019 IN OP NO.578 OF 2014 OF FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: BENZINE SYLVESTER, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.ANTONY CRUZ MARIA ANTONY, RESIDING AT 27/459, KUNUKUZHI LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695037. BY ADVS. SHRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.MANU VYASAN...", "Fact/ Respondent": "Mat.A Nos.434, 442 & 460 of 2020 1 2025:KER:79729 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2019 IN OP NO.1246 OF 2016 OF FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: BENZINE SYLVESTER, AGED 43 YEARS S/O. ANTONY CRUZ MARIA ANTONY, RESIDING AT 27/459, KUNUKUZHI LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695037. BY ADVS. SHRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER SMT.MEERA P. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: SIBIN ISLIN KOCHUPARAMBIL, AGED 40 YEARS D/O. KOCHUPARAMBIL CHACKO ISAC, RESIDING AT KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ISLIN NIVAS, ATHANI P.O., THRISSUR-680771. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA SHRI.AJAY BEN JOSE SRI.MANJUNATH MENON SMT.HANI P.NAIR SRI.R.GITHESH SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 24.10.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.442/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mat.A Nos.434, 442 & 460 of 2020 2 2025:KER:79729 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 442 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2019 IN OP NO.578 OF 2014 OF FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: BENZINE SYLVESTER, AGED 43...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (mutual consent 10A) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "10. Hence, in the interest of justice, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a decree of divorce, dissolving the man.iage between the Applicants on mutual consent.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33363578/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "33363578", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33363578/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Emmanuel Kannan vs Respondent ... None on 2 January, 2023", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2023-01-02", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 1, Section 10A, Section 19, Section 20, Section 21, Section 45", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Procedural", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2023/MHC/46 C.R.P.No.4314 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM C.R.P.No.4314 of 2022 1.Emmanuel Kannan 2.Dr.Daisy Dhanaseeli ... Petitioners Vs. Respondent ... None Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the docket order dated 21.09.2022 passed in Chengalpattu and consequently direct the said Court to number the OP.SR.No.6669 of 2022 and decide the mutual divorce petition filed under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869 and to pass any further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Ayyamperumal Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4314 of 2022 The Civil Revision Petition has been filed, questioning the Docket Principal District and Sessions Court, Chengalpattu and consequently direct the said Court to number the OP.SR.No.6669 of 2022 filed for mutual divorce between the petitioners.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2023/MHC/46 C.R.P.No.4314 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM C.R.P.No.4314 of 2022 1.Emmanuel Kannan 2.Dr.Daisy Dhanaseeli ... Petitioners Vs. Respondent ... None Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the docket order dated 21.09.2022 passed in Chengalpattu and consequently direct the said Court to number the OP.SR.No.6669 of 2022 and decide the mutual divorce petition filed under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869 and to pass any further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Ayyamperumal Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4314 of 2022", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (mutual consent 10A) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "12. With these directions, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143450101/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; procedural", "Judgment Year": 2023, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "143450101", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143450101/", "Chunks Indexed": 2 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Dayana Sebastian vs Jill Joseph on 26 August, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-08-26", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Mat.A No.191 of 2020 2025 : KER: 65584 PRESET THE HONouRABI.I in. TuSTlcE DIVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONouRABI.I ems. TusTlcE M.B. SNEHAIATHA TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AVGUST 2025 / 4TH BHADRA, 1947 RAT.APPEAI. NO. 1910F 2020 AGIAINST THE ruDGnENT DATED 11.11.2019 IN op No.2254 oF 2ol4 oF FaMII.¥ couRT,ERNAKulnM APRELIIANT /RE SPONDENT : DAYANA SEBASTIAN, ACEt) 42 YEARS D/O DEVASIA.N.J, NJANDUKUZHIYII. HOUSE, UPPUKANDAM. P. O , KATTAPPANZI VIIIIAGE , uDVlutEENCHoln TAI,uK, plN-68551o. BY ADVS. SRI . JOENSCIN GOMEZ SRI. JOSH JOSEPH (CHEMPI.AYIL) RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: TIEL rosEPH, AGED 48 yEARs, S/O JOSEPEI, PADINJAREVEEFTIII HOUSE , THOTTUMUGIIAM.P.0, ALUVA, PIN-683105. BY ADVS. SRI . GEORGE mTHEw SHRI . PRAVEEN S . SMT.EI.SA DENNY PINDIS SRI . M . D . sAslKumRAN SRI.DIPU JZDGS SHRI.STEPHY K REGI THls RATRIMONIAL APPEAI. HAVING ConE Up FOR HEARING oN 26.08.2025, THE COURT 0N THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE F0I.LOWING: Mat.A No.191 of 2020 2025 : KER: 65584 -------11111-1111,-I,--11111I-I----I--11-I- Mat.Appeal No.191 of 2020 ----,--I-I,111--I--I-1111-1111,----111--I-I Mat.A No.191/2020 is an appeal filed by the appellant/wife challenging the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Ernakulam under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Mat.A No.191 of 2020 2025 : KER: 65584 PRESET THE HONouRABI.I in. TuSTlcE DIVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONouRABI.I ems. TusTlcE M.B. SNEHAIATHA TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AVGUST 2025 / 4TH BHADRA, 1947 RAT.APPEAI. NO. 1910F 2020 AGIAINST THE ruDGnENT DATED 11.11.2019 IN op No.2254 oF 2ol4 oF FaMII.¥ couRT,ERNAKulnM APRELIIANT /RE SPONDENT : DAYANA SEBASTIAN, ACEt) 42 YEARS D/O DEVASIA.N.J, NJANDUKUZHIYII. HOUSE, UPPUKANDAM. P. O , KATTAPPANZI VIIIIAGE , uDVlutEENCHoln TAI,uK, plN-68551o. BY ADVS. SRI . JOENSCIN GOMEZ SRI. JOSH JOSEPH (CHEMPI.AYIL) RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: TIEL rosEPH, AGED 48 yEARs, S/O JOSEPEI, PADINJAREVEEFTIII HOUSE , THOTTUMUGIIAM.P.0, ALUVA, PIN-683105. BY ADVS. SRI . GEORGE mTHEw SHRI . PRAVEEN S . SMT.EI.SA DENNY PINDIS SRI . M . D . sAslKumRAN SRI.DIPU JZDGS SHRI.STEPHY K REGI THls RATRIMONIAL APPEAI. HAVING ConE Up FOR HEARING oN 26.08.2025, THE COURT 0N THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE F0I.LOWING: Mat.A No.191 of 2020 2025 : KER: 65584 -------11111-1111,-I,--11111I-I----I--11-I- Mat.Appeal No.191 of 2020 ----,--I-I,111--I--I-1111-1111,----111--I-I", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Appellant Respondent #?ny„ul\"qg- Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the R a ffi;.`o` 1 IA 2/2025 IN Mat.Appeal 191/2020-Petition iE BEFORE THE HONoiiRABLE rilGi] count oF KERf`L^` ERi`tAKtJLj\\M '^ No. Of 2t'2§ ln Mat Appeal No.191/2020 Pe'i€E-rs Dayana Sehas¢}an Jill Joseph I. Dayana Sebastian. aged 50 ycars` D/a Pelfitio ncrs/^ppel)an t and Dcvasia N.I, NiandLikuzhiyil House. Resepondent : Uppukandam P.0, K@ttappana Village. Ubumbanchola Taluk. PIN - 68S510 `ha C.hrisLian communits'. The rriavy`ng€ t)etufeen PetitiQne[ No. ` and 2 were Solemnized on 3 I -I 2-2001 in €iccordance with the customary rites and ceTemonic`q of lhe Christian religion a( St Dominic`s Church, Alu\\.a. f\\L\\tS- FS0 VERIFEED -26 2 IA 2/2025 IN Mat.Appeal 191/2020-Petition iiiH =. T``.a i.hi|dri-i` `vcrl` born o`it t}f the ``.Cdlock and both Childrel` have noN^ €`|taincd t|i.` ag|` ol` miLjoril>' .111d thcrcfore their guardianship and i-uslod}! Llrc not ii\"ti`i.i.dl considcratioJ)s al this point in timi`. 3. ht\\er the marriage. a difference ot` apin.1on oupred between the I...titioncrs and as su.-h they have bccn li`.ing separately sii`e|- June. 2012. After lbis date thcrl. is Ilo marital rl-lationship bet`~.c`en ihi`...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "J!jll Joseph` aged 54 years. €` .``. ` --- Sf o Joseph. Padjnjarevcettil House` Thortumngham P.O` Alu`ia, J'TN-683105 I.ist of documents: i .", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105417665/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "105417665", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105417665/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court - Daily Orders", "Case Title": "Cliona Francis Noronha vs Manuel John D Costa on 10 April, 2026", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2026-04-10", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A, Section 13B, Section 142", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S).2770/2024 CLIONA FRANCIS NORONHA PETITIONER(S) MANUEL JOHN D COSTA RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R This Transfer Petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the wife of the respondent seeking the following prayer:", "Fact/ Respondent": "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S).2770/2024 CLIONA FRANCIS NORONHA PETITIONER(S) MANUEL JOHN D COSTA RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 09.12.2025, a sum of Rs.20 lakhs + 19 lakhs has been deposited with the Registry of this Court and a sum of Rs.one lakh lying in a fixed deposit has been withdrawn by the petitioner herein. Thus, the petitioner may be paid the sum of Rs.40 lakhs towards alimony in respect of all the claims made by the petitioner herein as against the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent therefore submitted that the application filed by the respondent herein under Article 142 of the Constitution of India may be allowed since the petitioner is agreeable for such a relief. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner is agreeable for the dissolution of the marriage and the application filed by the respondent herein may be allowed. 6. In the above backdrop we have taken on record, the application filed by the respondent herein. 7. We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar. 8. The parties are also present before this...", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "15. Consequently, we allow the application filed by the respondent under Article 142 of the constitution of India. The marriage solemnised between the parties on 05.04.2021 at Maharashtra stands dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, stands dissolved. 5 16. The Registry is directed to transmit a sum of Rs.39 lakhs to the petitioner herein with accrued interest, if any, to account of the petitioner herein through RTGS/IMPS viz., Account Number; 0444101019074, Canara Bank, Account Holder Name: Cliona C.Noronha, IFSC Code: CNRB0000411; Branch Address: #628, 629, III Block, Rajajinagar. 17. In view of the aforesaid order, it is expected that the parties shall not litigate against each other. 18. Registry to draw up a decree in the aforesaid terms. 19. Transfer Petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. ………………………………………………………, J (B.V. NAGARATHNA) …………………………………………………………, J (PRASHANT KUMAR MSIHRA) NEW DELHI APRIL 10, 2026 6 ITEM NO.60 COURT NO.4 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/185293649/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "185293649", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/185293649/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Supreme Court - Daily Orders", "Case Title": "G. Saraswathi vs G. Narasimha Rao on 4 July, 2023", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2023-07-04", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A, Section 28", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Unclear", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.11 SECTION XVI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 745/2022 IN TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 404/2020 G. SARASWATHI Petitioner(s) G. NARASIMHA RAO Respondent(s) (NOT TO BE DELETED FROM 04.07.2023 AS BAILABLE WARRANTS ISSUED REQUIRING THE RESPONDENT TO BE PERSONALLY PRESENT ON 04.07.2023 Date : 04-07-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tanvir Nayar, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Prerna Robin, Adv. Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, AOR Mr. B Yeshwanth Raj, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1. Heard Mr. Tanvir Nayar, learned counsel, who is appearing together with the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Prerna Robin, learned counsel, who is appearing together with the respondent.", "Fact/ Respondent": "ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.11 SECTION XVI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 745/2022 IN TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 404/2020 G. SARASWATHI Petitioner(s) G. NARASIMHA RAO Respondent(s) (NOT TO BE DELETED FROM 04.07.2023 AS BAILABLE WARRANTS ISSUED REQUIRING THE RESPONDENT TO BE PERSONALLY PRESENT ON 04.07.2023 Date : 04-07-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tanvir Nayar, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Prerna Robin, Adv. Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, AOR Mr. B Yeshwanth Raj, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (mutual consent 10A) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "(NITIN TALREJA) (KAMLESH RAWAT) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 2", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/111379001/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; unclear", "Judgment Year": 2023, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "111379001", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/111379001/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Jittymon Joseph vs Tania Chacko on 25 February, 2010", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2010-02-25", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A, Section 125", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. JITTYMON JOSEPH ... Petitioner Vs 1. TANIA CHACKO, AGED 23 YEARS, For Petitioner :SRI.H.B.SHENOY For Respondent :SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI O R D E R R. BASANT & ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- The only question that survives for consideration in this writ petition is whether the joint application for dissolution of marriage under Sec.10A of the Divorce Act can be allowed and the marriage dissolved?", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. JITTYMON JOSEPH ... Petitioner Vs 1. TANIA CHACKO, AGED 23 YEARS, For Petitioner :SRI.H.B.SHENOY For Respondent :SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI O R D E R R. BASANT & ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------", "Issues": "The only question that survives for consideration in this writ petition is whether the joint application for dissolution of marriage under Sec.10A of the Divorce Act can be allowed and the marriage dissolved? 2. A brief reference to the facts may be relevant. The parties are Christians by religion. Their marriage was solemnized in accordance with the Christian religious rites on 31/12/07. There was instant acrimony in matrimony and the couple started separate residence from 10/2/08. A series of matrimonial litigations followed and the husband filed O.P.No.502/08 before the Family Court for restitution of W.P.(C) No.24219 of 2008-S -: 2 :- conjugal rights. The wife filed M.C.No.78/08 claiming maintenance under Sec.125 Cr.P.C.; O.P.No.319/08 claiming a money decree from the husband and O.P.No.512/08 claiming divorce under Sec.10 of the Divorce Act. While these proceedings were pending before the court below, the wife filed M.P.239/08 in M.C.No.78/08 claiming interim maintenance under Sec.125...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "(c) I.A.No.1573/09 is allowed. Invoking the powers of the Family Court under the Divorce Act , the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent solemnized on 3/12/07, in accordance with the Christian religious rites, is hereby dissolved under Sec.10A of the Divorce Act.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33546/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; unclear", "Judgment Year": 2010, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "33546", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33546/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Ajayakumar @ John vs Nizha.P.@ Marry on 20 December, 2010", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2010-12-20", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Mat.Appeal.No. 577 of 2009() 1. AJAYAKUMAR @ JOHN, ... Petitioner Vs 1. NIZHA.P.@ MARRY, D/O BALAN NAIR, For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN O R D E R R.BASANT & ------------------------------------------- MAT Appeal Nos.577 of 2009 and 852 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Mat.Appeal No.577/2009 is filed by the appellant/husband against the dismissal of his claim for divorce under Section 10 of the Divorce Act. Mat.Appeal No.852/2009 is filed by the appellant against a decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed against him by the Family Court on the application filed by the respondent, his wife.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Mat.Appeal.No. 577 of 2009() 1. AJAYAKUMAR @ JOHN, ... Petitioner Vs 1. NIZHA.P.@ MARRY, D/O BALAN NAIR, For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN O R D E R R.BASANT & ------------------------------------------- MAT Appeal Nos.577 of 2009 and 852 of 2009 -------------------------------------------", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (mutual consent 10A) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "c) I.A.No.1495/2010 is allowed. The marriage between the spouses, solemnised as per christian religious Mat.A.577/2009 &852/2009 3 rites at the Amalapuri St.Thomas Church, Kozhikode on 12.5.1999, is hereby dissolved on mutual consent under Section 10A of the Divorce Act with effect from this date.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1412246/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; unclear", "Judgment Year": 2010, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1412246", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1412246/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Sumi Mathew vs Shiju Abraham on 26 August, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-08-26", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Mat.A Nos.338/2022, 621/2022, 14/2023 & 878/2023 2025 : KER: 6568 9 PRESET THE HONouRABLE in. ]usTlcE DEVAN EumcllzniDRAN & THE HONOURABIE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHA14ATHA TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY 0F AUcOST 2025 / 4TH BHADRA, 1947 RAT.APPEAL NO. 338 0F 2022 AGHENST TEE euDCB4mtT DATED o8.12.2o21 IN op No.143 oF 20±9 0F FTLMIL¥ COURT, KANNUR APPEI.IANT/PETITIONER: SHIOu ABRAHAM, AGED 38 YEARS S/o.ABRAHm4, puTHUMArmTHII. VEED, MANlppARA (co) , unmNKAXAM, NucHlyzD vll.LACE , TAI.IPARZDGA TALUK, KmiNUR, PIN -67o 7o5. BY ADVS. SHRI . P . V . ANcOP SRI.PHIJO PRADRESH PHII.IP SHRI . M . p . pRlyESHKuinR SRI . K . V . SREERAJ RESPONDRES/RESPONDENTS: 1 SUMI mTHEw, AGED 34 rEARs W/O.SHIJU ABRAHAM, IKKARA VEED, KARUVANCHAII (PO) , KantlvENCHAL, AIAKKODE , KANNUR DlsTRlcT , plN - 67o 571 Now TEBeoRAR¥ REslDING AT SUMI RATHEW, MILE.ENIUM INSURANCE BRORERS CO.I.II.C. AN RMs GRoup coMPAN¥, oFFlcE No.2o682o8, KARAln STAR BulLDING, KARmm, p.o.Box.34602, DUBAI, u.A.I. JOJO \"THEW KUZHIMUI.I,IL HouSE , inRANCIATTuPAI,L¥ (po) , KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN -686 635. mTHAI IKKARA VRED , KARUVANCHAI. (PO). , KARUVIINCHAI-, AI.AREroDE , TALlpARAI>GA TAI,uK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN -670 571. BY ADV SHRI.M. SASINDRZDl THls mTRIMONIAI, AppEAL HAVING cold up FOR HEARING ON 26.08.2025, ALONG WITH lfat.Appeal.621/2022 AND CONNECTED czisEs, THE cOuRT ON THE sAiB Day DEI.IVERED THE sol,LOwlNG: Mat.A Nos.338/2022, 621/2022, 14/2023 & 878/2023 2 02 5 : KER...", "Fact/ Respondent": "Mat.A Nos.338/2022, 621/2022, 14/2023 & 878/2023 2025 : KER: 6568 9 PRESET THE HONouRABLE in. ]usTlcE DEVAN EumcllzniDRAN & THE HONOURABIE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHA14ATHA TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY 0F AUcOST 2025 / 4TH BHADRA, 1947 RAT.APPEAL NO. 338 0F 2022 AGHENST TEE euDCB4mtT DATED o8.12.2o21 IN op No.143 oF 20±9 0F FTLMIL¥ COURT, KANNUR APPEI.IANT/PETITIONER: SHIOu ABRAHAM, AGED 38 YEARS S/o.ABRAHm4, puTHUMArmTHII. VEED, MANlppARA (co) , unmNKAXAM, NucHlyzD vll.LACE , TAI.IPARZDGA TALUK, KmiNUR, PIN -67o 7o5. BY ADVS. SHRI . P . V . ANcOP SRI.PHIJO PRADRESH PHII.IP SHRI . M . p . pRlyESHKuinR SRI . K . V . SREERAJ RESPONDRES/RESPONDENTS: 1 SUMI mTHEw, AGED 34 rEARs W/O.SHIJU ABRAHAM, IKKARA VEED, KARUVANCHAII (PO) , KantlvENCHAL, AIAKKODE , KANNUR DlsTRlcT , plN - 67o 571 Now TEBeoRAR¥ REslDING AT SUMI RATHEW, MILE.ENIUM INSURANCE BRORERS CO.I.II.C. AN RMs GRoup coMPAN¥, oFFlcE No.2o682o8, KARAln STAR BulLDING, KARmm, p.o.Box.34602, DUBAI, u.A.I. JOJO \"THEW KUZHIMUI.I,IL HouSE , inRANCIATTuPAI,L¥ (po) , KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN -686 635. mTHAI IKKARA VRED , KARUVANCHAI. (PO). , KARUVIINCHAI-, AI.AREroDE , TALlpARAI>GA TAI,uK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN -670 571. BY ADV SHRI.M. SASINDRZDl THls mTRIMONIAI, AppEAL HAVING cold up FOR HEARING ON 26.08.2025, ALONG WITH lfat.Appeal.621/2022 AND CONNECTED czisEs,...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (mutual consent 10A) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "5. It is submitted that the entire issues jn all the above referred cases has been settled between the parties amicably out of Court. As per settlement arrived at between the parties, the Appellant/wife agreed to pay an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- (Nine Lakhs only) to the respondent / husband in full and final settlement of the issues involved in all the above referred Appeals. The Appellanvwife agreed to pay the above sum of Rs.9,00,000/- (Nine Lakhs only) to the respondenvhusband by transferring the amount to the Bank account of the respondenvhusband or 6f his counsel within 15 days from today. 6. The respondent/ husband has no objection for, and agrees to allow Mat.Appeal 621/2022 by granting decree of divorce as prayed for in OP No.624/2017. 7. The respondent/ husband agrees to relinquish his right over the joint locker maintained in the Alakode Branch of the State Bank of India, and the entire articles in the locker, and would furnish neeessary instructions to the Bank to permit the appellant / wife to own and operate the locker independently. 8. In view...", "Respondent Argument": "Dated this the 15th day of July 2025 cfty Counsel for the Appellant/wife Phu`D #uofs::n: {#;'l?fo|„ Counsel for the respondentyhusband Tbffi#s7 FSO VERIFIED-46 IA 2/2025 IN Mat.Appeal 621/2022-Petition (Page-7) BEFOFtE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT EFLNAKUu IA. i of 2025 in Mat. Appeal No. 621 of2022 Petitioners/ Respondent and ADDellant Shiju Abraham, aged 39 years, S/o. Abraham, Puthumattathil House, Manippara.P.O., Karimankayam, Nichiyad Village, Taliparamba, Kannur District -670 705.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "6. The respondent/ husband has no objection for, and agrees to allow Mat.Appeal 621/2022 by granting decree of divorce as prayed for in OP No.624/2017.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199571092/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "199571092", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199571092/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "James.V.O vs Betty on 12 November, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-11-12", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2025 : RER: 87114 THE HONouRABLE MR. ]usTlcE DIVAN RZDmcHzniDRzua & THE IIONOURABIE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEIIAIATHA WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEREER 2025 / 21ST KARTHIRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAI. NO. 12510F 2016 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2016 IN OP NO.652 0F 2015 0F FAIILY COURT , IRINdAliAKUDA APPEIIiANT/PETITIONER: JRES . V . 0 june 54 ¥Eas, S/O OUSEH, VADAKKZEN HOUSE, MulilASERI P.O, NEAR BLOCK, CHA:VAKKAD TAIIUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 509. BY ADVS. sum. GlsA susAN THOMzis sin . K .7jREIL¥ sin . G . ASHENI sam . A . R . I) IV¥A RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: BEFT AGrm 49 ±, D/O VARU, PAIAYOOR HOUSE, THOYAKKA:VU, THRISSUR DISTRICH 680 513. 8¥ anvs ., SHRI. REBIN vlNCENT GRAlnN SHRI.I>IRESH G TgzrmlER TH I S IATRIMON IAII APPEAL HZIVING BEEN FINALI.Y HEARD ON 12.11.2025, AI.ONG WITH Mat.Appeal.1247/2016, 1252/2016, THE COURT oN TI]E- SAME DAY DE`I]IVERE-D TI]E` FOLLowlNe: Mat.A Nos.1247/2016,1251/2016 & 1252/2016 2 2025 : KER: 87114 THE HONouRABLE in. TusTlcE DEVAN RZDmcHANDRznT & THE HONotJRELE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALHTHA wEDNESDAy, THE i2TH DAy OF NOvEreER 2o25 / 21sT KARTHIRA, 1947 RAT.APPEAL NO. 1247 0F 2016 ACIAINST THE OREER I)ATED 30.06.2016 IN OP NO.650 0F 2015 0F FAMILY COURT, IRINJAliAKUDA APPEIILZENT /RESPOwDENT : JRES V.O. zuue 54 ¥Ezus, S/O OUSEPH, VIu}AKKZEN: HOUSE, M[JlilASERI P.O, NEAR BIiocK, CRIIVAKKAD TAliuK, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 509. BY ADVS. SMT. GlsA...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2025 : RER: 87114 THE HONouRABLE MR. ]usTlcE DIVAN RZDmcHzniDRzua & THE IIONOURABIE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEIIAIATHA WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEREER 2025 / 21ST KARTHIRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAI. NO. 12510F 2016 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2016 IN OP NO.652 0F 2015 0F FAIILY COURT , IRINdAliAKUDA APPEIIiANT/PETITIONER: JRES . V . 0 june 54 ¥Eas, S/O OUSEH, VADAKKZEN HOUSE, MulilASERI P.O, NEAR BLOCK, CHA:VAKKAD TAIIUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 509. BY ADVS. sum. GlsA susAN THOMzis sin . K .7jREIL¥ sin . G . ASHENI sam . A . R . I) IV¥A RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: BEFT AGrm 49 ±, D/O VARU, PAIAYOOR HOUSE, THOYAKKA:VU, THRISSUR DISTRICH 680 513. 8¥ anvs ., SHRI. REBIN vlNCENT GRAlnN SHRI.I>IRESH G TgzrmlER TH I S IATRIMON IAII APPEAL HZIVING BEEN FINALI.Y HEARD ON 12.11.2025, AI.ONG WITH Mat.Appeal.1247/2016, 1252/2016, THE COURT oN TI]E- SAME DAY DE`I]IVERE-D TI]E` FOLLowlNe: Mat.A Nos.1247/2016,1251/2016 & 1252/2016 2 2025 : KER: 87114 THE HONouRABLE in. TusTlcE DEVAN RZDmcHANDRznT & THE HONotJRELE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALHTHA wEDNESDAy, THE i2TH DAy OF NOvEreER 2o25 / 21sT KARTHIRA, 1947 RAT.APPEAL NO. 1247 0F 2016 ACIAINST THE OREER I)ATED 30.06.2016 IN OP NO.650 0F 2015 0F FAMILY COURT, IRINJAliAKUDA APPEIILZENT /RESPOwDENT : JRES V.O. zuue...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "BJE7£Hj32JD# JAM.ES V.O. BETTY I „' Petitioner 2\"d iict:itiolicr FSO .VERl.FIE.D -8", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/87144778/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "87144778", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/87144778/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "James V.O vs Betty on 12 November, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-11-12", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2025 : RER: 87114 THE HONouRABLE MR. ]usTlcE DIVAN RZDmcHzniDRzua & THE IIONOURABIE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEIIAIATHA WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEREER 2025 / 21ST KARTHIRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAI. NO. 12510F 2016 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2016 IN OP NO.652 0F 2015 0F FAIILY COURT , IRINdAliAKUDA APPEIIiANT/PETITIONER: JRES . V . 0 june 54 ¥Eas, S/O OUSEH, VADAKKZEN HOUSE, MulilASERI P.O, NEAR BLOCK, CHA:VAKKAD TAIIUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 509. BY ADVS. sum. GlsA susAN THOMzis sin . K .7jREIL¥ sin . G . ASHENI sam . A . R . I) IV¥A RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: BEFT AGrm 49 ±, D/O VARU, PAIAYOOR HOUSE, THOYAKKA:VU, THRISSUR DISTRICH 680 513. 8¥ anvs ., SHRI. REBIN vlNCENT GRAlnN SHRI.I>IRESH G TgzrmlER TH I S IATRIMON IAII APPEAL HZIVING BEEN FINALI.Y HEARD ON 12.11.2025, AI.ONG WITH Mat.Appeal.1247/2016, 1252/2016, THE COURT oN TI]E- SAME DAY DE`I]IVERE-D TI]E` FOLLowlNe: Mat.A Nos.1247/2016,1251/2016 & 1252/2016 2 2025 : KER: 87114 THE HONouRABLE in. TusTlcE DEVAN RZDmcHANDRznT & THE HONotJRELE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALHTHA wEDNESDAy, THE i2TH DAy OF NOvEreER 2o25 / 21sT KARTHIRA, 1947 RAT.APPEAL NO. 1247 0F 2016 ACIAINST THE OREER I)ATED 30.06.2016 IN OP NO.650 0F 2015 0F FAMILY COURT, IRINJAliAKUDA APPEIILZENT /RESPOwDENT : JRES V.O. zuue 54 ¥Ezus, S/O OUSEPH, VIu}AKKZEN: HOUSE, M[JlilASERI P.O, NEAR BIiocK, CRIIVAKKAD TAliuK, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 509. BY ADVS. SMT. GlsA...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2025 : RER: 87114 THE HONouRABLE MR. ]usTlcE DIVAN RZDmcHzniDRzua & THE IIONOURABIE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEIIAIATHA WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEREER 2025 / 21ST KARTHIRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAI. NO. 12510F 2016 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2016 IN OP NO.652 0F 2015 0F FAIILY COURT , IRINdAliAKUDA APPEIIiANT/PETITIONER: JRES . V . 0 june 54 ¥Eas, S/O OUSEH, VADAKKZEN HOUSE, MulilASERI P.O, NEAR BLOCK, CHA:VAKKAD TAIIUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 509. BY ADVS. sum. GlsA susAN THOMzis sin . K .7jREIL¥ sin . G . ASHENI sam . A . R . I) IV¥A RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: BEFT AGrm 49 ±, D/O VARU, PAIAYOOR HOUSE, THOYAKKA:VU, THRISSUR DISTRICH 680 513. 8¥ anvs ., SHRI. REBIN vlNCENT GRAlnN SHRI.I>IRESH G TgzrmlER TH I S IATRIMON IAII APPEAL HZIVING BEEN FINALI.Y HEARD ON 12.11.2025, AI.ONG WITH Mat.Appeal.1247/2016, 1252/2016, THE COURT oN TI]E- SAME DAY DE`I]IVERE-D TI]E` FOLLowlNe: Mat.A Nos.1247/2016,1251/2016 & 1252/2016 2 2025 : KER: 87114 THE HONouRABLE in. TusTlcE DEVAN RZDmcHANDRznT & THE HONotJRELE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALHTHA wEDNESDAy, THE i2TH DAy OF NOvEreER 2o25 / 21sT KARTHIRA, 1947 RAT.APPEAL NO. 1247 0F 2016 ACIAINST THE OREER I)ATED 30.06.2016 IN OP NO.650 0F 2015 0F FAMILY COURT, IRINJAliAKUDA APPEIILZENT /RESPOwDENT : JRES V.O. zuue...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "BJE7£Hj32JD# JAM.ES V.O. BETTY I „' Petitioner 2\"d iict:itiolicr FSO .VERl.FIE.D -8", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3359176/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 299); Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "3359176", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3359176/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "James V.O vs Betty on 12 November, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-11-12", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2025 : RER: 87114 THE HONouRABLE MR. ]usTlcE DIVAN RZDmcHzniDRzua & THE IIONOURABIE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEIIAIATHA WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEREER 2025 / 21ST KARTHIRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAI. NO. 12510F 2016 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2016 IN OP NO.652 0F 2015 0F FAIILY COURT , IRINdAliAKUDA APPEIIiANT/PETITIONER: JRES . V . 0 june 54 ¥Eas, S/O OUSEH, VADAKKZEN HOUSE, MulilASERI P.O, NEAR BLOCK, CHA:VAKKAD TAIIUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 509. BY ADVS. sum. GlsA susAN THOMzis sin . K .7jREIL¥ sin . G . ASHENI sam . A . R . I) IV¥A RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: BEFT AGrm 49 ±, D/O VARU, PAIAYOOR HOUSE, THOYAKKA:VU, THRISSUR DISTRICH 680 513. 8¥ anvs ., SHRI. REBIN vlNCENT GRAlnN SHRI.I>IRESH G TgzrmlER TH I S IATRIMON IAII APPEAL HZIVING BEEN FINALI.Y HEARD ON 12.11.2025, AI.ONG WITH Mat.Appeal.1247/2016, 1252/2016, THE COURT oN TI]E- SAME DAY DE`I]IVERE-D TI]E` FOLLowlNe: Mat.A Nos.1247/2016,1251/2016 & 1252/2016 2 2025 : KER: 87114 THE HONouRABLE in. TusTlcE DEVAN RZDmcHANDRznT & THE HONotJRELE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALHTHA wEDNESDAy, THE i2TH DAy OF NOvEreER 2o25 / 21sT KARTHIRA, 1947 RAT.APPEAL NO. 1247 0F 2016 ACIAINST THE OREER I)ATED 30.06.2016 IN OP NO.650 0F 2015 0F FAMILY COURT, IRINJAliAKUDA APPEIILZENT /RESPOwDENT : JRES V.O. zuue 54 ¥Ezus, S/O OUSEPH, VIu}AKKZEN: HOUSE, M[JlilASERI P.O, NEAR BIiocK, CRIIVAKKAD TAliuK, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 509. BY ADVS. SMT. GlsA...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2025 : RER: 87114 THE HONouRABLE MR. ]usTlcE DIVAN RZDmcHzniDRzua & THE IIONOURABIE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEIIAIATHA WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEREER 2025 / 21ST KARTHIRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAI. NO. 12510F 2016 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2016 IN OP NO.652 0F 2015 0F FAIILY COURT , IRINdAliAKUDA APPEIIiANT/PETITIONER: JRES . V . 0 june 54 ¥Eas, S/O OUSEH, VADAKKZEN HOUSE, MulilASERI P.O, NEAR BLOCK, CHA:VAKKAD TAIIUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 509. BY ADVS. sum. GlsA susAN THOMzis sin . K .7jREIL¥ sin . G . ASHENI sam . A . R . I) IV¥A RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: BEFT AGrm 49 ±, D/O VARU, PAIAYOOR HOUSE, THOYAKKA:VU, THRISSUR DISTRICH 680 513. 8¥ anvs ., SHRI. REBIN vlNCENT GRAlnN SHRI.I>IRESH G TgzrmlER TH I S IATRIMON IAII APPEAL HZIVING BEEN FINALI.Y HEARD ON 12.11.2025, AI.ONG WITH Mat.Appeal.1247/2016, 1252/2016, THE COURT oN TI]E- SAME DAY DE`I]IVERE-D TI]E` FOLLowlNe: Mat.A Nos.1247/2016,1251/2016 & 1252/2016 2 2025 : KER: 87114 THE HONouRABLE in. TusTlcE DEVAN RZDmcHANDRznT & THE HONotJRELE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALHTHA wEDNESDAy, THE i2TH DAy OF NOvEreER 2o25 / 21sT KARTHIRA, 1947 RAT.APPEAL NO. 1247 0F 2016 ACIAINST THE OREER I)ATED 30.06.2016 IN OP NO.650 0F 2015 0F FAMILY COURT, IRINJAliAKUDA APPEIILZENT /RESPOwDENT : JRES V.O. zuue...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "BJE7£Hj32JD# JAM.ES V.O. BETTY I „' Petitioner 2\"d iict:itiolicr FSO .VERl.FIE.D -8", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/169360697/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 298); Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "169360697", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/169360697/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Shiju Abraham vs Sumi Mathew on 26 August, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-08-26", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Mat.A Nos.338/2022, 621/2022, 14/2023 & 878/2023 2025 : KER: 6568 9 PRESET THE HONouRABLE in. ]usTlcE DEVAN EumcllzniDRAN & THE HONOURABIE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHA14ATHA TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY 0F AUcOST 2025 / 4TH BHADRA, 1947 RAT.APPEAL NO. 338 0F 2022 AGHENST TEE euDCB4mtT DATED o8.12.2o21 IN op No.143 oF 20±9 0F FTLMIL¥ COURT, KANNUR APPEI.IANT/PETITIONER: SHIOu ABRAHAM, AGED 38 YEARS S/o.ABRAHm4, puTHUMArmTHII. VEED, MANlppARA (co) , unmNKAXAM, NucHlyzD vll.LACE , TAI.IPARZDGA TALUK, KmiNUR, PIN -67o 7o5. BY ADVS. SHRI . P . V . ANcOP SRI.PHIJO PRADRESH PHII.IP SHRI . M . p . pRlyESHKuinR SRI . K . V . SREERAJ RESPONDRES/RESPONDENTS: 1 SUMI mTHEw, AGED 34 rEARs W/O.SHIJU ABRAHAM, IKKARA VEED, KARUVANCHAII (PO) , KantlvENCHAL, AIAKKODE , KANNUR DlsTRlcT , plN - 67o 571 Now TEBeoRAR¥ REslDING AT SUMI RATHEW, MILE.ENIUM INSURANCE BRORERS CO.I.II.C. AN RMs GRoup coMPAN¥, oFFlcE No.2o682o8, KARAln STAR BulLDING, KARmm, p.o.Box.34602, DUBAI, u.A.I. JOJO \"THEW KUZHIMUI.I,IL HouSE , inRANCIATTuPAI,L¥ (po) , KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN -686 635. mTHAI IKKARA VRED , KARUVANCHAI. (PO). , KARUVIINCHAI-, AI.AREroDE , TALlpARAI>GA TAI,uK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN -670 571. BY ADV SHRI.M. SASINDRZDl THls mTRIMONIAI, AppEAL HAVING cold up FOR HEARING ON 26.08.2025, ALONG WITH lfat.Appeal.621/2022 AND CONNECTED czisEs, THE cOuRT ON THE sAiB Day DEI.IVERED THE sol,LOwlNG: Mat.A Nos.338/2022, 621/2022, 14/2023 & 878/2023 2 02 5 : KER...", "Fact/ Respondent": "Mat.A Nos.338/2022, 621/2022, 14/2023 & 878/2023 2025 : KER: 6568 9 PRESET THE HONouRABLE in. ]usTlcE DEVAN EumcllzniDRAN & THE HONOURABIE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHA14ATHA TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY 0F AUcOST 2025 / 4TH BHADRA, 1947 RAT.APPEAL NO. 338 0F 2022 AGHENST TEE euDCB4mtT DATED o8.12.2o21 IN op No.143 oF 20±9 0F FTLMIL¥ COURT, KANNUR APPEI.IANT/PETITIONER: SHIOu ABRAHAM, AGED 38 YEARS S/o.ABRAHm4, puTHUMArmTHII. VEED, MANlppARA (co) , unmNKAXAM, NucHlyzD vll.LACE , TAI.IPARZDGA TALUK, KmiNUR, PIN -67o 7o5. BY ADVS. SHRI . P . V . ANcOP SRI.PHIJO PRADRESH PHII.IP SHRI . M . p . pRlyESHKuinR SRI . K . V . SREERAJ RESPONDRES/RESPONDENTS: 1 SUMI mTHEw, AGED 34 rEARs W/O.SHIJU ABRAHAM, IKKARA VEED, KARUVANCHAII (PO) , KantlvENCHAL, AIAKKODE , KANNUR DlsTRlcT , plN - 67o 571 Now TEBeoRAR¥ REslDING AT SUMI RATHEW, MILE.ENIUM INSURANCE BRORERS CO.I.II.C. AN RMs GRoup coMPAN¥, oFFlcE No.2o682o8, KARAln STAR BulLDING, KARmm, p.o.Box.34602, DUBAI, u.A.I. JOJO \"THEW KUZHIMUI.I,IL HouSE , inRANCIATTuPAI,L¥ (po) , KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN -686 635. mTHAI IKKARA VRED , KARUVANCHAI. (PO). , KARUVIINCHAI-, AI.AREroDE , TALlpARAI>GA TAI,uK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN -670 571. BY ADV SHRI.M. SASINDRZDl THls mTRIMONIAI, AppEAL HAVING cold up FOR HEARING ON 26.08.2025, ALONG WITH lfat.Appeal.621/2022 AND CONNECTED czisEs,...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (mutual consent 10A) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "5. It is submitted that the entire issues jn all the above referred cases has been settled between the parties amicably out of Court. As per settlement arrived at between the parties, the Appellant/wife agreed to pay an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- (Nine Lakhs only) to the respondent / husband in full and final settlement of the issues involved in all the above referred Appeals. The Appellanvwife agreed to pay the above sum of Rs.9,00,000/- (Nine Lakhs only) to the respondenvhusband by transferring the amount to the Bank account of the respondenvhusband or 6f his counsel within 15 days from today. 6. The respondent/ husband has no objection for, and agrees to allow Mat.Appeal 621/2022 by granting decree of divorce as prayed for in OP No.624/2017. 7. The respondent/ husband agrees to relinquish his right over the joint locker maintained in the Alakode Branch of the State Bank of India, and the entire articles in the locker, and would furnish neeessary instructions to the Bank to permit the appellant / wife to own and operate the locker independently. 8. In view...", "Respondent Argument": "Dated this the 15th day of July 2025 cfty Counsel for the Appellant/wife Phu`D #uofs::n: {#;'l?fo|„ Counsel for the respondentyhusband Tbffi#s7 FSO VERIFIED-46 IA 2/2025 IN Mat.Appeal 621/2022-Petition (Page-7) BEFOFtE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT EFLNAKUu IA. i of 2025 in Mat. Appeal No. 621 of2022 Petitioners/ Respondent and ADDellant Shiju Abraham, aged 39 years, S/o. Abraham, Puthumattathil House, Manippara.P.O., Karimankayam, Nichiyad Village, Taliparamba, Kannur District -670 705.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "6. The respondent/ husband has no objection for, and agrees to allow Mat.Appeal 621/2022 by granting decree of divorce as prayed for in OP No.624/2017.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85893174/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "85893174", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85893174/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Sheelu Abraham vs James Abraham on 21 August, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-08-21", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A, Section 89", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Mat.A No.540 of 2025 2025 : KER: 63900 IN THE HIGH cOuRI OF KERAln AT ERNAKul,AM PRESET THE HonouRABIE MR. JusTlcN= DEvaN RAimcHANDRZDi & TEE HCINouRABIE ims. eusTlcE M.B. SNEHAI+ATHA THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUcOST 2025 / 30TH SRAV:Era, 1947 MAT.APPEAI. NO. 540 0F 2025 AGAINST THE ruDGBdENT DATED 07.03.2025 IN opDrv No.1454 0F 2023 0F FAMILY COURT, PUNALUR APEqLILANT/PETITIONER: SHEELU ABRAHAM, AGED 42 YEARS VELIKKAKATHU VEEDU, KUIATHcOR 9A, suBRZDmN¥A STREET , CHENNAI TowN, THIRUVALliooR DISTRICT, TAMIIi NADU, PIN - 600009 BY ADVS. SHRI .AI,Ex THODms SRI. PHILIP I.VARGHESE SRI . THODms I .VARGHESE sbor . v . I . I.ITIA sin . K . R . iooNI sin RESPONDENT/RESPONDRT: JRES ABRAIIZ\\M, AGED 47 YEARS l«JTTATHIII KAIAYIL VEEDU, PILACHERY P.O, cHERUTHANNcOR , vAIAKroDu vll,Iace , PUNAI+uR TALUK, roLLEN, plN - 691331 BY Ays. SHRI.RENJITH R. NAIR (rot.I.AM) SRI.M. RA4ENDRmi NAIR (THONNAI+LOOR) SRI . SREEJITH R.NAIR SRI.SENO. R. NAIR slur . AKSHARA K . p . THls imTRIMONIAI. AppEAI. EIAvlNG COME up FOR HEARING oN 21.08.2025, THE CotJRT CAN THE SAME DAY DEIIIVERED THE roLLc~G: Mat.A No.540 of 2025 2025 : KER: 63900 -1111-----11-----,,11,,I1-11-I1111--,,-I--I Mat.Appeal No.540 of 2025 111,,I--I,----11--I-11-1111111111,1111-111- Mat.A No.540/2025 is an appeal filed by the wife challenging the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Punalur.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Mat.A No.540 of 2025 2025 : KER: 63900 IN THE HIGH cOuRI OF KERAln AT ERNAKul,AM PRESET THE HonouRABIE MR. JusTlcN= DEvaN RAimcHANDRZDi & TEE HCINouRABIE ims. eusTlcE M.B. SNEHAI+ATHA THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUcOST 2025 / 30TH SRAV:Era, 1947 MAT.APPEAI. NO. 540 0F 2025 AGAINST THE ruDGBdENT DATED 07.03.2025 IN opDrv No.1454 0F 2023 0F FAMILY COURT, PUNALUR APEqLILANT/PETITIONER: SHEELU ABRAHAM, AGED 42 YEARS VELIKKAKATHU VEEDU, KUIATHcOR 9A, suBRZDmN¥A STREET , CHENNAI TowN, THIRUVALliooR DISTRICT, TAMIIi NADU, PIN - 600009 BY ADVS. SHRI .AI,Ex THODms SRI. PHILIP I.VARGHESE SRI . THODms I .VARGHESE sbor . v . I . I.ITIA sin . K . R . iooNI sin RESPONDENT/RESPONDRT: JRES ABRAIIZ\\M, AGED 47 YEARS l«JTTATHIII KAIAYIL VEEDU, PILACHERY P.O, cHERUTHANNcOR , vAIAKroDu vll,Iace , PUNAI+uR TALUK, roLLEN, plN - 691331 BY Ays. SHRI.RENJITH R. NAIR (rot.I.AM) SRI.M. RA4ENDRmi NAIR (THONNAI+LOOR) SRI . SREEJITH R.NAIR SRI.SENO. R. NAIR slur . AKSHARA K . p . THls imTRIMONIAI. AppEAI. EIAvlNG COME up FOR HEARING oN 21.08.2025, THE CotJRT CAN THE SAME DAY DEIIIVERED THE roLLc~G: Mat.A No.540 of 2025 2025 : KER: 63900 -1111-----11-----,,11,,I1-11-I1111--,,-I--I Mat.Appeal No.540 of 2025 111,,I--I,----11--I-11-1111111111,1111-111-", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "lsmostrfh± t this Hon'ble Court a) Allow this Interlocutory Ap b) Dissolve the marriage be pondent solemnized on 12.05.2011 atJerusal by a decree of divorce by mutual consen c) Pass such other orders as fit and proper in the interests of justice. •Lbky REifeffi rfeg ,+,,,;", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154618433/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "154618433", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154618433/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Shijo Mon Joseph vs Sabin Philip on 20 May, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-05-20", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Mat.A No.683 of 2024 1 2025:KER:34360 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 683 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.749 OF 2018 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: SHIJO MON JOSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. OUSEPH CHACKO, VALIYAPARAMBILL HOUSE, KARUMADI P.O., AMBALAPUZHA VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688562 BY ADVS. T.J.SEEMA BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN DEVAVRATHAN S. V.GANESH KUMAR S.SANAL KUMAR (SR.)(K/582/1994) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: SABIN PHILIP D/O. PHILIP, KOTTACKAL (ROSE VILLA), PERUMBANACHI P.O., CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686536 BY ADVS. GIGIMON ISSAC TOBIAS TOGI MATHEW(K/867/2018) THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 19.05.2025, THE COURT ON 20.5.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ------------------------------------------- Mat.Appeal No.683 of 2024 ------------------------------------------- This appeal has been filed by the appellant who is the petitioner in O.P.No.749/2018 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam. The said Original Petition seeking divorce under Section 10(ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act was dismissed by the Family Court.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Mat.A No.683 of 2024 1 2025:KER:34360 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 683 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.749 OF 2018 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: SHIJO MON JOSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. OUSEPH CHACKO, VALIYAPARAMBILL HOUSE, KARUMADI P.O., AMBALAPUZHA VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688562 BY ADVS. T.J.SEEMA BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN DEVAVRATHAN S. V.GANESH KUMAR S.SANAL KUMAR (SR.)(K/582/1994) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: SABIN PHILIP D/O. PHILIP, KOTTACKAL (ROSE VILLA), PERUMBANACHI P.O., CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686536 BY ADVS. GIGIMON ISSAC TOBIAS TOGI MATHEW(K/867/2018) THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 19.05.2025, THE COURT ON 20.5.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ------------------------------------------- Mat.Appeal No.683 of 2024 -------------------------------------------", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (mutual consent 10A) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "9. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869 with effect from today.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174389194/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "174389194", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174389194/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Remyaelza Mathew Aged 27 Years vs Nil on 7 February, 2014", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2014-02-07", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Unclear", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS FRIDAY,THE 7TH DAYOF FEBRUARY 2014/18TH MAGHA, 1935 Mat.Appeal.No. 62 of 2014 () ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(DIV) 976/2013 of FAMILY COURT,MAVELIKKARA DATED19-10-2013 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. REMYAELZA MATHEW AGED 27 YEARS D/O.PROF. MATHEW VARGHESE, KANKALIL MEENTHETHIL HOUSE KANDIYOOR, THATTARAMBALAM PO, MAVELIKKARA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 2. DILEEP JOHN MATHAI AGED 34 YEARS S/O.VARGHESEMATHEW, USHALIN HOUSE CHANEERKARA PO KULANADA NOW RESIDING AT CHALLARICKAL HOUSE, TC 11/1759(2), NANTHANCODE, KAVADIYAR PO TRIVANDRUM, KERALA STATE BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S SRI.RENJIT GEORGE SMT.ANJU MOHAN SRI.R.ARUN (KAYAMKULAM) SRI.S.K.SUJITH KRISHNA SRI.S.SHAJAHAN (ADOOR) RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- NIL THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AV HARUN-UL-RASHID & ------------------------------------ MAT Appeal No.62 of 2014 ----------------------------------- J U D G M E N T The appellants herein are the petitioners in O.P.(Div) No.976/2013 on the file of the Family Court, Mavelikara. The appeal is filed against the judgment dated 19.10.2013 in the original petition. The original petition was filed by the appellants for a decree of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869. The original petition was filed before the Family Court, Alappuzha. After the establishment of the Family Court at Mavelikara, the same was transferred to the said court. The court below by the...", "Fact/ Respondent": "THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS FRIDAY,THE 7TH DAYOF FEBRUARY 2014/18TH MAGHA, 1935 Mat.Appeal.No. 62 of 2014 () ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(DIV) 976/2013 of FAMILY COURT,MAVELIKKARA DATED19-10-2013 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. REMYAELZA MATHEW AGED 27 YEARS D/O.PROF. MATHEW VARGHESE, KANKALIL MEENTHETHIL HOUSE KANDIYOOR, THATTARAMBALAM PO, MAVELIKKARA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 2. DILEEP JOHN MATHAI AGED 34 YEARS S/O.VARGHESEMATHEW, USHALIN HOUSE CHANEERKARA PO KULANADA NOW RESIDING AT CHALLARICKAL HOUSE, TC 11/1759(2), NANTHANCODE, KAVADIYAR PO TRIVANDRUM, KERALA STATE BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S SRI.RENJIT GEORGE SMT.ANJU MOHAN SRI.R.ARUN (KAYAMKULAM) SRI.S.K.SUJITH KRISHNA SRI.S.SHAJAHAN (ADOOR) RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- NIL THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AV HARUN-UL-RASHID & ------------------------------------ MAT Appeal No.62 of 2014 ----------------------------------- J U D G M E N T", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (mutual consent 10A) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The case is remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The petitioners/ appellants are at liberty to amend the pleadings by filing necessary application before the court below, if so advised. The petitioners/appellants shall appear before the court below on 18.02.2014. The court below shall consider and dispose of the original petition within a period of two months.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/170425593/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; unclear", "Judgment Year": 2014, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "170425593", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/170425593/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Kurian Mathew Abraham vs Teuny Johns on 4 November, 2009", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2009-11-04", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. KURIAN MATHEW ABRAHAM, AGED 32, ... Petitioner Vs 1. TEUNY JOHNS, AGED 27 YEARS, For Petitioner :SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF For Respondent :SRI.SAJAN MANNALI The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI O R D E R * * * * * * * * * * * * * ---------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the respondent in O.P.No.254/06 pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam. This petition has been filed to challenge Ext.P5", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. KURIAN MATHEW ABRAHAM, AGED 32, ... Petitioner Vs 1. TEUNY JOHNS, AGED 27 YEARS, For Petitioner :SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF For Respondent :SRI.SAJAN MANNALI The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI O R D E R * * * * * * * * * * * * * ---------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "(R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/732159/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2009, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "732159", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/732159/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "M.Krishna Preetha vs Dr.Jayan Moorkkanatt on 22 February, 2010", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2010-02-22", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A, Section 13, Section 13B, Section 28, Section 4", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Mat.Appeal.No. 633 of 2008(A) 1. M.KRISHNA PREETHA, AGED 29 YEARS, ... Petitioner Vs 1. DR.JAYAN MOORKKANATT, AGED 36 YEARS, 2. DR. P.SIVASANKARAN \"KRISHNA\", For Petitioner :SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS For Respondent :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI O R D E R CR R. BASANT & ------------------------------------------------- Mat. Appeal No. 633 of 2008-A ------------------------------------------------- Can the waiting period after filing the joint petition for divorce under Sec.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, Sec.10A of the Indian Divorce Act and Sec.28 of the Special Marriage Act be waived by the court suo motu or on the application of both parties?", "Fact/ Respondent": "Mat.Appeal.No. 633 of 2008(A) 1. M.KRISHNA PREETHA, AGED 29 YEARS, ... Petitioner Vs 1. DR.JAYAN MOORKKANATT, AGED 36 YEARS, 2. DR. P.SIVASANKARAN \"KRISHNA\", For Petitioner :SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS For Respondent :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI O R D E R CR R. BASANT & ------------------------------------------------- Mat. Appeal No. 633 of 2008-A -------------------------------------------------", "Issues": "Divorce by mutual consent.-- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnised before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. \"10 A of the Divorce Act . Dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.-- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, a petition for dissolution of marriage may be presented to the District Court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnised before or...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "19. In the light of the conflicting views, we may have taken a decision to refer the question to the Full Bench under Sec.4 of the Kerala High Court Act. But we find that the decision of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain (2009 (12) SCALE 115) is available now accepting the above view reasoned by us to confirm that the period of waiting cannot be dispensed with. After considering the apparent conflict of views, the two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court expressed itself in the following words in paras-16,17 and 18:", "Decision": "\"16. Although, the decision rendered in Sureshta Devi (supra) was referred to in the decision rendered in Asokh Hurra's case (supra) and it was observed therein Mat. Appeal No. 633/08 -: 19 :- that the said decision possibly required reconsideration in an appropriate case, none of the other cases has dealt with the question which arose in Sureshta Devi's case (supra), namely, whether in a proceeding under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, consent of the parties was required to subsist till a final decree was passed on the petition. In all the subsequent cases, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in order to do complete justice to the parties when faced with a situation where the marriage-ties had completely broken and there was no possibility whatsoever of the spouses coming together again. In such a situation, this Court felt that it would be a travesty of justice to continue with the marriage ties. It may, however, be indicated that in some of the High Courts, which do not possess...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/76014/ | AIR 2010 KERALA 157, (2010) 91 ALLINDCAS 632 (KER), 2010 (91) ALLINDCAS 632, (2010) 2 CIVLJ 623, (2010) 3 CIVILCOURTC 213, (2010) 2 KER LT 459, (2011) 1 CURCC 168", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; unclear", "Judgment Year": 2010, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR 2010 KERALA 157, (2010) 91 ALLINDCAS 632 (KER), 2010 (91) ALLINDCAS 632, (2010) 2 CIVLJ 623, (2010) 3 CIVILCOURTC 213, (2010) 2 KER LT 459, (2011) 1 CURCC 168", "Kanoon Doc ID": "76014", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/76014/", "Chunks Indexed": 21 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Mr.John Vincent vs Ms.Nancy on 10 November, 2016", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2016-11-10", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 161, Section 498, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA C.M.A.No.2373 of 2014 Mr.John Vincent .. Appellant Ms.Nancy D/o P.V.Job .. Respondent Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 55 of the Divorce Act, 1869, as amended by the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001 Act 51 of 2001, against the order and decretal order dated 19.04.2011 made in I.D.O.P.No.140 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur. For Appellant :: Mrs.Rita Chandrasekaran for Mrs.R.Meenakshi For Respondent :: No appearance Today when the matter was taken up as part-heard, as usual, no one appeared for the respondent/wife. Finding no response whatsoever in spite of service of notice on the respondent, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant.", "Fact/ Respondent": "THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA C.M.A.No.2373 of 2014 Mr.John Vincent .. Appellant Ms.Nancy D/o P.V.Job .. Respondent Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 55 of the Divorce Act, 1869, as amended by the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001 Act 51 of 2001, against the order and decretal order dated 19.04.2011 made in I.D.O.P.No.140 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur. For Appellant :: Mrs.Rita Chandrasekaran for Mrs.R.Meenakshi For Respondent :: No appearance", "Issues": "10. Grounds for dissolution of marriage.--(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, may, on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent-- (i)has committed adultery; or (ii)has ceased to be Christian by conversion to another religion; or (iii)has been incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or (iv)has, for a period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, been suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy; or (v)has, for a period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form; or (vi) has not been...", "Petitioner Argument": "Today when the matter was taken up as part-heard, as usual, no one appeared for the respondent/wife. Finding no response whatsoever in spite of service of notice on the respondent, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The matter pertains to a long matrimonial dispute between the parties and this appeal is against the order of the Court below in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant/husband seeking a decree for dissolution of marriage between the parties solemnised on 23.8.1998 at St.Antony's Church, Avadi by the Parish Priest Rev.Fr.K.T.Mathew and for custody of the children as well as award of costs. 3. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the appeal are as follows:-", "Respondent Argument": "4. Per contra, the respondent in her counter affidavit denied the averment that she was brainwashed by her mother and sisters. She also denied the allegation of the appellant that her parents had asked the appellant to construct a house next to her sister's house. Only the appellant and his family members demanded the transfer of the land in the appellant's name, when the respondent refused the same, resultantly the appellant and his family started to harass the respondent. While he was working in Delhi, he was transferred to Madhya Pradesh. It is at this point of time, the respondent was sent to her parents house for delivery. After delivery, the appellant did not take back the respondent to Madhya Pradesh. Only after great efforts, the appellant was convinced to take back the respondent. Even in Madhya Pradesh, the respondent was put to harassment, cruelty and physical torture. Only the respondent's mother spent the expenses for the entire family while she came for help. When a complaint was made, the appellant being a Sub Inspector of Police influenced his officials...", "Factors to be Considered": "13. Although the aforementioned grounds are available for a spouse to seek for dissolution of marriage on the ground of established cruelty, it is first necessary to find out what is 'cruelty'. 'Cruelty' is not confined to physical cruelty, but includes mental cruelty. The matrimonial alliance is irretrievably broken where one of the spouses persistently causes mental torture, disgrace and harassment. In an interesting case dealt with by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt.Kalpana Srivastava v. Surendra Nath Srivastava , AIR 1985 Allahabad 253, since the wife refused to prepare tea for the friends of the husband, it was held that she not only hurts his ego but causes him humiliation before his friends and where she lodges false reports of non-bailable offences, she causes husband deep anguish and brings disgrace and ignominy to the husband and his relations, besides causing harassment and by doing the third kind of act, she causes husband mental torture and deprives him of the pleasure and pride of being a father. Recently the Apex Court, in the case of K.Srinivas v. K.Sunita , (2014) 6 SCC 34, while dealing with the word 'cruelty', has laid down the law that even if...", "Decision": "15. For all the foregoing reasons, recording the submissions made by Mrs.Rita Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant/husband is prepared to take care of the upkeep and maintenance of both the female children including wife by paying the monthly maintenance and also permanent alimony to his wife, this Court, while setting aside the decretal order of the Court below, hereby grants a decree for dissolution of marriage as prayed for in I.D.O.P.No.140 of 2006 by directing the appellant/husband to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as the monthly maintenance regularly commencing from the month of December, 2016 without fail for the welfare and upkeep of the two female children as well as a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to the respondent/wife, which shall be paid within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that the appellant, being the father of the two female children, shall also meet the marriage expenses of his two daughters. With these observations, the civil miscellaneous appeal stands allowed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77033645/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2016, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "77033645", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77033645/", "Chunks Indexed": 12 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Shiv Indersen Mirchandani Of Bombay And ... vs Natasha Harish Advani Alias Natasha ... on 5 December, 2001", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2001-12-05", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 13, Section 16, Section 2, Section 23, Section 3, Section 488, Section 5", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Conversion; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. \"Marriages are settled in heaven and they are performed on earth.\" Whether and where a marriage can be dissolved is a matter in the domain of the earthly law governing the spouses. But the matrimonial laws are not common everywhere in the world and they differ from country to country. The problem arises when the parties have their domicile in one country and one of them obtains matrimonial relief in a foreign country. The moot question posed in this Notice of Motion is whether the decree passed by a Swedish Court can be recognised by this Court, as being conclusive, or not.", "Fact/ Respondent": "5. In their written statements defendant Nos. 1(a), 1(b) and defendant No. 2 have contended inter alia that the domicile of both the deceased and defendant No. 8 was India at the relevant date and therefore, the Swedish Court did not have any jurisdiction to pass a decree of divorce in their matter and it is not a valid decree. It is further contended that consequently the purported marriage between the deceased and plaintiff No. 2 is null and void and the suit filed by plaintiff No. 2 is not maintainable.", "Issues": "Whether and where a marriage can be dissolved is a matter in the domain of the earthly law governing the spouses. But the matrimonial laws are not common everywhere in the world and they differ from country to country. The problem arises when the parties have their domicile in one country and one of them obtains matrimonial relief in a foreign country. The moot question posed in this Notice of Motion is whether the decree passed by a Swedish Court can be recognised by this Court, as being conclusive, or not. 2. This is a case where a Hindu domiciled in India got married in civil form in New York to a Swedish woman of Christian religion, who lived with him after the marriage for about six years and bore two children to him. Thereafter, she separated from him and went back alongwith her two children to Sweden. Six years...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "30. Like in Teja Singh 's case, the Supreme Court in this case also refused to recognize decree of a foreign Court on the ground of fraud. The facts of both the cases, show that the husbands therein committed fraud with respect to the domicilary fact which affected the jurisdiction of the concerned Court. \"Teja Singh\" refused to recognize the Nevada Court decree on the ground of fraud and stopped there only sounding a caution to the Indian courts that the principles of American and English law are not to be adopted blindly and that \"our notions of a genuine divorce and of substantial justice and the distinctive principles of our public policy must determine the rules of our private international Law\". But \"Narsimharao\" goes a step beyond and affords answer to the question whether an Indian Court should recognize a foreign divorce decree assuming that the foreign Court had rightly entertained the dispute according to its own law. 'Teja Singh' no doubt emphasizes the legislative need to \"find a solution to such a schizoid situation\" and recommends that the Hague Convention of 1970, which \"contains a comprehensive scheme for relieving the confusion caused by differing systems of conflict of...", "Decision": "41. In the result, the Notice of Motion is disposed of in the above terms with", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/888648/ | 2002(2)BOMCR436, II(2002)DMC89", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; conversion; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2001, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2002(2)BOMCR436, II(2002)DMC89", "Kanoon Doc ID": "888648", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/888648/", "Chunks Indexed": 25 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "David Christopher vs Dr.Jayanthi on 11 October, 2011", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2011-10-11", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 4, Section 6, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Conversion; Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN O.S.A.No.355 of 2006 David Christopher ... Appellant Vs. Dr.Jayanthi ... Respondent Original Side Appeal is filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.04.2006 made in O.M.S.No.15 of 2001 on the file of this Court. For Appellant : Mr.A.R.Nixon For Respondent : Ms.Chitra Sampath This appeal is preferred against the order dated 13.04.2006 made in O.M.S.No.15 of 2001 allowing the Petition filed by Respondent-wife and dissolving the marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent which was solemnised on 11.12.1984.", "Fact/ Respondent": "THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN O.S.A.No.355 of 2006 David Christopher ... Appellant Vs. Dr.Jayanthi ... Respondent Original Side Appeal is filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.04.2006 made in O.M.S.No.15 of 2001 on the file of this Court. For Appellant : Mr.A.R.Nixon For Respondent : Ms.Chitra Sampath", "Issues": "20. It is settled by a catena of decisions that \"mental cruelty\" can cause very serious injury than the physical harm and create apprehension in the mind of the spouse so as to render continued living together of spouses harmful or injurious. The word \"cruelty\" has not been defined and it has to be examined in the facts and circumstances of each case. The question whether the act complained of was a cruel act is to be determined from the whole facts and the matrimonial relations between the parties. In this connection, the culture, status in life, background of parties and many other things have to be considered. 21. Observing that if by the continued ill conduct of a spouse the relationship deteriorates then such an action alone would amount to \"mental cruelty'. In ( 2007) 4 SCC 511 [Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh ], the Supreme Court held as...", "Petitioner Argument": "3. Appellant is alleged to have developed friendship with another detenu who had been released earlier than the Appellant. But the Appellant was suspicious about the conduct of the Respondent-wife that she had developed relationship with the said Padmakumar and ill-treating her on that suspicion. On 26.05.1996, Appellant attempted to strangulate the Respondent. Fearing for her life and safety of the children, Respondent left the house to live with her parents. Appellant again agreed to change his ways and that on 05.06.1996, an agreement was entered into between the parties and Respondent returned to the matrimonial house. After a few months, Appellant again physically and verbally abused the Respondent and on 28.01.1997, Respondent returned to her parents house. Appellant forcibly entered into the Respondent's parents house and took away the children and put them in a Boarding School in Ooty, even though the younger child was only 3 years old. Only on the orders of the Court dated 16.06.1997, Respondent was able to get back the custody of the children. In the said order, Appellant was permitted to visit the...", "Respondent Argument": "10. Ms.Chitra Sampath, learned counsel appearing for Respondent has submitted that inspite of many opportunities given to the Appellant to mend his ways, Appellant has not mended himself and that he continuously inflicted mental cruelty upon the Respondent. Reiterating the findings, learned counsel would further submit that upon analysis of the evidence and materials, learned Judge rightly held that the allegations levelled against the Respondent would certainly amount to mental cruelty and that the marriage life has gone to the extent of \"no point of return\", granted decree of divorce and the impugned order cannot be interfered with. 11. The facts are not in dispute. Love marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent was solemnised on 11.12.1984. For the purpose of marriage, Respondent got converted to Christianity. After getting over the initial obstacles of love marriage, the spouses lived happily till 1994. In 1995, Appellant was detained under COFEPOSA for allegedly smuggling gold from Singapore. He was released on bail on 21.04.1996. Respondent alleges that Appellant had developed friendship with another co-detenu Padmakumar who was released earlier than the Appellant....", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "32. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101392267/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; conversion; adultery", "Judgment Year": 2011, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "101392267", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101392267/", "Chunks Indexed": 13 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "S.M.J.Naveena vs C.Gipson Villavarayer", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 19, Section 2, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion; Non Consummation; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Decree for Judicial Separation Granted", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2023/MHC/645 C.M.A.(MD)Nos.725 and 832 of 2019 & Cross Obj.(MD)No.23 of 2019 01.02.2023 15.02.2023 THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN C.M.A.(MD)Nos.725 and 832 of 2019 and Cross Objection (MD)No.23 of 2019 in C.M.A.(MD)No.725 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)No.12364 of 2019 in Cross Obj.(MD)No.23 of 2019 C.M.A.(MD)No.725 of 2019:- S.M.J.Naveena ... Appellant vs. C.Gipson Villavarayer ... Respondent Prayer :- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, against the judgment and decree, dated 23.04.2019, passed in I.D.O.P.No.50 of 2018, on the file of the Family Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. For Appellant : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Cibichakaraborthy For Respondent : Mr.J.Barathan https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/20 C.M.A.(MD)Nos.725 and 832 of 2019 & Cross Obj.(MD)No.23 of 2019 C.M.A.(MD)No.832 of 2019:- C.Gipson Villavarayer ... Appellant vs. S.M.J.Naveena ... Respondent Prayer :- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, against the judgment and decree, dated 23.04.2019, passed in I.D.O.P.No.127 of 2018, on the file of the Family Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. For Appellant : Mr.J.Barathan For Respondent : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Cibichakaraborthy Cross Obj.(MD)No.23 of 2019:- C.Gipson Villavarayer ... Appellant vs. S.M.J.Naveena ... Respondent Prayer :- Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2023/MHC/645 C.M.A.(MD)Nos.725 and 832 of 2019 & Cross Obj.(MD)No.23 of 2019 01.02.2023 15.02.2023 THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN C.M.A.(MD)Nos.725 and 832 of 2019 and Cross Objection (MD)No.23 of 2019 in C.M.A.(MD)No.725 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)No.12364 of 2019 in Cross Obj.(MD)No.23 of 2019 C.M.A.(MD)No.725 of 2019:- S.M.J.Naveena ... Appellant vs. C.Gipson Villavarayer ... Respondent Prayer :- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, against the judgment and decree, dated 23.04.2019, passed in I.D.O.P.No.50 of 2018, on the file of the Family Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. For Appellant : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Cibichakaraborthy For Respondent : Mr.J.Barathan https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/20 C.M.A.(MD)Nos.725 and 832 of 2019 & Cross Obj.(MD)No.23 of 2019 C.M.A.(MD)No.832 of 2019:- C.Gipson Villavarayer ... Appellant vs. S.M.J.Naveena ... Respondent Prayer :- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, against the judgment and decree, dated 23.04.2019, passed in I.D.O.P.No.127 of 2018, on the file of the Family Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. For Appellant : Mr.J.Barathan For Respondent : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Cibichakaraborthy Cross Obj.(MD)No.23 of...", "Issues": "2. The point for consideration before this Court is whether the Family Court right in ordering judicial separation for two years while deciding the divorce petition filed by the wife and the petition for restitution of conjugal right filed by the husband. 3. The undisputed facts on either side are:- 10. The Family Court framed the following points for consideration:- ''1.Whether the petitioner-wife proved the plea of non- consummation of marriage as prayed for? 2.Whether the petitioner-wife proved the plea of cruelty? 3.Whether the petitioner-wife is entitled for the relief of divorce as prayed for? 4.Whether the respondent-husband is entitled for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights? 5.To what other relief the parties are entitled?'' 11. The Court below disbelieved the contention of the wife that the marriage never consummated and she was subjected to cruelty and torture. To arrive at this conclusion, the trial Court has considered the...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "29. We find that the trial Court erred in granting a decree of judicial separation, a relief not prayed by either of the parties. Having found the grounds raised in the divorce petition not proved, the trial Court ought to have dismissed I.D.O.P.No.50 of 2018, holding that the petition is devoid of merits. Further, taking note of the documents marked as Exs.R.1 to R.4, ought to have allowed I.D.O.P.No. 127 of 2018 filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. When the grounds found in sub-Section (1)(vii) and (x) of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 not made out and the material evidence shows that the wife wilfully withdrew from the matrimonial society, the Court ought to have granted restitution of conjugal rights.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21953237/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 43)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion; non_consummation; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 0, "Relief Status": "judicial_separation", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "21953237", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21953237/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Kamal V.M. Allaudin And Etc. Etc. vs Raja Shaikh And Etc. Etc. on 7 March, 1990", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1990-03-07", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 105, Section 106, Section 12, Section 14, Section 15, Section 18, Section 19, Section 2, Section 20, Section 21, Section 223, Section 28, Section 29, Section 3, Section 35, Section 4, Section 4A, Section 5, Section 6, Section 67, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. These are Matrimonial Petitions and Suits which involve a common question of law, namely, whether these matters stand transferred or should be transferred to the Family Court, Bombay established the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act No. LXVI of 1984). The Family Court was established in the City of Bombay as from 7th October 1989, and the Act has been brought into force for the purpose of the said court as from that day. Since the question involved is likely to arise in several other Matrimonial Suits or Petitions pending in this court, I thought it convenient to request the counsel appearing in all these matters to address me, in the first instance, on this question, without going into the merits of each case which will be done separately. (a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any District Court or any Subordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation; and", "Fact/ Respondent": "(a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magis trate of the first class under Chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; and", "Issues": "1. These are Matrimonial Petitions and Suits which involve a common question of law, namely, whether these matters stand transferred or should be transferred to the Family Court, Bombay established the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act No. LXVI of 1984). The Family Court was established in the City of Bombay as from 7th October 1989, and the Act has been brought into force for the purpose of the said court as from that day. Since the question involved is likely to arise in several other Matrimonial Suits or Petitions pending in this court, I thought it convenient to request the counsel appearing in all these matters to address me, in the first instance, on this question, without going into the merits of each case which will be done separately. Whether the matrimonial jurisdiction ex-ercisable by this Court (High Court) on its Original Side is not affected by S. 7 of...", "Petitioner Argument": "\"7. Learned Counsel for the appellants would point out that as per Cl. 11 of the Letters Patent dt. 28-12-1865 this High Court has got civil original jurisdiction of general nature with local limits which is analogous to the jurisdiction of a District Court and that X X X X X X In fact, he accepted that this Court cannot exercise any jurisdiction under Cl. 11 of the Letters Patent dt. 28-12-1865 in respect of matters covered by the Act from the time of the commencement of the Act. But his main contention was that this Court under the abovesaid Letters Patent possessed in addition to territorial general jurisdiction under Cl. 11, a special jurisdiction relating to infants and lunatics under Cl. 17, that such jurisdiction was not affected since the High Court in exercise of that jurisdiction could not be equated to a District Court and that S. 8 of the Act would not operate. He further added that jurisdiction once conferred could be taken away only by an express provision, that since S. 8 did not take away...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Eventually it was held in answer to the question that arose in that case that the suit was triable by the High Court and not by the Bombay City Civil Court, inasmuch as the suit of the nature referred to in Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1955 irrespective of the pecuniary valuation is triable by the High Court and not by the Bombay City Civil Court so far as district of Greater Bombay is concerned. The learned Counsel submitted that this decision does not say that the High Court is not a District Court but indicates that the definition contained in Section 2(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure could be applied where the expression is not defined in an Act and that being the position under the Family Courts Act , there should arise no difficulty in deeming the High Court as the District Court for the purposes of the said Act. 37. Elaborating on the theme that unless a liberal interpretation is placed upon the phrase \"District Court\" occurring in Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, Mr. Palan submitted that the Family Courts Act should be looked upon as a piece...", "Decision": "70. In the result, I hold that the Family Court established in Bombay on 7-10-1989 is the 'district Court' for the purposes of Sections 7 and 8 read with Section 2(e) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, for the area of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (vide Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 20-4-1989, Part 4-B, PP. 498-505 and dated 23-11-1989 Part 4-A, p. 1444) in respect of matters indicated in paragraph 68 above, and that, to that extent the jurisdiction of High Court stands excluded. I therefore answer the preliminary point in the negative.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1046228/ | AIR1990BOM299, AIR 1990 BOMBAY 299, (1990) 2 BOM CR 335", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 1990, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1990BOM299, AIR 1990 BOMBAY 299, (1990) 2 BOM CR 335", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1046228", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1046228/", "Chunks Indexed": 28 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Jethabhai Ratanshi Lodaya vs Manabai Jethabhai Lodaya on 6 April, 1973", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1973-04-06", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 18, Section 19, Section 2, Section 22, Section 23, Section 488, Section 5, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty; Adultery; Restitution Noncompliance", "Outcome": "Decree for Judicial Separation Granted", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a letters patent appeal by the original petitioner-husband against the decree of Mr. Justice Gatne in appeal confirming the decree of the City Civil Court. Bombay, dismissing his petition for divorce and raises a point of importance and interest arising out of judicial separation, namely, whether desertion by a spouse on which ground a decree for judicial separation was passed in favour of the original petitioner spouse under Section 10(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) continues unless the original respondent spouse makes efforts to resume cohabitation and constitutes a wrong which would disentitle the spouse so failing to get the relief of divorce on ground of non-resumption of cohabitation, and involves construction of Sections 10(2) , 13(1A) , 23(1)(a) of the Act. 2. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant is the husband and was married to the respondent wife according to Hindu FDIC rites on Dec. 16, 1956 at Bombay. They lived together for about 5 months at Thana till May 1957 when the wife left the husband and continued to live separately from him. On April 26, 1961 the wife filed Miscellaneous Petition No.1526 of 1961 in the City Civil Court at Bombay for judicial separation on the grounds of desertion, cruelty and adultery. The husband...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a letters patent appeal by the original petitioner-husband against the decree of Mr. Justice Gatne in appeal confirming the decree of the City Civil Court. Bombay, dismissing his petition for divorce and raises a point of importance and interest arising out of judicial separation, namely, whether desertion by a spouse on which ground a decree for judicial separation was passed in favour of the original petitioner spouse under Section 10(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) continues unless the original respondent spouse makes efforts to resume cohabitation and constitutes a wrong which would disentitle the spouse so failing to get the relief of divorce on ground of non-resumption of cohabitation, and involves construction of Sections 10(2) , 13(1A) , 23(1)(a) of the Act.", "Issues": "\"Either party to a mortgage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may also present a petition for the dissolution of the marriage of divorce on the ground- (i) That there was has been no resumption of co-habitation as between the parties to the marriage for a period of two years or upwards after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding to which they were parities: or \"(1) In any proceedings under this Act, whether defended or not, if the Court is satisfied that - (a) any of the grounds for granting relief exists and the petitioner is not in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief, and 43. It is, therefore, appropriate to first of all notice the state of the law in this behalf and then to find out in...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "101. In the appeal from the order which appeal, as stated above, was also dismissed by a Single Judge of this Court (Gatne J.) on the 12th of October 1971, the learned Single Judge on the basis of the statement made by the appellant which has been quoted above and on the contention raised by the respondent in her written statement, that she was always willing to live under the roof of her husband, made the following observations:-", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "117. In the result this appeal must be allowed and the order and judgment of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court and that of the Single of this High Court must be set aside.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1107018/ | AIR1975BOM88, (1974)76BOMLR304, AIR 1975 BOMBAY 88, 1975 HINDULR 449 76 BOM LR 304, 76 BOM LR 304", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty; adultery; restitution_noncompliance", "Judgment Year": 1973, "Relief Status": "judicial_separation", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1975BOM88, (1974)76BOMLR304, AIR 1975 BOMBAY 88, 1975 HINDULR 449 76 BOM LR 304, 76 BOM LR 304", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1107018", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1107018/", "Chunks Indexed": 56 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Thapita Pater vs Thapita Lakshmi And Anr. on 26 January, 1894", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1894-01-26", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 2, Section 48, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Conversion; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Decree of Nullity Adjudicated", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Thapita Peter brought a suit against Thapita Lakshmi, his wife, alleging her adultery with Lunkapalli Gauth, and praying, therefore, that his marriage may be dissolved. The District Judge of Kistna granted a decree dissolving the marriage under the provisions of Act IV of 1869, and the decree now comes before the High Court for confirmation under Section 17 of Act IV of 1869. 2. The petitioner and his wife were married according to the rites of the Hindu religion in 1879, petitioner and his wife being Hindus at that time. About a year after the marriage the petitioner's wife left him and has since been living in adultery with the second respondent. In 1882 the petitioner became a Christian, and about 1890 his wife and the second respondent also became Christians. The question to be decided is--can the Courts of this country pass a decree dissolving his marriage under Act IV of 1869 ?", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. Thapita Peter brought a suit against Thapita Lakshmi, his wife, alleging her adultery with Lunkapalli Gauth, and praying, therefore, that his marriage may be dissolved. The District Judge of Kistna granted a decree dissolving the marriage under the provisions of Act IV of 1869, and the decree now comes before the High Court for confirmation under Section 17 of Act IV of 1869.", "Issues": "10. The question which it is necessary to determine in this suit is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery under Act IV of 1869. The facts which give rise to this question are shortly these. The plaintiff was born in 1862. In 1879 he married the first defendant by Hindu rites, both being then Hindus by religion. In 1880 the wife left her husband and commenced to live in adultery with the second defendant, to whom she has since borne four children. In 1882 the plaintiff embraced Christianity, and about two years prior to this suit, which was brought in 1893, the defendants also became Christians. 12. In connection with a Hindu marriage, there are several legal incidents as to which no doubt can possibly exist. The first is that such marriage is in its nature not monogamous, and...", "Petitioner Argument": "8. In Hyde v. Hyde (L. R., 1 P. & D., 130), the petitioner, an English subject, married in Utah, in the United States of America, a Miss Hawkins according to the rites of the Mormons. At the time of the celebration of the marriage, polygamy was a part of the Mormon doctrine and was the common custom in Utah. The marriage was a valid marriage according to the lex loci and polygamy was then lawful in Utah. The petitioner and his wife were both single and the petitioner had never taken a second wife. The petitioner [238] sometime after the marriage renounced Mormonism, was excommunicated, and his wife declared free to marry again. The wife did marry again and the petitioner then petitioned the Divorce Court for a dissolution of his marriage on account of his wife's adultery. The counsel for the petitioner argued, inter alia, that this was not a polygamous marriage, for both the parties were single at the time when it was contracted; but the Judge Ordinary observed that it would be extraordinary if a marriage...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "Any wife may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court, praying that her marriage may be dissolved on the ground that, since when wife may position the solemnization thereof, her husband has exchanged his proton a dissolution. fession of Christianity for the profession of some other religion, and gone through a form of marriage with another woman ; or has been guilty of incestuous adultery, or of bigamy with adultery, or of murnago with another woman with adultery, or of rape, sodomy or bestiality, or of adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce a mensa et there, or of adultery coupled with desertion, without reasonable excuse, for two years or upwards. Every such petition shall slate, as distinctly as the nature of Contents of petition. the case permits, the facts on which the claim to have such marriage dissolved is founded.]", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1924389/ | (1894)ILR 17MAD235", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; conversion; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 1894, "Relief Status": "nullity", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1894)ILR 17MAD235", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1924389", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1924389/", "Chunks Indexed": 15 }, { "Court": "Allahabad High Court", "Case Title": "Amit Singh vs Smt. Sandhya Singh on 14 November, 2019", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2019-11-14", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 125, Section 13, Section 13A, Section 14, Section 18, Section 21, Section 23, Section 4, Section 488, Section 5, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Nullity Sec19; Desertion", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "A.F.R. Court No. - 3 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 64 of 2018 Appellant :- Amit Singh Respondent :- Smt. Sandhya Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Amol Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Kumar Pandey The instant appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 16.05.2018, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, in Misc. Case No. 19/2018 ( Amit Singh v. Smt. Sandhya Singh ).", "Fact/ Respondent": "A.F.R. Court No. - 3 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 64 of 2018 Appellant :- Amit Singh Respondent :- Smt. Sandhya Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Amol Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Kumar Pandey", "Issues": "For deciding the issue involved in the present case, which is to the effect that \"whether a petition for getting the decree of judicial separation can not be filed prior to completion of one year of marriage?\", we feel it appropriate to quote relevant sections of the Act, 1955. The same are as under:- \"4. Overriding effect of Act.--Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,-- (a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act; (b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act. 9. Restitution of conjugal...", "Petitioner Argument": "Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 16.05.2018, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, in Misc. Case No. 19/2018 ( Amit Singh v. Smt. Sandhya Singh ). We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "\"The expression \"entertain\", however, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in (2) Laxmiratan Engineering Works, AIR 1968 SC 488 and in (3) Hindustan Commercial Bank, AIR 1970 SC 1384, may not necessarily mean receiving or accepting the plaint or the petition, or the initiation of the proceeding, but may mean \"adjudicate upon\" or \"proceed to consider on merits\". Therefore, if the relevant expression in Section 14(1) was \"it shall not be competent for any Court to entertain any petition .... unless one year has elapsed since the date of the marriage\", I would have held that all that is necessary is the expiry of one year, not necessarily before the presentation of the petition, but before the date on which the Court adjudicates thereon or proceeds to consider on merits. But the express user of \"the word \"presentation\" in the expression \"unless on the date of the presentation of the petition one year has elapsed since the date of the marriage\" nakedly stands in the way of such a construction and I regret my inability to delete the words \"on the date of presentation of the petition\" by any amount of judicial activism. 7. But the reasons that are...", "Decision": "The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observation.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/129696889/ | AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2674", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; nullity_sec19; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2019, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2674", "Kanoon Doc ID": "129696889", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/129696889/", "Chunks Indexed": 27 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Jerry Garman @ Geraldine @ Jayalakshmi vs A.S.Sethuraman on 22 January, 2016", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2016-01-22", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 151, Section 19, Section 2, Section 5, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Conversion; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Reserve Date : 22-01-2016 THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM C.M.A.No.2535 of 2015 Jerry Garman @ Geraldine @ Jayalakshmi ..... Appellant vs A.S.Sethuraman .... Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, seeking to set aside the order, dated 15.04.2015 passed in I.A.No.623 of 2010 in O.P.No.2490 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Ms.Geetha Ramaseshan For Respondent : Mrs.K.Bhavatharini J U D G M E N T 2. The appellant herein had filed the petition in O.P.No.2940 of 2007 under Section 10 (1) (x) of the Indian Divorce Act, seeking divorce, dissolving the marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent herein at Chennai on 17.08.1992. Pending the said Original Petition, the appellant herein, who was the respondent in the O.P.No.2940 of 2007, filed Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.623 of 2010, under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to dismiss the main petition in O.P.No.2940 of 2007 filed by the respondent herein on the ground that the marriage was solemnized, as per the Hindu rites and customs, hence, the said Original Petition under Section 10 (1) (x) of Indian Divorce Act was not legally maintainable. The III Additional Family Court, by the impugned order, dated 15.04.2015 made in I.A.No.623 of 2010 in O.P.No.2940 of...", "Fact/ Respondent": "Reserve Date : 22-01-2016 THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM C.M.A.No.2535 of 2015 Jerry Garman @ Geraldine @ Jayalakshmi ..... Appellant vs A.S.Sethuraman .... Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, seeking to set aside the order, dated 15.04.2015 passed in I.A.No.623 of 2010 in O.P.No.2490 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Ms.Geetha Ramaseshan For Respondent : Mrs.K.Bhavatharini J U D G M E N T", "Issues": "5. Per contra, Mrs.Bhavatharini, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the trial Court, rightly held that the petition filed by the appellant, seeking divorce was not maintainable. Challenging the said order, the appellant herein had filed C.R.P.No.3230 of 2011 before this Court and when the said matter was taken up, this Court (R.S.Ramanathan, J) passed an order, dated 04.09.2012 that the Family Court should take up the preliminary issue and decide whether the petition filed by the respondent herein could be maintainable or not. Learned counsel further submitted that from 1986 the appellant and the respondent herein were living together and as the appellant had insisted, that to have the marriage solemnized in any one of the forms, the respondent got married the appellant as per the Hindu rites and customs, in the presence of his family members and relatives.", "Petitioner Argument": "3. Ms.Geetha Ramaseshan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the trial Court has erred in holding a view that the marriage between parties to the CMA was solemnized as per the Hindu Rites and Customs, though the appellant had filed Ex.R.1, which would establish that her marriage was solemnized only as per Indian Christian Marriage Act and the respondent herein changed his name as A.S.Paul and got married the appellant herein. The appellant is an Anglo Indian, by birth she is a born Christian throughout in her life. However, the respondent had deliberately mislead the trial Court by claiming the appellant's as Jayalakshmi, as if she is a Hindu. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, she is a Christian, whose name is Jerry Garman @ Geraldine. The said name has also find a place in the cause title of the Original Petition (OP), which shows her name clearly as Jerry Garman @ Geraldine. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that merely because the parties had arranged a Hindu form of marriage as a ceremony...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order, dated 15.04.2015 made in I.A.No.623 of 2010 in O.P.No.2940 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai is set aside. The Court below is directed to restore the O.P.No.2940 of 2007 on file and the dispose the same at an early date, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193742511/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Conversion", "All Grounds": "conversion; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 2016, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "193742511", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193742511/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Momet Alex vs Asha John on 10 September, 2021", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2021-09-10", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Unsound Mind", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943 MAT.APPEAL NO. 971 OF 2017 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.706/2013 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA, DATED 29.03.2017 ----------- APPELLANT/S: 1 MOMET ALEX, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.LATE ALEXANDER, R/O. MUTHIRAPARAMBIL, KOODAL P.O, KOODAL MURI, KOODAL VILLAGE, KALANJOOR PANCHAYATH, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2 KUNJAMMA ALEX, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O. LATE ALEXANDER, R/O MUTHIRAPARAMBIL, KOODAL P.O, KOODAL MURI, KOODAL VILLAGE, KULANJOOR PANCHAYATH, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT/S: ASHA JOHN, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. MOMET ALEX, R/O.CHAKKALAMANNIL, KOODAL MURI, KOODAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 693. BY ADVS. SRI.M.JAYAKRISHNAN SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.08.2021, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal NO.1146/2018, THE COURT ON 10.09.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943 MAT.APPEAL NO. 1146 OF 2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.(DIV.)NO.197/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA, DATED 29.03.2017 -------------- APPELLANT/S: MOMET ALEX, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O LATE ALEXANDER, R/O MUTHIRAPARAMBIL, KOODAL P.O., KOODAL MURI, KOODAL VILLAGE, KALANJOOR PANCHAYATH, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. V.PHILIP MATHEW SRI.GIBI.C.GEORGE RESPONDENT/S: ASHA JOHN, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O MOMET ALEX, R/O CHAKKALAMANNIL, KOODAL MURI, KOODAL VILLAGE, ADOOR...", "Fact/ Respondent": "THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943 MAT.APPEAL NO. 971 OF 2017 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.706/2013 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA, DATED 29.03.2017 ----------- APPELLANT/S: 1 MOMET ALEX, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.LATE ALEXANDER, R/O. MUTHIRAPARAMBIL, KOODAL P.O, KOODAL MURI, KOODAL VILLAGE, KALANJOOR PANCHAYATH, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2 KUNJAMMA ALEX, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O. LATE ALEXANDER, R/O MUTHIRAPARAMBIL, KOODAL P.O, KOODAL MURI, KOODAL VILLAGE, KULANJOOR PANCHAYATH, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT/S: ASHA JOHN, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. MOMET ALEX, R/O.CHAKKALAMANNIL, KOODAL MURI, KOODAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 693. BY ADVS. SRI.M.JAYAKRISHNAN SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.08.2021, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal NO.1146/2018, THE COURT ON 10.09.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943 MAT.APPEAL NO. 1146 OF 2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.(DIV.)NO.197/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA, DATED 29.03.2017 -------------- APPELLANT/S: MOMET ALEX, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O LATE ALEXANDER, R/O MUTHIRAPARAMBIL, KOODAL P.O., KOODAL MURI, KOODAL VILLAGE, KALANJOOR PANCHAYATH, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "6. The other appeal, M.A.No.1146/2018 is filed by the husband, aggrieved by the dismissal of petition for divorce filed by him. The grounds canvassed for divorce are alleging cruelty and unsound mind attributable to the wife. To substantiate the claim for divorce, the husband was examined. A Psychiatrist was also examined on the side of the husband. It is alleged by the husband that the wife used to abuse his mother often and also had manhandled her. It is also stated by him that she used to doubt the fidelity of the husband. It is further stated by him that his brother was working abroad and his brother's wife was residing near to his house and the appellant's wife used to cook up stories having illicit relationship with the brother's wife. It is also his case that the wife is having mental ailment and on account of this, she had serious behavioural problem. The wife denied all the allegations. According to her, the marital life was smooth till the demise of husband's father on 4/12/2008. It is alleged by her...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear.", "Decision": "Accordingly, we dismiss M.A.No.971/2017 and allow M.A.No.1146/2018 and declare that the marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent on 30.6.2003 is dissolved by a decree of divorce.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121901071/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; unsound_mind", "Judgment Year": 2021, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "121901071", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121901071/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Jojo Joy Aged 33 Years vs Aruvi Prasoonam on 31 January, 2013", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2013-01-31", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 Mat.Appeal.No. 771 of 2013 () ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 427/2012 of FAMILYCOURT, MUVATTUPUZHA APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------- JOJO JOY AGED 33 YEARS S/O.JOY POOPPATH, RESIDING AT POOPATH HOUSE CHIRAPPADY, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 686673. BY ADVS.SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SRI.M.HARISHARMA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- ARUVI PRASOONAM, AGED 24 YEARS D/O.ARULAPPAN, RESIDING AT ARUVI HOUSE, PALOORKONAM PRAVACHAMBALAM, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695020. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: acd ------------------------------------------- Mat. Appeal No. 771 of 2013 ---------------------------------------------- The appellant filed O.P.No.427/2012 on the file of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha. In that O.P., he sought decree of divorce on the grounds under Section 10 (1)(iii) and (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 .", "Fact/ Respondent": "THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 Mat.Appeal.No. 771 of 2013 () ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 427/2012 of FAMILYCOURT, MUVATTUPUZHA APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------- JOJO JOY AGED 33 YEARS S/O.JOY POOPPATH, RESIDING AT POOPATH HOUSE CHIRAPPADY, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 686673. BY ADVS.SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SRI.M.HARISHARMA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- ARUVI PRASOONAM, AGED 24 YEARS D/O.ARULAPPAN, RESIDING AT ARUVI HOUSE, PALOORKONAM PRAVACHAMBALAM, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695020. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: acd ------------------------------------------- Mat. Appeal No. 771 of 2013 ----------------------------------------------", "Issues": "\"10. Grounds for dissolution of marriage.- (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, may, on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent - xxx xxx xxx (iii) has been incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition;\" 4. Reading of this provision shows that to sustain a claim for divorce, the respondent should be proved to be incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "The appellant filed O.P.No.427/2012 on the file of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha. In that O.P., he sought decree of divorce on the grounds under Section 10 (1)(iii) and (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 .", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132557119/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2013, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "132557119", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132557119/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Joseph T.M. @ Sony vs Nirmala Raphel @ Mary Nirmala on 3 November, 2010", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2010-11-03", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/12TH BHADRA, 1935 Mat.Appeal.No. 264 of 2011 ( ) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPDIV 1137/2005 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- JOSEPH T.M. @ SONY AGED 38 YEARS, THANNIPPILLY,SEBASTIAN ROAD, KALOOR P.O., KOCHI. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RASHMI RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- NIRMALA RAPHEL @ MARY NIRMALA, AGED 31 YEARS, THYKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, AROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688 534. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR BY ADV. SMT.SMITHA BABU THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: acd ------------------------------------------- Mat. Appeal No.264 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- 3. The appellant and the respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 29.9.2003. In the wedlock, a female child was born on 26.4.2004. On 13.7.2005, the respondent wife filed the O.P. seeking divorce urging grounds of cruelty and that the appellant was incurably of unsound mind as provided under Section 10(1)(iii) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.", "Fact/ Respondent": "THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/12TH BHADRA, 1935 Mat.Appeal.No. 264 of 2011 ( ) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPDIV 1137/2005 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- JOSEPH T.M. @ SONY AGED 38 YEARS, THANNIPPILLY,SEBASTIAN ROAD, KALOOR P.O., KOCHI. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RASHMI RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- NIRMALA RAPHEL @ MARY NIRMALA, AGED 31 YEARS, THYKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, AROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688 534. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR BY ADV. SMT.SMITHA BABU THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: acd ------------------------------------------- Mat. Appeal No.264 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Alappuzha in O.P.No.1137/2005. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence adduced in the case did not make out a case of cruelty and according to her, the incident that happened on 8.1.2005 and relied on by the Family Court was a stage managed one and therefore, could not have been relied on by the respondent. 6. Insofar as her first contention that the respondent did not make out a case of cruelty is concerned, we were referred to the evidence of respondent, who was examined as PW1. In her proof affidavit, which was filed in lieu of the chief examination, she has narrated various instances of cruelty. The evidence also shows that, though she was cross examined in detail, nothing was brought out to disbelieve her testimony. It was in such circumstances, the Family Court has accepted the case of cruelty. 7. Admittedly, the appellant is a...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear.", "Decision": "10. Evidently, therefore, this is the case where the Mat.Appeal No.264/11 4 respondent was treated with cruelty and that allegation of the respondent was proved before the Family Court, not only with the evidence of Pws1 to 3 but also with the expert medical evidence that is available. In such a situation, the Family Court justified in granting a decree of divorce.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132477295/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2010, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "132477295", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132477295/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Gnanambal vs G.R. Selvaraj on 20 April, 1970", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1970-04-20", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 13, Section 14, Section 90", "Legal Topics": "Unsound Mind; Adultery; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is an appeal filed by the wife from the decision of ?he Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, confirming he decree of he trial Court dissolving the marriage between he appellant and the respondent on the ground that he appellant was incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for divorce. The husband-respondent is employed as an Appraiser in the Customs Department. He married the appellant in February, 1949, when hey were respectively aged about 22 and 16. There are five children of he marriage, a boy and four girls. The boy is the eldest and is aged about 15 and the youngest girl is aged 7. The last child was born in January, 1959, and at hat time the appellant was sterilised. Therefore, there is no prospect of the appellant bringing forth any more child. Even in the middle of 1951, the appellant appears to have showed signs of mental ailment. That necessitated her being treated by Dr. Dairiam, Superintendent of the Mental Hospital, Madras. She was also treated by other doctors. But hat treatment did not give the desired relief. The appellant was treated at he Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore, from September, 1961 to December, 1965. The doctor who treated her was Dr. Rose Chack...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is an appeal filed by the wife from the decision of ?he Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, confirming he decree of he trial Court dissolving the marriage between he appellant and the respondent on the ground that he appellant was incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for divorce. The husband-respondent is employed as an Appraiser in the Customs Department. He married the appellant in February, 1949, when hey were respectively aged about 22 and 16. There are five children of he marriage, a boy and four girls. The boy is the eldest and is aged about 15 and the youngest girl is aged 7. The last child was born in January, 1959, and at hat time the appellant was sterilised. Therefore, there is no prospect of the appellant bringing forth any more child. Even in the middle of 1951, the appellant appears to have showed signs of mental ailment. That necessitated her being treated by Dr. Dairiam, Superintendent of the Mental Hospital, Madras. She was also treated by other doctors. But hat treatment did not give the desired relief. The appellant was treated at he...", "Issues": "13. (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party: (i) ... (ii) ... (iii) has been incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The framers of this provision have taken into account the provisions of the English Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950. The English Act of 1950 reproduced what was contained in the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, and has been reproduced in the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1965. According to the English Act, a petition for divorce can be presented on the ground that the respondent is incurably of unsound mind and has been continuously under care and treatment for a period of at least five years...", "Petitioner Argument": "4. On the evidence, she learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the findings of the Courts below that the appellant was of incurable unsound mind for a continuous period of three years prior to (he presentation of he petition is not warranted and that at the worst against the appellant it could only be said that she appellant is a person of weak intellect. It is also contended on behalf of the appellant that it has not been proved hat he disease from which the appellant is suffering is incurable or that the unsoundness of mind was for a continuous period of three years immediately before the presentation of the petition. 5. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary at page 2141, the distinction between unsoundness of mind and lunacy or mania is brought out in the following terms: 'Unsound mind ' which all persons must understand to be a Depravity of Reason or want of it. Mere centricity is not such an unsoundness of mind as will amount to testamentary incapacity. There is an important difference between ' unsoundness of mind...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "17. The Punjab High Court in Sucha Singh v. Gurbachan Kaur (1965) 5 Cur. L.J. 417, on which Mr. Damodar Rao, appearing for the respondent relied, dealt with a case where the wife was suffering from schizophrenia as in the instance case. Though the trial Court, on the evidence, found that the wife was not of normal condition and was suffering from schizophrenia, still it refused to allow the husband's petition for divorce for the reason that the evidence did not establish that the respondent was insane. Reversing this decision it was held in appeal that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the wife was incurably of unsound mind for a period of three years immediately before the presentation of the petition. What weight should be given to the lucid intervals when the wife was able to talk well, was considered by the appellate Court and it was held that, according to the medical testimony of the witnesses, who gave evidence in that case, there could be lucid intervals in the condition of a person suffering from schizophrenia for weeks and even months and that, therefore, the fact that the person was able to give lucid answers during sometimes...", "Decision": "20. I am satisfied on the evidence that both the Courts below were right in holding that the appellant has been incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties will bear their own costs. Leave granted.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51395/ | (1970)2MLJ429", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unsound Mind", "All Grounds": "unsound_mind; adultery; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1970, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1970)2MLJ429", "Kanoon Doc ID": "51395", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51395/", "Chunks Indexed": 13 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Xxxxx vs Xxxxx on 31 May, 2021", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2021-05-31", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 18, Section 19", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Nullity Sec19; Unsound Mind", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2021 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1943 MAT.APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 2091/2011 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN OP NO.2091/2011: XXXXX BY ADVS. P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR B.BINDU N.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN OP NO.2091/2011: XXXXX BY ADVS. K.N.ABHILASH SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.05.2021, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.67/2015, THE COURT ON 31.05.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mat.Appeal Nos.67 & 254/2015 :2: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2021 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1943 MAT.APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 1113/2012 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP NO.1113/2012: XXXXX BY ADVS. P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR B.BINDU N.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN OP NO.1113/2012: XXXXX BY ADVS. K.N.ABHILASH SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.05.2021, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.254/2015, THE COURT ON 31.05.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mat.Appeal Nos.67 & 254/2015 :3: \"C.R.\" Two young medical graduates tied the knot with the hope that the bond between them would last for ever with love and joy. But, their hope did not last even the first night. For both, much anticipated wedding night was disappointing, if not pretty terrible - the husband found...", "Fact/ Respondent": "THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2021 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1943 MAT.APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 2091/2011 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN OP NO.2091/2011: XXXXX BY ADVS. P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR B.BINDU N.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN OP NO.2091/2011: XXXXX BY ADVS. K.N.ABHILASH SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.05.2021, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.67/2015, THE COURT ON 31.05.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mat.Appeal Nos.67 & 254/2015 :2: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2021 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1943 MAT.APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 1113/2012 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP NO.1113/2012: XXXXX BY ADVS. P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR B.BINDU N.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN OP NO.1113/2012: XXXXX BY ADVS. K.N.ABHILASH SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.05.2021, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.254/2015, THE COURT ON 31.05.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mat.Appeal Nos.67 & 254/2015 :3: \"C.R.\"", "Issues": "13. Cruelty which constitutes a ground for divorce under the Act, whether it be mental or physical in nature, is a question of fact. Determination of such a fact must depend on the evidence in the individual case being considered by the Court. No uniform standard can be laid down for guidance; behaviour which may constitute cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in another. There must be to a large Mat.Appeal Nos.67 & 254/2015 :13: extent a subjective as well as an objective aspect involved; one person may be able to tolerate conduct on the part of his or her spouse which would be intolerable to another. Under S.10(1)(x) , the cruelty must be such as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner spouse that it would be harmful or injurious for him/her to live with the respondent. The Division Bench of this court in...", "Petitioner Argument": "7. The consent in relation to a marriage must be the result of a free will. In case the consent of one spouse is obtained by the other, through force or fraud, law recognizes the same as basis for annulment of marriage. As stated already, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent was suffering from incurable unsoundness of mind at the time of marriage. The respondent has admitted in the pleadings as well as in the evidence that she had delusion disorder. Admittedly, the respondent or her parents did not disclose the said fact to the appellant. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though 'delusion disorder' may not be a disease that warrants divorce, the respondent has suppressed vital information about her health condition at the time of settlement of marriage and that itself is sufficient for annulment of the marriage. 17. Yet another facet of mental cruelty on the part of the respondent canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is the false accusation made by the respondent against the...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "9. The next question arises for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to the decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. A bare reading of the impugned order would show that the court below bestowed all its attention on the plea of unsoundness of mind and mental disorder canvassed by the appellant to grant a decree of nullity of marriage under the proviso to S.19 or of dissolution of marriage under Section 10(1)(iii) of the Act. The court below did not consider or appreciate correctly the various instances of cruelty stated by the appellant. There is absolutely no discussion of the evidence adduced by the appellant in this regard. The evidence adduced by the appellant regarding cruelty was simply discarded holding that the wordings in the Act are reproduced in the original Mat.Appeal Nos.67 & 254/2015 :9: petition by the appellant and that there is no evidence to show that the respondent has behaved in any way which may cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the appellant that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with her. 10. No doubt, the burden to prove the accusation of cruelty is on the part...", "Decision": "(v) The marriage between the appellant and the respondent solemnized on 30/6/2008 at St.Martin De Pores Church, Palarivattom, Ernakulam stands dissolved.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/146457187/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; nullity_sec19; unsound_mind", "Judgment Year": 2021, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "146457187", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/146457187/", "Chunks Indexed": 13 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Sou. Ramkuvar Madanlal Atale vs Madanlal Surajkaran Atale on 21 August, 1974", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1974-08-21", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 12, Section 13, Section 18, Section 2, Section 21, Section 225, Section 23, Section 27, Section 28, Section 38, Section 88, Section 9, Section 98", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty; Unsound Mind", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This appeal has been referred to me under Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure on a difference of opinion between my brother Bhole and my brother Mukhi. The facts have been set out in detail by my brother Mukhi in his judgment and it is not necessary for me to set them out again. Suffice it to say that, on a petition filed by the respondent-husband for judicial separation on the ground, inter alia, of desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , being Marriage Petition No. 5 of 1966, after evidence was taken, the parties presented a joint compromise purshis on September 5, 1966 in which it was stated that, in view of the evidence led before the Court, it appeared that the parties could not live together as husband and wife and there was, therefore, no objection from them to a decree for judicial separation being passed by the Court. It was, therefore, prayed in the purshis that a decree might be passed accordingly, and it was further stated that the parties were agreed that a sum of Rs. 60 per month should be paid by the husband by way of maintenance to the wife. On that purshis, the learned Judge recorded the fact that the parties admitted the settlement as per the said purshis...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This appeal has been referred to me under Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure on a difference of opinion between my brother Bhole and my brother Mukhi. The facts have been set out in detail by my brother Mukhi in his judgment and it is not necessary for me to set them out again. Suffice it to say that, on a petition filed by the respondent-husband for judicial separation on the ground, inter alia, of desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , being Marriage Petition No. 5 of 1966, after evidence was taken, the parties presented a joint compromise purshis on September 5, 1966 in which it was stated that, in view of the evidence led before the Court, it appeared that the parties could not live together as husband and wife and there was, therefore, no objection from them to a decree for judicial separation being passed by the Court. It was, therefore, prayed in the purshis that a decree might be passed accordingly, and it was further stated that the parties were agreed that a sum of Rs. 60 per month should be paid by the husband by way of maintenance to the wife....", "Issues": "3. My brother Mukhi has delivered a very learned and well-considered judgment in which he has dealt exhaustively with the various questions that were argued and raised at the hearing before them. My brother Bhole has also delivered a well-considered judgment in which, however, he has confined himself to a narrower compass. In my opinion, the matter is concluded by a very recent decision of the Supreme Court, and the only question that arises in this appeal is one of applying the principles laid down in that decision to the present case. In that view of the matter, it is really unnecessary for me to consider any of the other decisions which were cited before the learned differing Judges or before me. Before I deal with that judgment of the Supreme Court, it is, however, necessary for me to set out the relevant statutory provisions contained in the Hindu Marriage...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "18. The petition for judicial separation was resisted by the respondent who denied the allegations of the petitioner. She denied that she was of unsound mind when she had come to live with the petitioner or otherwise. She also denied that she and the petitioner had stayed together for only twenty-one days or so. Her contention was that before her marriage she had suffered from fever and had been sent for treatment at the Mental Hospital Yerwada, where she stayed as a voluntary patient for a few weeks and was discharged as completely cured. The respondent further contended that her marriage with the petitioner took place nearly one and half years after the said ailment for which she had been treated at the Yerwada Hospital and subsequently discharged. She contended that her ailment had been fully disclosed by her father to the petitioner and that only after full inquiry and after the petitioner had met her, did he (the petitioner) agree to marry her and in fact married her. She denied the allegations about fraud and in particular she denied...", "Factors to be Considered": "The Supreme Court further stated (para. 29) that in cases where an objection as to the non-excitability of the decree on the ground of its being a nullity is taken, the executing Court was not competent to go behind the decree, if the decree on the face of it, disclosed some material on the basis of which, the Rent Court could be satisfied with regard to the existence of a statutory ground for eviction and that the executing Court could for that purpose look to the original record of the trial Court to ascertain whether there was any material furnishing a foundation for the trial Court's jurisdiction to pass the decree it did. It was observed in the judgment of the Supreme Court that all that it had to see was whether \"there was some material on the basis of which the Rent Court could have-as distinguished from must have-been satisfied as to the statutory ground for eviction.\" The Supreme Court took the view that in the case before it there was a clear admission in the compromise, incorporated in the decree, of the fundamental facts that could constitute a ground for eviction under Section 12(3)(a) , and the executing...", "Decision": "155. Therefore, this is not a case whore the decree for judicial separation is a nullity. Neither can it be said to be non-existent nor it can be said that the error was such that it was incurable. In fact the question of jurisdiction does not arise in that decision at all. As mentioned earlier the wife also has not taken a plea of nullity but has merely alleged that the decree was illegal and an illegal decree is different from a decree in nullity. If that is so, then the appellant cannot succeed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1904898/ | (1977)79BOMLR143", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty; unsound_mind", "Judgment Year": 1974, "Relief Status": "nullity", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1977)79BOMLR143", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1904898", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1904898/", "Chunks Indexed": 67 }, { "Court": "Gujarat High Court", "Case Title": "Ajitrai Shivprasad Mehta vs Bai Vasumati on 20 June, 1967", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1967-06-20", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 19, Section 5, Section 84, Section 90", "Legal Topics": "Unsound Mind; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The petitioner husband has filed this appeal under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\", as his original petition for obtaining decree of the nullity of his marriage or for divorce had been dismissed by trial Court. 3. The petitioner and the respondent are Brahmins by caste. The petitioner is deaf and dumb from the birth. The petitioner's father originally resided at Umreth, while the original place of residence of the respondent is Vaso. But the parents of both parties had been residing at Ahmedabad since many years. According to the petitioner he was married to the respondent at Vaso on 15th April 1954 according to the religious rites and as per the custom of the community. It is the petitioner's case that he relied upon the representations made by the respondent's father to the petitioner's father. After the marriage the respondent came to reside with the petitioner when he found that her mental condition was defective and she was insane and did not know how to lead a married life with the petitioner. These facts were not known to the petitioner at the time of the marriage and so, the petitioner contended that as the respondent's mental condition was incurable, he was entitled to a decree of nullity of his marriage or in...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The petitioner husband has filed this appeal under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\", as his original petition for obtaining decree of the nullity of his marriage or for divorce had been dismissed by trial Court.", "Issues": "The aforesaid decision concisely explains the various terms with which we have to deal with and brings out the subtle distinction between the medical and legal view on the question of insanity. In the case of idiocy, the insanity is congenital and incurable and the mind is originally so defective as to be incapable of directing the person in any matter which requires thought or judgment or in other words, there is such a complete state of amentia from birth or early childhood, that the person is almost without any glimmering of reason at all. On the other hand, in case of lunacy or insanity or unsoundness of mind such mental defect arises from the weakening of the mind, originally strong, by reason of some disease, accident or other such cause resulting in some mental illness by which memory, reason or understanding is lost and the faculties are so paralysed....", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "3. The petitioner and the respondent are Brahmins by caste. The petitioner is deaf and dumb from the birth. The petitioner's father originally resided at Umreth, while the original place of residence of the respondent is Vaso. But the parents of both parties had been residing at Ahmedabad since many years. According to the petitioner he was married to the respondent at Vaso on 15th April 1954 according to the religious rites and as per the custom of the community. It is the petitioner's case that he relied upon the representations made by the respondent's father to the petitioner's father. After the marriage the respondent came to reside with the petitioner when he found that her mental condition was defective and she was insane and did not know how to lead a married life with the petitioner. These facts were not known to the petitioner at the time of the marriage and so, the petitioner contended that as the respondent's mental condition was incurable, he was entitled to a decree of nullity of his marriage or in the alternative to...", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "12. In the result, this appeal must fail and is dismissed with costs.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81755/ | AIR1969GUJ48, (1969)GLR253, AIR 1969 GUJARAT 48", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unsound Mind", "All Grounds": "unsound_mind; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 1967, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1969GUJ48, (1969)GLR253, AIR 1969 GUJARAT 48", "Kanoon Doc ID": "81755", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81755/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Disha Kushwaha vs Rituraj Singh on 1 October, 2019", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2019-10-01", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 125, Section 13, Section 19, Section 24, Section 25, Section 3, Section 482, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Adultery; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Smt. Disha Singh & others ****** Shri Praveen Dubey, Advocate for husband Ritu Raj Singh. Shri Ankit Saxena, Advocate for wife Smt. Disha Kushwaha. 1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of all the aforesaid three cases which are filed by the either parties on matrimonial issues like divorce, restitution of conjugal rights, maintenance pendente lite or 2 grant of regular maintenance. However, they are being heard and decided by this common order.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The first appeal is filed by the appellant-wife under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act being aggrieved by the judgment and decree Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal granting decree of divorce on a suit filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appellant wife has also assailed the judgment passed in Civil Suit No.464-A/2015 filed by her for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent which was dismissed by the same order. W.P. No. 5967/2015 has been filed by the husband against grant of maintenance pendente lite vide order dated 5.1.2015 passed in R.C.S. No. 828- A/2014; and M.Cr.C. No. 16660/2015 has been filed by the husband under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside of the order dated 12.1.2015 passed in M.J.C. No. 450/2014 granting maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- to the wife.", "Issues": "After the marriage has ceased to exist in substance and in reality, there is no reason for denying divorce. The parties alone can decide whether their mutual relationship provides the fulfillment which they seek. Divorce should be seen as a solution and an escape route out of a difficult situation. Such divorce is unconcerned with the wrongs of the past, but is concerned with bringing the parties and the children to terms with the new situation and developments by working out the most satisfactory basis upon which they 24 may regulate their relationship in the changed circumstances. Moreover, the essence of marriage is a sharing of common life, a sharing of all the happiness that life has to offer and all the misery that has to be faced in life, an experience of the joy that comes from enjoying, in common, things of the matter and of the spirit and...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "7. In reply to it, the respondent denied all the allegations of the plaint and taking the same plea as taken in his suit for divorce, prayed for dismissal of the suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the wife.", "Factors to be Considered": "The desertion as on date is more than 14 years and, therefore, in our view there has been an irretrievable breakdown of marriage between the appellant and the respondent. Even the Conciliation Officer before the Family Court gave its report that the respondent was willing to live with the appellant on the condition that they lived separately from his family. The respondent in her evidence had not disputed the fact that attempts have been made by the appellant and his family to bring her back to the matrimonial home for leading a conjugal life with the appellant. Apart from that, relationship between the appellant and the 27 respondent have become strained over years due to the desertion of the appellant by the respondent for several years. Under the circumstances, the appellant had proved before the Family Court both the factum of separation as well as animus deserendi which are the essential elements of desertion. The evidence adduced by the respondent before the Family Court belies her stand taken by her before the Family Court. Enough instances of cruelty meted out by the respondent to the appellant were cited before the Family Court and the Family Court being convinced granted the...", "Decision": "45. In consequence to above discussion the F.A. No. 653/2016 ( Disha Kushwaha Vs. Rituraj Singh ) is hereby dismissed maintaining the decree of divorce with direction to the respondent-husband to pay permanent alimony Rs. 75,000/- per month to the wife and children. W.P. No. 5967/2015 ( Ritu Raj Singh Vs. Smt. Disha Kushwaha ), which is filed challenging the interim order passed in the R.C.S. No. 828- A/2014, be treated as disposed of because the suit has itself been finally decided. M.Cr.C. No. 16660/2015 ( Ritu Raj Singh Vs. Smt. Disha 43 Singh and others ) which is arising out of the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant-wife is also disposed of, in view of the grant of the permanent alimony Rs. 75,000/- to the appellant-wife and children. Thus, the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. if any, pending in the trial Court is not required to be continued further and be now consigned to the record.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132173216/ | (2020) 1 DMC 136, AIR 2019 MADHYA PRADESH 217, (2019) 4 MPLJ 694, (2020) 1 HINDULR 385, AIRONLINE 2019 MP 1408", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; adultery; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2019, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (2020) 1 DMC 136, AIR 2019 MADHYA PRADESH 217, (2019) 4 MPLJ 694, (2020) 1 HINDULR 385, AIRONLINE 2019 MP 1408", "Kanoon Doc ID": "132173216", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132173216/", "Chunks Indexed": 15 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Xxxxx vs Yyy on 19 November, 2021", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2021-11-19", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13", "Legal Topics": "Desertion", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1943 MAT.APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 1692/2012 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: 'X' BY ADVS. SRI.C.M.NAZAR SRI.G.CHANDRASEKHAR SMT.K.BINDU RANI RESPONDENT/S: 'Y' BY ADVS. SRI.BOBY MATHEW SMT.K.MEERA THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEING FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2021, THE COURT ON 19.11.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: \"C.R.\" ------------------------------------------ Mat.Appeal No.434 of 2016 ------------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T \"People are always good company when they are doing what they really enjoy.\" Samuel Butler (1) When marriage is in trouble due to inherent incompatibility, enjoyment vanishes and what left in the marriage is often confounding the Court. The troubled marriage never ends happily; it gets worsened when one party moves the Court. Here is a case of divorce of the parties who are living separately since 2003.", "Fact/ Respondent": "THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1943 MAT.APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 1692/2012 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: 'X' BY ADVS. SRI.C.M.NAZAR SRI.G.CHANDRASEKHAR SMT.K.BINDU RANI RESPONDENT/S: 'Y' BY ADVS. SRI.BOBY MATHEW SMT.K.MEERA THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEING FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2021, THE COURT ON 19.11.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: \"C.R.\" ------------------------------------------ Mat.Appeal No.434 of 2016 ------------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T", "Issues": "4. The respondent-wife had a different story to tell. According to the respondent, the appellant never provided any emotional or familial security and he was more pre-occupied in MAT.APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2016 -:5:- forming various romantic internet alliances using multiple identical aliases. It is further contended that the appellant was more interested to lead a bachelor life without any family responsibility. She pointed out that she and her children were completely neglected. She also stated that she was compelled to single handedly perform social and domestic chores including medical, schooling and recreational needs of the children. It is stated by her that her parents being convinced of neglect, forced to take the children along with her to Bangalore in the year 2001. The defense of the wife clearly would show that there was no emotional bonding between the parties ever since the marriage and disillusionment with husband made her...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "19. In this case, it is clear from the pleadings as well as the evidence adduced on the side of the respondent that she has no intention to resume cohabitation with the appellant. It also has come out in evidence adduced by the appellant that he made attempt to resume cohabitation. The oral testimony of PW2 and PW3 cannot be overlooked in order to prove the attempt made by the appellant to resume cohabitation. The evidence shows that the appellant had no intention to abandon or separate the marriage. The problem appears to be inherent incompatibility of the parties. Ext.A3 report of the Consultant Psychiatrist and Ext.A4 of the private Mediator vouchsafe that there exist lack of emotional intimacy between the parties. The life style of the MAT.APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2016 -:16:- appellant is attributed as the cause for separation by the respondent-wife. However, it is to be noted that the respondent failed to prove or substantiate any case of forced separation. If the emotional intimacy is not built in a marriage, such marriage is bound to collapse. If...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50540379/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion", "Judgment Year": 2021, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "50540379", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50540379/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Samuel Asirvatham Raja vs Stella Janci Rani on 12 March, 2024", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2024-03-12", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "C.M.A.(MD)No.89 of 2011 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL C.M.A.(MD)No.89 of 2011 and CMP(MD)No.6600 of 2017 Samuel Asirvatham Raja .. Appellant/Petitioner Vs. Stella Janci Rani .. Respondent/Respondent Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2010 in IDOP.No.47 of 2009 on the file of the I-Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli. For Appellant : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer For Respondent : Mr.S.Siva Thilakar 1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.89 of 2011 This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant as against the order passed by the I-Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, in IDOP.No.47 of 2009 dated 28.10.2010 wherein the appellant herein has filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of desertion as well as cruelty. The trial Court has dismissed the petition. As against the order passed by the trial Court, the present appeal is filed.", "Fact/ Respondent": "C.M.A.(MD)No.89 of 2011 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL C.M.A.(MD)No.89 of 2011 and CMP(MD)No.6600 of 2017 Samuel Asirvatham Raja .. Appellant/Petitioner Vs. Stella Janci Rani .. Respondent/Respondent Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2010 in IDOP.No.47 of 2009 on the file of the I-Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli. For Appellant : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer For Respondent : Mr.S.Siva Thilakar 1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.89 of 2011", "Issues": "(i)Whether the appeal is liable to be allowed or not?", "Petitioner Argument": "7. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 31.08.2005 and a male child was born on 01.08.2006. After marriage, the respondent behaved abnormally and frequently, she left from the matrimonial home and stayed with her parents and the petitioner used to conduct panchayat and take back her to the matrimonial home. The respondent has affairs with one Doctor prior to marriage even now she is continuing her contact with the said Doctor through phone. Before the trial Court, in order to prove the case of the appellant, he examined himself as PW1 and he deposed about the mental cruelty caused by the respondent and the father of the petitioner was also examined as PW2. He also categorically deposed about the mental cruelty caused by the respondent. But the trial Court did not consider the above said evidence 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.89 of 2011 and wrongly came to a conclusion that the petitioner has not satisfactorily established the cruelty. However, the trial Court has given much importance to the...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "11. In this case, there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties and the male child born to the parties. The appellant has filed the petition before the trial Court for the decree of divorce on the ground of desertion as well as cruelty. As far as the ground of desertion is 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.89 of 2011 concerned, the petitioner himself admitted in the petition that the respondent has been residing with her parents for more than six months. But to attract the grounds under Section 10(9) of the Divorce Act, the petitioner has to prove that the respondent has deserted the petitioner for atleast two years from the date of petition. But there is no sufficient evidence adduced by the petitioner and he himself admitted through the pleadings that for more than six months, the respondent has been residing with her parents. Therefore, the ground of desertion has not been proved by the petitioner. As far as the cruelty is concerned, according to the petitioner, the respondent behaved abnormally and there is no particular incident stated by...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63826476/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 325); Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2024, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "63826476", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63826476/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Samuel Asirvatham Raja vs Stella Janci Rani on 12 March, 2024", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2024-03-12", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "C.M.A.(MD)No.89 of 2011 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL C.M.A.(MD)No.89 of 2011 and CMP(MD)No.6600 of 2017 Samuel Asirvatham Raja .. Appellant/Petitioner Vs. Stella Janci Rani .. Respondent/Respondent Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2010 in IDOP.No.47 of 2009 on the file of the I-Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli. For Appellant : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer For Respondent : Mr.S.Siva Thilakar 1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.89 of 2011 This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant as against the order passed by the I-Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, in IDOP.No.47 of 2009 dated 28.10.2010 wherein the appellant herein has filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of desertion as well as cruelty. The trial Court has dismissed the petition. As against the order passed by the trial Court, the present appeal is filed.", "Fact/ Respondent": "C.M.A.(MD)No.89 of 2011 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL C.M.A.(MD)No.89 of 2011 and CMP(MD)No.6600 of 2017 Samuel Asirvatham Raja .. Appellant/Petitioner Vs. Stella Janci Rani .. Respondent/Respondent Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2010 in IDOP.No.47 of 2009 on the file of the I-Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli. For Appellant : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer For Respondent : Mr.S.Siva Thilakar 1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.89 of 2011", "Issues": "(i)Whether the appeal is liable to be allowed or not?", "Petitioner Argument": "7. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 31.08.2005 and a male child was born on 01.08.2006. After marriage, the respondent behaved abnormally and frequently, she left from the matrimonial home and stayed with her parents and the petitioner used to conduct panchayat and take back her to the matrimonial home. The respondent has affairs with one Doctor prior to marriage even now she is continuing her contact with the said Doctor through phone. Before the trial Court, in order to prove the case of the appellant, he examined himself as PW1 and he deposed about the mental cruelty caused by the respondent and the father of the petitioner was also examined as PW2. He also categorically deposed about the mental cruelty caused by the respondent. But the trial Court did not consider the above said evidence 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.89 of 2011 and wrongly came to a conclusion that the petitioner has not satisfactorily established the cruelty. However, the trial Court has given much importance to the...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "11. In this case, there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties and the male child born to the parties. The appellant has filed the petition before the trial Court for the decree of divorce on the ground of desertion as well as cruelty. As far as the ground of desertion is 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.89 of 2011 concerned, the petitioner himself admitted in the petition that the respondent has been residing with her parents for more than six months. But to attract the grounds under Section 10(9) of the Divorce Act, the petitioner has to prove that the respondent has deserted the petitioner for atleast two years from the date of petition. But there is no sufficient evidence adduced by the petitioner and he himself admitted through the pleadings that for more than six months, the respondent has been residing with her parents. Therefore, the ground of desertion has not been proved by the petitioner. As far as the cruelty is concerned, according to the petitioner, the respondent behaved abnormally and there is no particular incident stated by...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80987595/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 324); Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2024, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "80987595", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80987595/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Kochurani Chacko vs K.M.Chackochen on 22 July, 2009", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2009-07-22", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 125, Section 13, Section 13B", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Partly_Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2017/14TH ASHADHA, 1939 Mat.Appeal.No. 832 of 2009 ( ) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 523/2006 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------- 1. KOCHURANI CHACKO, AGED 43, D/O. M.V.EAPPEN, MADATHIL KATTUKUNNEL, VELLARIKUNDU P.O. KASARGOD,NOW AT KALAKUTTUMPARAMBIL, THAKAZHY, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STEPHY MARIA JACOB @ CHIKKU D/O. KOCHURANI CHACKO, KALAKETTUMPARAMBIL, THAKAZHY VILLGE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SUBIN MUCHAEL JACOB @ KUTHU, MINOR REPRESENTED BY THE, 1ST PETITIONER MOTHER KOCHURANI CHACKO, AGED 43,, D/O. M.V. EAPPEN, MADATHIL KATTUKUNNEL, VELLARIKUNDU P.O.,KASARGOD NOW AT KALAKETTUMPARAMBIL, THAKAZHY, ALAPPUZHA 4. ARANTAX MARGARAT JACOB @ MICHU, MINOR,REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER MOTHER, KOCHURANI CHACKO, AGED 43,D/O.M.V.EAPPEN, MADATHIL KATTUKUNNEL, VELLARIKUNDU P.O., KASARGOD NOW AT KALAKETTUMPARAMBIL, THAKAZHY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------- K.M.CHACKOCHEN, AGED 43, S/O LATE MICHAEL, KALAKETTUMPARAMBIL,, THAKAZHY, ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO R1 BY ADV. DR.P.L.JOHN THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06- 06-2017, ALONG WITH MA. 833/2009, MA. 834/2009, MA. 77/2010, THE COURT ON 5/7/2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: =========================== Mat.Appeal Nos. 832, 833 & 834 of 2009 & 77 of 2010 ======================== J U D G M E N T These appeals are filed challenging the common judgment 5/2005 and OP Nos.947/2005 & 523/2006.", "Fact/ Respondent": "THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2017/14TH ASHADHA, 1939 Mat.Appeal.No. 832 of 2009 ( ) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 523/2006 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------- 1. KOCHURANI CHACKO, AGED 43, D/O. M.V.EAPPEN, MADATHIL KATTUKUNNEL, VELLARIKUNDU P.O. KASARGOD,NOW AT KALAKUTTUMPARAMBIL, THAKAZHY, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STEPHY MARIA JACOB @ CHIKKU D/O. KOCHURANI CHACKO, KALAKETTUMPARAMBIL, THAKAZHY VILLGE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SUBIN MUCHAEL JACOB @ KUTHU, MINOR REPRESENTED BY THE, 1ST PETITIONER MOTHER KOCHURANI CHACKO, AGED 43,, D/O. M.V. EAPPEN, MADATHIL KATTUKUNNEL, VELLARIKUNDU P.O.,KASARGOD NOW AT KALAKETTUMPARAMBIL, THAKAZHY, ALAPPUZHA 4. ARANTAX MARGARAT JACOB @ MICHU, MINOR,REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER MOTHER, KOCHURANI CHACKO, AGED 43,D/O.M.V.EAPPEN, MADATHIL KATTUKUNNEL, VELLARIKUNDU P.O., KASARGOD NOW AT KALAKETTUMPARAMBIL, THAKAZHY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------- K.M.CHACKOCHEN, AGED 43, S/O LATE MICHAEL, KALAKETTUMPARAMBIL,, THAKAZHY, ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO R1 BY ADV. DR.P.L.JOHN THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06- 06-2017, ALONG WITH MA. 833/2009, MA. 834/2009, MA. 77/2010, THE COURT ON 5/7/2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: =========================== Mat.Appeal Nos. 832, 833 & 834 of 2009 & 77 of 2010 ======================== J U D G M E N T", "Issues": "13. Though in Ismayil's case (supra), the Court was concerned with the question as to whether marriage expenses are to be paid to a daughter, from the principle laid down, it is apparently clear that the daughters are to be maintained until they are given in marriage or until they are capable of maintaining themselves. In the light of the above discussion, we Mat.Appeal No.832/09 & conn.cases -:10:- are of the view that the Family Court was not justified in restricting the maintenance to the daughters until the age of majority. They are entitled for maintenance until their marriage or until they are gainfully employed, whichever is earlier. 20. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent placed reliance upon a judgment in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli [(2006) 4 SCC 558] to contend that when parties are living separately for a sufficient length of time, and one...", "Petitioner Argument": "11. Out of the petitioners, second petitioner attained majority during the pendency of the petition, on 17/5/2007.The Family Court restricted the claim for maintenance of the 2nd petitioner till 17/5/2007. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in P.M.Devassia v. Ancy and Others [(2007) 1 ILR Kerala 206] to contend that a girl child is entitled for maintenance until her marriage. 14. In regard to the other claim for recovery of `2 lakh and 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments, the petitioner's case was that on 9/9/1987, the date of betrothal, the respondent made a demand to the first petitioner's parents that an amount of `2 lakhs and 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments should be given as sthreedhanam and that the amount should be paid before the marriage. Accordingly, `2 lakhs was paid to the respondent on 20/9/1987, a day prior to the marriage. Further, on the day of marriage, 1st petitioner was given 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is alleged that the first petitioner entrusted the same with...", "Respondent Argument": "17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the parties had been living separately since April,1996. More than 20 years had lapsed which clearly amounts to an instance of irretrievable break down of marriage and therefore, this is a fit case in which the judgment of the Family Court requires to be confirmed. Learned counsel also submits that irretrievable break down of marriage can also be considered Mat.Appeal No.832/09 & conn.cases -:15:- as a ground for divorce in exceptional circumstances though there is no statutory provision enabling the same.", "Factors to be Considered": "( i) Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Manju Sharma [(2009) 6 SCC 379]. In the above case arising under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , it is held that divorce can be granted only on the grounds mentioned under Section 13 . Irretrievable break down of marriage is not a ground for divorce as provided by the legislature and the Supreme Court cannot add such a ground to Section 13 of the Act which would amount to amending the Act which is the function of the legislature. (ii) In Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain [(2009) 10 SCC 415], it is held that in several cases, Supreme Court has invoked its extra ordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in order to provide complete justice to the parties when faced with a situation, where the marriage ties have completely broken, and there was no possibility whatsoever of the spouses coming back together again. It is further held that although irretrievable break down of marriage is not one of the grounds indicated either under Section 13 or Section 13B for grant of divorce, the said doctrine can be applied to a proceeding under either of the said two provisions...", "Decision": "Mat.Appeal Nos. 833/2009, 834/2009 & 77/2010 are dismissed. Mat.Appeal No.832/2009 is partly allowed directing the respondent father to pay maintenance for the girl children until their marriage or until they are capable of maintaining themselves, whichever is earlier.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/128478824/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2009, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "128478824", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/128478824/", "Chunks Indexed": 15 }, { "Court": "Telangana High Court", "Case Title": "N.Manikya Rao vs Smt.Lillian Swaroopa on 7 March, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-03-07", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 40", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The instant Appeal arises out of an order dated 09.05.2014 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad in FCOP.No.1661 of 2010 filed by the appellant-husband under Section 10(1)(ix) and (x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-wife by a decree of divorce. 2. The Family Court dismissed the petition for divorce on the ground that appellant failed to prove cruelty and desertion.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The instant Appeal arises out of an order dated 09.05.2014 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad in FCOP.No.1661 of 2010 filed by the appellant-husband under Section 10(1)(ix) and (x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-wife by a decree of divorce.", "Issues": "57. The Court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouse's conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However, insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal human life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen...", "Petitioner Argument": "12. The appellant has stated in his cross-examination that the respondent has been living in the same house in which he is living in a separate portion since 2010, witness added that living from 2010 in the portion of the house is in accordance with the Court orders. He further went on to say that himself, his wife and children were living in the same house since the construction of the house. 10 FCA_143_2014 13. Ex.P3 is the order in DVC No.120 of 2010 dated 30.03.2012. It is contended by the respondent in the DVC that on 24.02.2009 her husband has abused her in filthy language, assaulted her physically in the presence of her daughter and son-in-law. Ex.P3 order goes to show that the respondent herein/petitioner therein is the absolute and rightful owner to reside in the shared house-hold in the capacity of a contributor and more particularly in the capacity of a legally wedded wife. There is no doubt that the house in which the appellant and the respondent are residing is a shared house. 14. It is the...", "Respondent Argument": "7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant has failed to prove cruelty and desertion and the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the OP by assigning reasons.", "Factors to be Considered": "8. The appellant has sought divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. Section 10(1)(ix) and (x) of The Divorce Act, 1869 reads as under : ix) has deserted the petitioner for at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition: or x) has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent. 9.1. In Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli1 , the Apex Court observed that: 56. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be \"grave and weighty\" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than \"ordinary 1 MANU/SC/1387/2006 2 MANU/SC/ 1386/2007 3 MANU/SC/0456/2023 6 FCA_143_2014 wear and tear of married life\". The conduct taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education,...", "Decision": "20. FCA No.143 of 2014 is accordingly, dismissed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/13565390/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "13565390", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/13565390/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "L.Stella vs V.Ponnusamy on 11 September, 2015", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2015-09-11", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 19, Section 2, Section 22, Section 3", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "The Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.VENUGOPAL C.M.A.No.1974 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 L.Stella ..Appellant Vs. V.Ponnusamy ..Respondent Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 06.02.2015 in D.O.P.No.122 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Coimbatore For Appellant : Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja For Respondent : Mr.K.Premkumar J U D G M E N T [Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Appellant/Respondent has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the Order dated 06.02.2015 in DOP.No.122 of 2008 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Coimbatore.", "Fact/ Respondent": "The Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.VENUGOPAL C.M.A.No.1974 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 L.Stella ..Appellant Vs. V.Ponnusamy ..Respondent Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 06.02.2015 in D.O.P.No.122 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Coimbatore For Appellant : Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja For Respondent : Mr.K.Premkumar J U D G M E N T", "Issues": "31.Undoubtedly, the term of 'Desertion' is a matter to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a given case. To put it succinctly, an inference of 'Desertion' may be drawn by a Court of Law from certain facts which may not in another case be capable of leading to the same inference; ie., to mention, the facts have to be necessarily viewed as to the purpose which is established by those acts or by conduct and expression of intention, both anterior and subsequent to the real acts of separation. If there is a separation, the main issue that crops up for rumination is whether the Act is attributable to an animus deserendi? The act of Desertion starts when the factum of separation and the animus deserendi co-exists. However, it is not necessary that the two should start at the same time, as opined by this Court. 32. In regard...", "Petitioner Argument": "4.The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Respondent (wife) contends that the order of the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Coimbatore in D.O.P. No.22 of 2008 dated 06.02.2015 is against facts and evidence. 6.The Learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds to take a plea that the Learned Trial Judge had failed to appreciate that once the parties to the marriage performed the marriage and submit to the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 , their marital relationship and their marital rights are governed by the said Act and as such, the parties are bound to seek redressal only under the said Act. 7.The Learned Counsel for Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that the Appellant had filed the S.M.O.P No.192 of 2000 seeking the relief of 'Restitution of Conjugal Rights' on the file of Family Court and the same was allowed. Further more, the Respondent/Husband had filed S.M.O.P.No.339 of 1998, seeking a relief of Divorce on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore and the same was dismissed as not pressed. In fact, these two aforesaid Petitions...", "Respondent Argument": "10.Conversely, it is contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Husband that the trial court came to the conclusion that the Appellant/Wife had deserted the Respondent/Husband from 30.03.1992 and further that, she treated him cruelly and consequently granted the relief of divorce in his favour and the same need not to be interfered with by this Court sitting in Appellate Jurisdiction. 11.Admittedly, the Appellant/Wife is Christian and that the Respondent/Husband is Hindu. At the time of marriage on 18.03.1991, the Appellant/Wife was a widow. Further, the Respondent/Husband at the time of his marriage was serving as a clerk in the Postal Department and subsequently he retired voluntarily and is receiving monthly pension. 12.The main grievance of the Respondent/Husband is that the Appellant/Respondent left the marital home and went to her mother's place and when he went there to bring his wife, her family members used abusive language and ill-treated him. Apart from that, the Appellant had failed to prepare food and look after him as dutiful wife. Also that the Appellant had not visited him when he was admitted into...", "Factors to be Considered": "23.Suffice it for this Court to point out that the Appellant/Wife had not mentioned the date of demand of dowry and also she had not proved satisfactorily in regard to allegation the the Respondent /Husband drove her away to obtain money from her parents as dowry. Dealing with the plea of the Appellant that the D.O.P. No.22 of 2008 filed by the Respondent/Husband under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 is per se not maintainable because of the reason that the Respondent/Husband had got married in terms of Special Marriage Act, 1954 , it is to be pointed out that the ingredients of Section 11 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 does not prevent the Respondent/Husband from seeking a relief by projecting a petition for divorce in terms of the relevant provisions of ' The Divorce Act ' (4 of 1869) in the considered opinion of this Court. 24. It is to be borne in mind that ' The Divorce Act, 1869 ' does not require that parties marriage ought to have been solemnized in any particular form. It would suffice if one of the parties is a Christian when the petition was filed. 25.In reality, Section 2 of...", "Decision": "39.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Resultantly, the Order passed by the Learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, in D.O.P. No.122 of 2008 dated 06.02.2015 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Appeal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3738797/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 94)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2015, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "3738797", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3738797/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Joan Christy vs Roche Gilbert on 28 August, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-08-28", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 19", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Adultery; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "C.M.A(MD)No.483 of 2024 Reserved on : 17.07.2025 Pronounced on : 28.08.2025 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA CMA(MD)No.483 of 2024 Joan Christy ... Appellant/ Petitioner Vs. Roche Gilbert ...Respondent / Respondent PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 24.02.2023 made in O.P.No.305 of 2021 and counter claim in O.P. No.183 of 2022 on the file of the Family Court, Sivagangai and allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. For Appellant : Mr.A.Mohan For Respondent : Mr.M.Gurudas 1/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) C.M.A(MD)No.483 of 2024 The appellant/petitioner/wife has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the fair order and decreetal order dated 24.02.2023 passed in O.P No.305 of 2021 and Counter claim in O.P.No. 183 of 2022 on the file of the Family Court, Sivagangai.", "Fact/ Respondent": "C.M.A(MD)No.483 of 2024 Reserved on : 17.07.2025 Pronounced on : 28.08.2025 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA CMA(MD)No.483 of 2024 Joan Christy ... Appellant/ Petitioner Vs. Roche Gilbert ...Respondent / Respondent PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 24.02.2023 made in O.P.No.305 of 2021 and counter claim in O.P. No.183 of 2022 on the file of the Family Court, Sivagangai and allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. For Appellant : Mr.A.Mohan For Respondent : Mr.M.Gurudas 1/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) C.M.A(MD)No.483 of 2024", "Issues": "11. In this case, the points for consideration are (i) Whether the order passed by the trial Court is proper or liable to be set aside? 10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) C.M.A(MD)No.483 of 2024 12. Heard the learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the entire material record. 33. Further, the petitioner, has not specifically mentioned any date of harassment either in her petition or in evidence, before 12.08.2021, however, she stated that a panchayat was held on 14.02.2021 at Ramnathapuram, wherein it was decided that the petitioner and respondent should reside at Karaikudi and attend their respective employment, the respondent refused to reside with her at Karaikudi. On 12.08.2021, the petitioner called the respondent over the phone, enquired whether he had set up house at Karaikudi, but the respondent refused to reside with her at Karaikudi. He further stated that he did not wish...", "Petitioner Argument": "(b) The petitioner further stated that at the time of marriage, her parents had given 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments, Rs.1,00,000/- cash and a Hyundai I20 sports car as Sridhana to the respondent. (c) Before the marriage, the petitioner was working in the Office of the Rural Development Department, Thirumayam, whereas, the respondent was working as a teacher in a Government-aided Minority School, Muthupettai, Ramanathapuram District. 2/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) C.M.A(MD)No.483 of 2024 (d) After the marriage, the respondent has not shown any love and affection towards her and he simply abandoned her without providing any small help to attend her duties during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Thereafter as decided by both families, they have shifted their matrimonial home to Thirumayam for a rental house after obtaining the consent of both families. Even after relocating the matrimonial home to Thriumayam, the respondent continued to quarrel with the petitioner and her parents for trivial issues. (e) Later, she came to know that the respondent had involved in an extramarital affair with someone before their marriage and...", "Respondent Argument": "(a) The respondent denied all the allegations contained in the petition. He also denied the allegations regarding the demand for dowry and gifts. He has a 3.5 sovereigns of gold chain and an engagement ring. He did not receive any other jewellery or cash from the petitioner's parents. The Hyundai I20 car was not given as dowry, it was only parked at the marriage hall for photos, and the RC book and documents are still in the petitioner's father's name. The respondent had given Rs.6,70,000/- to the parents of the petitioner for making the mangalsutra and 4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) C.M.A(MD)No.483 of 2024 engagement ring. The petitioner has his gold chain and gold ring. (b) The allegations of domestic violence, abuse, are false. The respondent attempted to reconcile the dispute on 14.02.2021 at Ramanathapuram. However, the petitioner's claims regarding the decision to rent a house at Karaikudi are false. The petitioner visited the respondent's home only three times, after the marriage. In most of the occasions the petitioner accompanied her brother. (c) The respondent denied...", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "40. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The fair and decreetal order dated 24.02.2023, passed in OP No.305 of 2021 and counter claim in O.P.No.183 of 2022, by the Family Court, Sivagangai, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/89024751/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; adultery; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "89024751", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/89024751/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Shri Raymond Lancy Rodrigues vs Smt. Yogita W/O Raymond Rodrigues on 3 April, 2017", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2017-04-03", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "fca287.14.odt 1 NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.287/2014 APPELLANT: Shri Raymond Lancy Rodrigues Org. Petitioner Aged about 63 years, Occupation - Retired, R/o Shirthadi Main Road, P.O. Shirthadi, District - Mangalore, Taluka Karkal. ...VERSUS... RESPONDENT : Smt. Yogita w/o Raymond Rodrigues, Org. Respondent Aged about 30 years, R/o C/o Mrs. Alexandar Vincent, Yerkheda, Kamptee, Tahsil Kamptee, District Nagpur. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Amit Khare, Advocate for appellant Shri N.M. Kolhe, Advocate for respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE : 03.04.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.) By this family court appeal, the appellant-husband challenges the judgment of the learned District Judge-7, Nagpur, dated 07.09.2013 dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Section 10(1)(ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 .", "Fact/ Respondent": "fca287.14.odt 1 NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.287/2014 APPELLANT: Shri Raymond Lancy Rodrigues Org. Petitioner Aged about 63 years, Occupation - Retired, R/o Shirthadi Main Road, P.O. Shirthadi, District - Mangalore, Taluka Karkal. ...VERSUS... RESPONDENT : Smt. Yogita w/o Raymond Rodrigues, Org. Respondent Aged about 30 years, R/o C/o Mrs. Alexandar Vincent, Yerkheda, Kamptee, Tahsil Kamptee, District Nagpur. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Amit Khare, Advocate for appellant Shri N.M. Kolhe, Advocate for respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE : 03.04.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)", "Issues": "(I) Whether the appellant proved that the respondent had treated him with cruelty? (II) Whether the appellant proved that the respondent had deserted him? ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 21:59:48 ::: fca287.14.odt 8 (III) Whether the appellant is entitled to a", "Petitioner Argument": "5. Shri Khare, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the learned District Judge was not justified in refusing to grant a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant. It is submitted that the parties had lastly resided together in the year 2007 and the learned District Judge erroneously held that the parties had not resided separately for a period of two years preceding the date of filing of the petition. It is ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 21:59:48 ::: fca287.14.odt 6 stated that the admissions of the respondent in her cross-examination are not considered by the learned District Judge in the right perspective while refusing to grant the decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. It is submitted that the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken down and though there was an attempt in the year 2011 to consider whether there was a possibility of a settlement between the parties and though the parties started residing at Mangalore in different houses which were at a distance of four kilometers from...", "Respondent Argument": "3. The respondent filed the written statement and denied the claim of the appellant. Every adverse allegation that was made by the appellant against the respondent was denied by the respondent. It is pleaded by the respondent in the specific pleadings that the marriage between the parties was settled by the consent of the parties and at the relevant time, the appellant was working as a professor in the Hislop college. It is pleaded that the appellant was addicted to liquor and under the influence of liquor, he used to compare the respondent with his two former wives and used to abuse and insult her. It is pleaded that the appellant used to fight with the respondent on trivial issues and used to beat her in the fit of anger. It is pleaded that in the presence of public, the appellant used to insult her by saying that she cannot give birth to a ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 21:59:48 ::: fca287.14.odt 4 child. It is pleaded that when the uncle of the respondent expired...", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "13. In the result, the Family Court Appeal fails and is dismissed with", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102582017/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2017, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "102582017", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102582017/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Roy Mathew vs Rebeca Mani on 28 January, 2021", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2021-01-28", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Mat.Appeal.No.617 OF 2012 1 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942 Mat.Appeal.No.617 OF 2012 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(DIV) 853/2009 DATED 24-08-2012 OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ROY MATHEW AGED 54 YEARS S/O.MATHEW, THOOMPUNKAL HOUSE, MATTOM SOUTH, THATTARAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR SRI.P.ARAVIND RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: REBECA MANI, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.ROY MATHEW, KANIYAMKULAM HOUSE, KOTTAYAM-1, KOTTAYAM, NOW AT POOZHIKKATTU PUTHUPARAMBIL, CHENNITHALA P.O., MAVELIKARA 690105. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPAKUMAR THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mat.Appeal.No.617 OF 2012 2 2. The compendious facts giving rise to the married the respondent on 21.5.1990. The parties are Christians by religion. The couple lived together at the residence of the appellant and, thereafter, in abroad where the appellant was working since 21.11.1990. A son named Deepak Mathew Roy was born in their wedlock on 15.9.1991. On 2.12.1991, the respondent returned to India and secured a job as a Teacher in the Parish School of the appellant. The appellant had paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as donation to secure the Mat.Appeal.No.617 OF 2012 3 employment. The respondent was leading a life of her own choice. She used to leave the matrimonial home without informing the parents of the...", "Fact/ Respondent": "Mat.Appeal.No.617 OF 2012 1 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942 Mat.Appeal.No.617 OF 2012 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(DIV) 853/2009 DATED 24-08-2012 OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ROY MATHEW AGED 54 YEARS S/O.MATHEW, THOOMPUNKAL HOUSE, MATTOM SOUTH, THATTARAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR SRI.P.ARAVIND RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: REBECA MANI, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.ROY MATHEW, KANIYAMKULAM HOUSE, KOTTAYAM-1, KOTTAYAM, NOW AT POOZHIKKATTU PUTHUPARAMBIL, CHENNITHALA P.O., MAVELIKARA 690105. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPAKUMAR THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mat.Appeal.No.617 OF 2012 2", "Issues": "8. The sole question that emerges for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce or not?", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "7. Heard Sri.R.Padmakumar, the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and Sri.M.Gopakumar, the learned counsel for the respondent/respondent.", "Factors to be Considered": "9. The original petition was filed on the grounds provided under sub-clause (ix) and (x) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869, alleging that the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty and had also deserted him for two years preceding the presentation of the original petition. Mat.Appeal.No.617 OF 2012 7 10. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511], a three-Judge Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court, while considering an analogous provision under the Hindu Marriage Act , has laid down the guidelines for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The ultimate conclusions are relevant, which reads as under: \"98. On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments of this Court and other Courts, we have come to the definite conclusion that there cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of 'mental cruelty' within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. No Court in our considered view should even attempt to give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty. 99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition...", "Decision": "(ii) The marriage between the appellant/ petitioner and the respondent//respondent solemnised on 21.5.1990 is dissolved by a decree of divorce.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/184822696/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2021, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "184822696", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/184822696/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Sabu M Varghese vs Vimala Rosy A.A on 21 October, 2022", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2022-10-21", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 19, Section 3", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 29TH ASWINA, 1944 MAT.APPEAL NO. 701 OF 2021 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2022 IN O.P.NO.200 OF 2018 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: SABU M VARGHESE AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, MANGALAPPILLY HOUSE, NO.43/406, EROOR WEST P.O, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV JOSEPH M.P. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: VIMALA ROSY A.A AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. SABU M VARGHESE, D/O. ANTONY, ADICHIYIL HOUSE, THYKOODAM, VYTILLA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV M.V.KISHORE KUMAR THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 21.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 Mat.Appeal No.701 of 2021 The petitioner in O.P.No.200 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam is the appellant. He filed the original petition for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground of desertion under Section 10(1)(ix) of the Divorce Act, 1869. That petition was dismissed as per the judgment filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.", "Fact/ Respondent": "THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 29TH ASWINA, 1944 MAT.APPEAL NO. 701 OF 2021 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2022 IN O.P.NO.200 OF 2018 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: SABU M VARGHESE AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, MANGALAPPILLY HOUSE, NO.43/406, EROOR WEST P.O, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV JOSEPH M.P. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: VIMALA ROSY A.A AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. SABU M VARGHESE, D/O. ANTONY, ADICHIYIL HOUSE, THYKOODAM, VYTILLA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV M.V.KISHORE KUMAR THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 21.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 Mat.Appeal No.701 of 2021", "Issues": "15. After referring to the said principle the Apex Court in Debananda Tamuli v. Kakumoni Kataky [(2022) 5 SCC 459] held that the reasons for a dispute between 10 Mat.Appeal No.701 of 2021 husband and wife are always very complex and every matrimonial dispute is different from another. Whether a case of desertion is established or not will depend on the peculiar facts of each case. It is a matter of drawing an inference based on the facts brought on record by way of evidence. 16. In Darshan Gupta v. Radhika Gupta [(2013) 9 SCC 1] it was held that merely because the husband and wife are staying separately, an inference regarding desertion on the wife's part cannot be drawn. It must be shown that separation is wilful and deliberate. Desertion should be with animus deserendi, meaning thereby, there must be a vicious intention to part with the matrimonial company...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "17. We are of the view that the evidence let in by the appellant is totally insufficient to establish that the respondent deserted the marital company of the appellant voluntarily. If the evidence adverted to above is viewed in the light of the aforementioned principle of law, we are of the view that the desertion of the appellant is for just and sufficient cause and the appellant failed to prove the requirements of Section 10(1)(ix) of the Divorce Act. The Family Court considered all the relevant evidence that came on record and rightly concluded that the evidence was totally insufficient to grant a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion. We find no reason to interfere with the said finding.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10132518/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2022, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "10132518", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10132518/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Jiby John vs Mincy M.L on 10 October, 2018", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2018-10-10", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI WEDNESDAY,THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 18TH ASWINA, 1940 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2018 IN I.A.NOS.1560/2018 & 1559/218 IN OP 450/2017 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR PETITIONER/PETITIONER: JIBY JOHN AGED 41 YEARS S/O.YOHANNAN, PUTHENVILA THEKKETHIL HOUSE, KODUMON VILLAGE AND DESOM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691555. BY ADVS. SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA SRI.A.P.VASAVAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 MINCY M.L. AGED 37 YEARS D/O.M.T.LONAPPAN, MECHRY HOUSE, MELUR P.O, CHALAKKUDY, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680311. 2 BINU AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.JACOB, PLAMOTTATHIL KODUMON VILLAGE AND DESOM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691555. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.10.2018, THE COURT ON 10.10.2018 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2 C.K.ABDUL REHIM & ************************** ------------------------------------------------ The petitioner is the husband and the first respondent is the wife.", "Fact/ Respondent": "The petitioner is the husband and the first respondent is the wife.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition for divorce is filed on the ground of adultery also. We do not find any substance in this submission. 9. At this juncture, we may note that in the copy of the petition for divorce produced before this Court as Ext.P1, paragraph No.19 is seen incorporated after paragraph No.13 and paragraph Nos.14 to 18 are missing. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not offered any explanation for this.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "Consequently, we dismiss the Original Petition.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/183286182/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2018, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "183286182", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/183286182/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Praveen Maben vs Mrs. Nalini Maben on 16 February, 2018", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2018-02-16", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1 JABALPUR First Appeal No. 176 of 2008 Parties Name Praveen Maben vs Mrs. Nalini Maben Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo Whether approved for Yes/No reporting Name of counsels for parties For appellant: Shri R.K. Sanghi, Advocate. For respondent: None. 1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2008 passed in Civil Suit No. 133-A/07. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage under Section 10 of The Divorce Act, 1869.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1 JABALPUR First Appeal No. 176 of 2008 Parties Name Praveen Maben vs Mrs. Nalini Maben Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo Whether approved for Yes/No reporting Name of counsels for parties For appellant: Shri R.K. Sanghi, Advocate. For respondent: None.", "Issues": "1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR First Appeal No. 176 of 2008 Parties Name Praveen Maben vs Mrs. Nalini Maben Bench Constituted Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Gangele & Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Gangele Whether approved for Yes/No reporting Name of counsels for parties For appellant: Shri R.K. Sanghi, Advocate. For respondent: None. Law laid down Significant paragraph numbers (J U D G M E N T) Pronounced on : 16.02.2018 6. The appellant in his evidence deposed the same facts as pleaded by him in his plaint. He further deposed that the respondent made reckless allegations about the character of the appellant. She made inquiry from the Peon of the school. She also instructed my daughter that whether I was living with any female or not. The respondent tried to paint me as a characterless person. It is...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "5. The respondent in her written statement denied the pleadings of the appellant. She pleaded that earlier a suit was filed for declaring the marriage as nullity, which was dismissed on merits. Hence, the second suit on the same ground is not maintainable. The respondent admitted the fact that a daughter namely Jhalak was born in January, 1981 from the wedlock of the appellant and the respondent. She specifically denied the fact that she is not willing to live with the appellant. She further pleaded that she is in great affection to her daughter. She further pleaded that the appellant is not willing to keep the respondent with him. The appellant never treated the respondent properly as a wife after the date of marriage. He practiced cruelty.", "Factors to be Considered": "11. Section 10 (1) (ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 prescribes desertion and cruelty to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner/appellant that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the respondent. The aforesaid Section reads as under: -:- 7 -:- F.A. No.176 of 2008 10. Grounds for dissolution of marriage - (1) .... (ix) has deserted the petition for at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or (x) has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent.", "Decision": "15. Consequently the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. A decree of divorce is granted in favour of the appellant. The marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent is hereby dissolved.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126989671/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2018, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "126989671", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126989671/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "V.H. Lopez vs E.J. Lopez on 8 September, 1885", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1885-09-08", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 2, Section 21, Section 35, Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8, Section 88, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The main question we have to answer upon this reference is, whether a marriage between a man and his deceased wife's sister, celebrated in Calcutta in the year 1877, is liable to be declared null and void, under Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, on the ground that the parties are within the prohibited degrees, both parties being domiciled in British India and resident in Calcutta, and both being Roman Catholics. It is not found whether either of the parties to this marriage is the descendant of English ancestors, or of European settlers in this country other than English, or of native converts to Christianity, or of mixed race; their names suggest a Portuguese origin. We are bound to presume every matter of fact in favour of the validity of a marriage, and therefore if there be rules as to the prohibited degrees which would invalidate a marriage between persons connected as these were, 'and if those rules be applicable to any one class of Christians, but not to all Christian^, we must presume, in the absence of any proof that they did, that the parties did not belong to that class. In particular, we must presume, so far as that point is material, that they are not of British descent, or British in any other sense than...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The main question we have to answer upon this reference is, whether a marriage between a man and his deceased wife's sister, celebrated in Calcutta in the year 1877, is liable to be declared null and void, under Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, on the ground that the parties are within the prohibited degrees, both parties being domiciled in British India and resident in Calcutta, and both being Roman Catholics. It is not found whether either of the parties to this marriage is the descendant of English ancestors, or of European settlers in this country other than English, or of native converts to Christianity, or of mixed race; their names suggest a Portuguese origin. We are bound to presume every matter of fact in favour of the validity of a marriage, and therefore if there be rules as to the prohibited degrees which would invalidate a marriage between persons connected as these were, 'and if those rules be applicable to any one class of Christians, but not to all Christian^, we must presume, in the absence of any proof that they did, that the parties did not belong to that class. In particular, we must presume, so...", "Issues": "5. In examining the second branch of the inquiry, as to the effect of the legislation prior to the Divorce Act , it will be convenient to begin with the charter under which the Supreme Court was constituted in 1774. By the 22nd section of that Charter the Court \"shall be a Court of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and shall have full power to administer and execute within and throughout the said provinces, districts, or countries called Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, and towards and upon our British subjects there residing, the Ecclesiastical law, as the same is now used and exercised in the Diocese of London in Great Britain, so far as the circumstances and occasions of the said provinces and people shall admit or require,\" with power to entertain all suits belonging to the Ecclesiastical Courts. Like powers were given to the Bombay and Madras Courts by their Charters. These Courts...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "33. The appellant will have her costs of this appeal and also her costs in the Court below of the trial of the issues which have been tried.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1898865/ | (1885)ILR 12CAL706", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 1885, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1885)ILR 12CAL706", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1898865", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1898865/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Punjab-Haryana High Court", "Case Title": "Munishwar Datt Vashisht vs Smt. Indra Kumari on 28 February, 1963", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1963-02-28", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 177, Section 19, Section 28, Section 5", "Legal Topics": "Unsound Mind; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This first appeal has been preferred by Manishwar Dutt Vashisht against his wife Indra Kumari under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Act 25 of 1955) from the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 29th of March 1961. 2. A petition was made by the husband on 28th of October 1955 under Section 12 of the Act, praying that the marriage of the petitioner with respondent Indra Kumari be annulled and a decree of nullity passed on the ground that the marriage was in contravention of the condition specified in Section 5(ii) in so far as the respondent Indra Kumari was a lunatic at the time of the marriage. The marriage between the parties was performed on 9th of May 1955 at Amritsar when the petitioner was under 30 years and the age of the respondent was 20/21 years. It is alleged in the petition that after the marriage he learnt that his wife was a lunatic both before and at the time of the marriage and has been of unsound mind; and her insanity prior to marriage had been concealed by the respondent's parents from the petitioner and his relations and that fraudulent representation had been made that she had passed the Intermediate Examination and was studying for B.A. and that she was mentally and...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This first appeal has been preferred by Manishwar Dutt Vashisht against his wife Indra Kumari under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Act 25 of 1955) from the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 29th of March 1961.", "Issues": "5. The trial Court framed the following issue: \"Was the respondent Indra Kumari of unsound mind at the date of the presentation of the petition and is she still incapable of defending herself in these proceedings?\" The Additional District Judge, after recording evidence on this issue, decided it against the petitioner by his order dated 3rd of May 1956 and directed that the respondent would defend the proceedings by herself without any guardian ad litem. Two issues were framed on merits:-- \"1. Was the respondent lunatic at the time of her marriage? 2. Was the petitioner's consent to his marriage with the respondent obtained by fraud and if so, what is the effect of it?\" 6. At the trial, the second issue was not contested. Moreover, it was found that there was no evidence to show that the petitioners consent had been obtained by fraud. The issue was thus found...", "Petitioner Argument": "A good deal of stress was laid in the trial Court as well as in this Court regarding the observations quoted above in the register to the effect that her father had denied history of mental disease in her ancestors and the illness had started suddenly on the day when her marriage party was expected towards the evening. This was with a view to show that she was of unsound mind the evening before the marriage and, therefore, had become a lunatic at the time of her marriage. The learned counsel for the petitioner also commented on the fact that Dr. Dayal Singh was not cross examined with a view to show that the above entry was erroneous and that the girl's father had never admitted that the attack had suddenly started on that evening, Shri Baldev Inder Singh, who appeared as his own witness, however, denied having made the statement attributed to him. The Additional District Judge has not attached much importance to this entry. He construed the words \"as the illness suddenly started on the day when her...", "Respondent Argument": "The learned counsel for the respondent has inter and contended that Dr. Dayal Singh's statement is inadmissible as hearsay evidence and omission to cross-examine Dr. Dayal Singh on hearsay evidence would not make such evidence admissible. The Privy Council in Lim Yam Hong and Co. v.", "Factors to be Considered": "34. The next question, which has a bearing, is the extent of mental incapacity present at the time of marriage which will be sufficient to avoid it. Under Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, a condition for solemnisation of a marriage is that \"neither party is an idiot or a lunatic at the time of the marriage\". It is not the petitioner's case that the respondent is an \"idiot\" or In the words of Blackstone an \"idiot\" is one \"that hath had no understanding from his nativity; and, therefore, is by law presumed never likely to attain any\". According to Coke's definition \"an idiot is who from his nativity by a perpetual Infirmity is non compos mentis.\" Such a person is destitute of reason from birth. Sometimes, however, an idiot is also said to include a person who is destitute of intellectual powers whether the incapacity is congenital or developmental or accidental. It consists in total want of reason. 35. The term \"lunatic\" is generic and includes every kind of unsoundness of mind except idiocy, but it has to be remembered that unsoundness of mind does not include mere weakness of mind. Etymologically, the term \"lunatic\" is derived from...", "Decision": "Marriage relationship between any two persons being also a matter of public concern the Courts have, therefore, to scrutinize questions involved in annulment or dissolution from the point of view of social well-being, it is for this reason that the legislature has made stringent rules. Before marriage can be rescinded, the Court has to zealously see, whether the relief sought in annulment of marriage, is within the permissible bounds of law. A marriage tie cannot be severed by abandonment, desertion or by consent. The cases in which the enforcement of law may conceivably result in unhappiness of either or both parties, cannot be helped, it the law does not provide relief. The Courts will not grant a decree of nullity except on production of clear and convincing evidence.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/328378/ | AIR1963P&H449, AIR 1963 PUNJAB 449, ILR (1963) 2 PUNJ 263 65 PUN LR 1029, 65 PUN LR 1029", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unsound Mind", "All Grounds": "unsound_mind; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 1963, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1963P&H449, AIR 1963 PUNJAB 449, ILR (1963) 2 PUNJ 263 65 PUN LR 1029, 65 PUN LR 1029", "Kanoon Doc ID": "328378", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/328378/", "Chunks Indexed": 15 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Sri. K. S. Shankar S/O L. Shekappa vs Smt. K. Jyothi W/O K. S. Shankar on 11 September, 2019", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2019-09-11", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 19, Section 22", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Adultery; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "DHARWAD BENCH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24044 OF 2011(MC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24045 OF 2011 IN M.F.A. NO.24044/2011: BETWEEN: SRI. K.S. SHANKAR S/O L. SHEKAPPA AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS POLICE CONSTABLE R/O: NEW BLOCK, POLICE QUARTERS SADASHIVA NAGAR, SIRUGUPPA TAL: SIRUGUPPA, DIST BELLARY. (BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. K. JYOTHI W/O K.S. SHANKAR D/O R. KENCHAPPA AGE:34 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER IN BHP SCHOOL R/O: HALEKOTE, SIRUGUPPA TALUK DIST: BELLARY. (BY SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984, AGAINST THE 2 M.C.NO.5 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARY, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE (INDIAN) DIVORCE ACT, 1869. IN M.F.A. NO.24045/2011: BETWEEN: SRI. K.S. SHANKAR S/O L. SHEKAPPA AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS POLICE CONSTABLE R/O: NEW BLOCK, POLICE QUARTERS SADASHIVA NAGAR, SIRUGUPPA TAL: SIRUGUPPA, DIST BELLARY. (BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. K. JYOTHI W/O K.S. SHANKAR D/O R. KENCHAPPA AGE:34 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER IN BHP SCHOOL R/O: HALEKOTE, SIRUGUPPA TALUK DIST: BELLARY. (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984, AGAINST THE NO.2...", "Fact/ Respondent": "These appeals are filed by the husband impugning the common judgment and decree dated 19.02.2011 in matrimonial cases in M.C.No.5/2008 and M.C.No.2/2009 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Bellary (for short, 'the family 'Court'). The matrimonial case in M.C.No.5/2008 is filed by the husband for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 10 of the (Indian) Divorce Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Divorce Act ') and the matrimonial case in M.C.No.2/2009 is filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Special Marriage Act '). These cases have been clubbed, and decided by the common petition for divorce in M.C.No.5/2008 is dismissed, and the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights in 4 M.C.No.2/2009 is allowed. As such, these appeals by the husband.", "Issues": "24. In the light of the rival submissions, the following points for consideration arise: a. Whether it is permissible for the family Court to consider events that are subsequent to the filing of the petition in deciding a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, and if the subsequent events could be considered, whether the family Court has considered the subsequent events, more specifically the subsequent events relied upon by the husband. c. If the subsequent events as asserted by the husband are considered, whether any ground is made for interference with the impugned judgment and decree. 25. The points for consideration formulated will have to be considered in the background of the couple's station in life and how their marital life has panned out. 26 The wife is employed as a teacher in a government school, and the husband is employed as a personnel with the...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "d. The office is directed to draw decree accordingly. No costs. In view of the disposal of the above appeals, the pending applications do not survive for consideration and they are accordingly disposed of.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12436028/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 338); Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; adultery; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 2019, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "12436028", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12436028/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Sri. K. S. Shankar S/O L. Shekappa vs Smt. K. Jyothi W/O K. S. Shankar on 11 September, 2019", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2019-09-11", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 19, Section 22", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Adultery; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "DHARWAD BENCH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24044 OF 2011(MC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24045 OF 2011 IN M.F.A. NO.24044/2011: BETWEEN: SRI. K.S. SHANKAR S/O L. SHEKAPPA AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS POLICE CONSTABLE R/O: NEW BLOCK, POLICE QUARTERS SADASHIVA NAGAR, SIRUGUPPA TAL: SIRUGUPPA, DIST BELLARY. (BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. K. JYOTHI W/O K.S. SHANKAR D/O R. KENCHAPPA AGE:34 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER IN BHP SCHOOL R/O: HALEKOTE, SIRUGUPPA TALUK DIST: BELLARY. (BY SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984, AGAINST THE 2 M.C.NO.5 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARY, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE (INDIAN) DIVORCE ACT, 1869. IN M.F.A. NO.24045/2011: BETWEEN: SRI. K.S. SHANKAR S/O L. SHEKAPPA AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS POLICE CONSTABLE R/O: NEW BLOCK, POLICE QUARTERS SADASHIVA NAGAR, SIRUGUPPA TAL: SIRUGUPPA, DIST BELLARY. (BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. K. JYOTHI W/O K.S. SHANKAR D/O R. KENCHAPPA AGE:34 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER IN BHP SCHOOL R/O: HALEKOTE, SIRUGUPPA TALUK DIST: BELLARY. (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984, AGAINST THE NO.2...", "Fact/ Respondent": "These appeals are filed by the husband impugning the common judgment and decree dated 19.02.2011 in matrimonial cases in M.C.No.5/2008 and M.C.No.2/2009 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Bellary (for short, 'the family 'Court'). The matrimonial case in M.C.No.5/2008 is filed by the husband for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 10 of the (Indian) Divorce Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Divorce Act ') and the matrimonial case in M.C.No.2/2009 is filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Special Marriage Act '). These cases have been clubbed, and decided by the common petition for divorce in M.C.No.5/2008 is dismissed, and the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights in 4 M.C.No.2/2009 is allowed. As such, these appeals by the husband.", "Issues": "24. In the light of the rival submissions, the following points for consideration arise: a. Whether it is permissible for the family Court to consider events that are subsequent to the filing of the petition in deciding a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, and if the subsequent events could be considered, whether the family Court has considered the subsequent events, more specifically the subsequent events relied upon by the husband. c. If the subsequent events as asserted by the husband are considered, whether any ground is made for interference with the impugned judgment and decree. 25. The points for consideration formulated will have to be considered in the background of the couple's station in life and how their marital life has panned out. 26 The wife is employed as a teacher in a government school, and the husband is employed as a personnel with the...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "d. The office is directed to draw decree accordingly. No costs. In view of the disposal of the above appeals, the pending applications do not survive for consideration and they are accordingly disposed of.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/177131760/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 337); Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; adultery; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 2019, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "177131760", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/177131760/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Mrs Helen Bennis Pinto @ Helen Pinto vs Sri Donald Bharath Pinto on 30 September, 2020", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2020-09-30", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 24, Section 32", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "The petitioner in CP No.306/2018 is the wife and has sought for withdrawal of proceedings in M.C.No.84/2018 filed by the respondent pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikmagaluru wherein the respondent has sought for relief of restitution of conjugal rights. 3. The facts as made out in the petition is that the petitioner and the respondent had entered into the 4 wedlock on 19.05.1997 at St. Lawrence Church, Mallandur, Chikmagaluru Taluk.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CIVIL PETITION No.306/2018 c/w CIVIL PETITION No.142/2019 Civil Petition No.306/2018 Between: Mrs.Helen Bennis Pinto @ Helen Pinto, W/o Donald Bharath Pinto, Aged about 45 years, R/o Bendore Benedictus House, Mercara Hill, Mangaluru - 575 002. ... Petitioner (By Sri.Vishwajith Rai M., Advocate) And: Sri.Donald Bharath Pinto, S/o late Henry Pinto, Aged about 46 years, R/at St.Lawrence Estate, Mundugodu, Karimane, Jayapura, Koppa Taluk, Chikmagaluru District - 577 126. ... Respondent (By Sri.M.Sudhakar Pai, Advocate) This Civil Petition is filed under Section 24 of CPC, praying to transfer the Matrimonial Case in M.C.No.84/2018 filed by the respondent before the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Chikmagaluru, under Section 32 of Indian Divorce Act for 2 the relief of Restitution of Conjugal Rights, to the Family Court at Mangaluru to be tried along with M.C.No.345/2018 pending on the file of Prl. Family Judge, Mangaluru filed under Section 10(i) and (x) of the Divorce Act 1989, in the interest of justice and equity. Civil Petition No.142/2019 Between: Donald Bharath Pinto, S/o late Henry Pinto, Aged about 47 years, R/at St.Lawrence Estate, Tuluvina Koppa village, P.O.Kalkere - 577 180, Koppa Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District. ... Petitioner (By Sri.M.Sudhakar Pai,...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "4. It is further submitted that from within the said wedlock they have two children. It is submitted that the petitioner has been taking care of the children and they are pursuing their education at Chikmagaluru. It is submitted that the petition filed seeking dissolution of marriage is before the Family Court at Mangaluru and the petition filed by the respondent in M.C. No.84/2018 seeking for restitution of conjugal rights is pending before the Family Court at Chikmagaluru. It is submitted that if the petitioner were to attend the proceedings at Chikmagaluru, the petitioner would be required to travel a distance of about 200 Kms. It is submitted that there is great inconvenience in travelling such distance which interferes with a right of fair trial and hence, submits that proceedings instituted by respondent - husband be withdrawn and transferred to 5 the Court where M.C.No.345/2018 is pending consideration before the Family Court at Mangaluru. It is submitted that wife had instituted proceedings seeking relief of partition in O.S.No.116/2018 which was pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chikmagaluru and...", "Respondent Argument": "5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has filed a separate transfer petition in C.P.No.142/2019, wherein he has sought for transfer of proceedings in M.C.No.345/2018 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Mangaluru to be withdrawn and transfer to the Court at Chikmagaluru to be tried along with M.C.No.84/2018.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in M.C.No.84/2018 pending on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikmagaluru is to be withdrawn and transfer to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Mangaluru.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162207073/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2020, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "162207073", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162207073/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Jerina vs Koilraj on 24 September, 2018", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2018-09-24", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 19, Section 32, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M. VELUMANI CMA(MD).No. 1445 of 2013 and 1446 of 2013 and M.P(MD).No. 1 of 2013 in CMA(MD).No.1445 of 2013 Jerina : Appellant in both CMA Vs. Koilraj : Respondent in both CMA Prayer in CMA(MD).No. 1445 of 2013: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 55 of Indian Divorce Act, against the Judgment and Decree passed in DOP.No.79 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, dated 30.11.2012. Prayer in CMA(MD).No. 1446 of 2013: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, against the Judgment and Decree passed in DOP.No.8 of 2012, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, dated 30.11.2012. !For Appellant : Mr. D. Srinivasa Ragavan in both CMAs ^For respondent : No appearance :COMMON JUDGMENT These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the common on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi.", "Fact/ Respondent": "THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M. VELUMANI CMA(MD).No. 1445 of 2013 and 1446 of 2013 and M.P(MD).No. 1 of 2013 in CMA(MD).No.1445 of 2013 Jerina : Appellant in both CMA Vs. Koilraj : Respondent in both CMA Prayer in CMA(MD).No. 1445 of 2013: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 55 of Indian Divorce Act, against the Judgment and Decree passed in DOP.No.79 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, dated 30.11.2012. Prayer in CMA(MD).No. 1446 of 2013: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, against the Judgment and Decree passed in DOP.No.8 of 2012, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, dated 30.11.2012. !For Appellant : Mr. D. Srinivasa Ragavan in both CMAs ^For respondent : No appearance :COMMON JUDGMENT", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "15. In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123238155/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2018, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "123238155", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123238155/", "Chunks Indexed": 2 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Mr. Vinod Aloysius Miranda vs Mrs. Angeline Sylvia Sophia Menezes on 10 October, 2014", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2014-10-10", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 19", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1 MFA NO.8298/2013 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA M.F.A. NO.8298/2013 (MC) BETWEEN: MR. VINOD ALOYSIUS MIRANDA S/O LATE RAYMOND MIRANDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO.2-6-367 BEHIND KAPIKAD GOVT SCHOOL BEJAI POST, KAPIKAD MANGALORE - 4 (By Sri: CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADV.) AND: MRS. ANGELINE SYLVIA SOPHIA MENEZES D/O CAMEL MENEZES W/O VINOD ALOYSIUS MIRANDA AGED 50 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.2-3-200-2 \"THUSHAR\" KOTTARA CROSS ROAD BEJAI POST 2 MFA NO.8298/2013 MANGALORE-4 (By Sri:K SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADV. ) MFA FILED U/S 55 OF THE INDIAN DIVORCE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K., MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITON FILED U/S 10(1)(ix)(x) OF INDIAN DIVORCE ACT. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.09.2014 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, FOLLOWING: The present appeal is filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act challenging the order passed by the Learned Judge of the Family Court, Mangalore in M.C.No.152/2012 clubbed with M.C.No.245/2012", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The appellant-husband herein was the respondent in M.C.152/2012 filed against him by his wife for decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and 3 MFA NO.8298/2013 cruelty. The respondent-husband herein had filed M.C.245/2012 for restitution of conjugal rights. M.C.152/2012 has been allowed and decree of divorce has been granted on the ground of cruelty and M.C.245/2012 has been dismissed for relief of restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the husband.", "Issues": "a) Whether the petitioner/wife proves that the respondent/husband has deserted her for at least two years immediately proceding the presentation of the petition? b) Whether the petitioner/wife proves that respondent/husband has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for her to live with respondent? c) Whether the petitioner/wife is entitled for decree of divorce? d) Whether petitioner/husband proves that the respondent/wife is residing separately without reasonable cause and excuse and failed to discharge her marital obligations? e) Whether petitioner/husband proves that he is entitled to get the relief for restitution of conjugal rights f) What order? 7. To prove their respective contentions, the petitioner herself has been examined as PW-1 and she has relied upon 10 documents and respondent is examined as RW-1 and he has relied upon 16 documents. 8. After noticing the evidence and...", "Petitioner Argument": "4. The parties are Christians and their marriage had been solemnized as per the customs of their religion. The petitioner is a widow and respondent is a divorcee. Their marriage was solemnized on 21.10.2009 at St.Jude Shrine Pakshikere in the presence of friends and relatives and it was an arranged marriage. After the marriage, the respondent started to live in the house of 4 MFA NO.8298/2013 the petitioner at Kottara-Mangalore till February 2010. It is the case of the petitioner that both of them lived together happily in Bejai and after sometime, the respondent started changing his attitude towards her. The respondent used to come home fully drunk at odd hours and used to abuse the petitioner in filthy words and at times, he used to assault her is the allegation. The petitioner's further case is that respondent started extracting money from her by causing bodily injury and as a result of which, she suffered mental agony. The petitioner is stated to have tolerated all his behaviors hoping that he would mend himself. He is stated have deserted her on...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "ORDER The appeal is dismissed as unfit for admission. There is", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81359144/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2014, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "81359144", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81359144/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "K. Revathi vs V. Wilson Kumar @ Kumaran on 9 November, 2017", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2017-11-09", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 19, Section 24, Section 32", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Nullity Adjudicated", "Fact/ Petitioner": "THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tr.C.M.P.No.187 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.3448 of 2017 K. Revathi ... Petitioner vs. V. Wilson Kumar @ Kumaran ... Respondent Prayer: This transfer petition has been filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. praying to withdraw the case in O.P.No.83 of 2017 pending before the III Additional Family Court, Chennai and the same be transferred to the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thiruvannamalai for joint trial with the case in I.D.O.P.No.39 of 2016 pending on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thiruvannamalai. For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Appaswamee For Respondent : Ms.M.Roselet Helen O R D E R The petitioner/wife in a matrimonial dispute has filed this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.83 of 2017, pending on the file of III Additional Family Court, Chennai to the file of Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thiruvannamalai to be tried along with I.D.O.P.No.39 of 2016 which is already pending.", "Fact/ Respondent": "THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tr.C.M.P.No.187 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.3448 of 2017 K. Revathi ... Petitioner vs. V. Wilson Kumar @ Kumaran ... Respondent Prayer: This transfer petition has been filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. praying to withdraw the case in O.P.No.83 of 2017 pending before the III Additional Family Court, Chennai and the same be transferred to the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thiruvannamalai for joint trial with the case in I.D.O.P.No.39 of 2016 pending on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thiruvannamalai. For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Appaswamee For Respondent : Ms.M.Roselet Helen O R D E R", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "3. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the affidavit, the petitioner has stated that it is difficult for her to travel to Chennai for each hearing as the matter is pending before the Family Court, where the presence of the parties is mandatory. She has also stated that she is living with her aged parents and has got no independent income on her own and it would be difficult for her to get financial support.", "Respondent Argument": "4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "7. Accordingly, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed by withdrawing O.P.No.83 of 2017 from the file of III Additional Family Court, Chennai and transferring the same to the file of Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thiruvannamalai to be tried along with I.D.O.P.No.39 of 2016. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09.11.2017 rsi To 1. The III Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai. 2. The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thiruvannamalai. PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. rsi Tr.C.M.P.No.187 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.3448 of 2017 09.11.2017", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123352330/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2017, "Relief Status": "nullity", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "123352330", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123352330/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad vs Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad on 16 April, 2026", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2026-04-16", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 32", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2026:BHC-AUG:17004-DB 1 992 FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.8 OF 2024 Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad ..Appellant Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad ..Respondent ..... Shri. Parag Vijay Barde, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Bhushan S. Dhawale, Advocate for the Respondent ..... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7644 OF 2023 IN FCA/8/2024 ...... AND FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2024 Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad ..Appellant Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad ..Respondent ..... Shri. Parag Vijay Barde, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Bhushan S. Dhawale, Advocate for the Respondent ..... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7651 OF 2023 IN FCA/9/2024 ..... AND 3. Today, both the parties, i.e., the Appellant as well as the Respondent are present before this Court. They confirm the terms of compromise. The Appellant further confirms receipt of the amount as per the terms of the settlement and therefore, we are reading the compromise terms and recording the same.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2026:BHC-AUG:17004-DB 1 992 FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.8 OF 2024 Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad ..Appellant Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad ..Respondent ..... Shri. Parag Vijay Barde, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Bhushan S. Dhawale, Advocate for the Respondent ..... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7644 OF 2023 IN FCA/8/2024 ...... AND FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2024 Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad ..Appellant Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad ..Respondent ..... Shri. Parag Vijay Barde, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Bhushan S. Dhawale, Advocate for the Respondent ..... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7651 OF 2023 IN FCA/9/2024 ..... AND", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "5. In view of the compromise terms taken on record and marked as Exh.'X', the Wife accepts the decree of divorce. Under such circumstances, the orders passed in both the Petitions are confirmed and in view of the same, both the Family Court Appeals filed by the Wife stand disposed of in terms of the compromise terms marked as Exh. 'X'.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187462189/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 344, 345, 347)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "187462189", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187462189/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad vs Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad on 16 April, 2026", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2026-04-16", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 32", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2026:BHC-AUG:17005-DB 1 992 FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.8 OF 2024 Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad ..Appellant Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad ..Respondent ..... Shri. Parag Vijay Barde, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Bhushan S. Dhawale, Advocate for the Respondent ..... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7644 OF 2023 IN FCA/8/2024 ...... AND FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2024 Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad ..Appellant Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad ..Respondent ..... Shri. Parag Vijay Barde, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Bhushan S. Dhawale, Advocate for the Respondent ..... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7651 OF 2023 IN FCA/9/2024 ..... AND 3. Today, both the parties, i.e., the Appellant as well as the Respondent are present before this Court. They confirm the terms of compromise. The Appellant further confirms receipt of the amount as per the terms of the settlement and therefore, we are reading the compromise terms and recording the same.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2026:BHC-AUG:17005-DB 1 992 FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.8 OF 2024 Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad ..Appellant Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad ..Respondent ..... Shri. Parag Vijay Barde, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Bhushan S. Dhawale, Advocate for the Respondent ..... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7644 OF 2023 IN FCA/8/2024 ...... AND FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2024 Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad ..Appellant Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad ..Respondent ..... Shri. Parag Vijay Barde, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Bhushan S. Dhawale, Advocate for the Respondent ..... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7651 OF 2023 IN FCA/9/2024 ..... AND", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "5. In view of the compromise terms taken on record and marked as Exh.'X', the Wife accepts the decree of divorce. Under such circumstances, the orders passed in both the Petitions are confirmed and in view of the same, both the Family Court Appeals filed by the Wife stand disposed of in terms of the compromise terms marked as Exh. 'X'.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114258726/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 343, 345, 347)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "114258726", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114258726/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad vs Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad on 16 April, 2026", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2026-04-16", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 32", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2026:BHC-AUG:17006-DB 1 992 FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.8 OF 2024 Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad ..Appellant Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad ..Respondent ..... Shri. Parag Vijay Barde, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Bhushan S. Dhawale, Advocate for the Respondent ..... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7644 OF 2023 IN FCA/8/2024 ...... AND FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2024 Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad ..Appellant Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad ..Respondent ..... Shri. Parag Vijay Barde, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Bhushan S. Dhawale, Advocate for the Respondent ..... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7651 OF 2023 IN FCA/9/2024 ..... AND 3. Today, both the parties, i.e., the Appellant as well as the Respondent are present before this Court. They confirm the terms of compromise. The Appellant further confirms receipt of the amount as per the terms of the settlement and therefore, we are reading the compromise terms and recording the same.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2026:BHC-AUG:17006-DB 1 992 FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.8 OF 2024 Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad ..Appellant Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad ..Respondent ..... Shri. Parag Vijay Barde, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Bhushan S. Dhawale, Advocate for the Respondent ..... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7644 OF 2023 IN FCA/8/2024 ...... AND FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2024 Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad ..Appellant Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad ..Respondent ..... Shri. Parag Vijay Barde, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Bhushan S. Dhawale, Advocate for the Respondent ..... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7651 OF 2023 IN FCA/9/2024 ..... AND", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "5. In view of the compromise terms taken on record and marked as Exh.'X', the Wife accepts the decree of divorce. Under such circumstances, the orders passed in both the Petitions are confirmed and in view of the same, both the Family Court Appeals filed by the Wife stand disposed of in terms of the compromise terms marked as Exh. 'X'.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195111958/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 343, 344, 347)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "195111958", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195111958/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Mary vs Jacob on 13 August, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-08-13", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2025:KER:61183 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 1082 OF 2017 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2017 IN OP NO.333 OF 2015 OF FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA ----- APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: MARY D/O PAILY, AGED 54 YEARS,MALEKUDY, EAST OKKAL KARA,OKKAL P.O., CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH) RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: JACOB S/O ANTHONY, AGED 57 YEARS,MALEKUDY, EAST OKKAL KARA,OKKAL P.O., CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,NOW RESIDING AT MANCHIRA, ANAMALY P.O, MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678507. BY ADV SRI.BENNY VARGHESE THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 13.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:61183 SATHISH NINAN & = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mat. Appeal No.1082 of 2017 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 2. The marriage between the parties were solemnised on 16.02.1987. Dissolution of marriage was sought under Section 10(1)(viii) of the Divorce Act, 1869. The claim was that, the earlier original petition filed by the wife as OP 176/2012, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, was decreed on 31.05.2013; since there has been no resumption of...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2025:KER:61183 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 1082 OF 2017 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2017 IN OP NO.333 OF 2015 OF FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA ----- APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: MARY D/O PAILY, AGED 54 YEARS,MALEKUDY, EAST OKKAL KARA,OKKAL P.O., CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH) RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: JACOB S/O ANTHONY, AGED 57 YEARS,MALEKUDY, EAST OKKAL KARA,OKKAL P.O., CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,NOW RESIDING AT MANCHIRA, ANAMALY P.O, MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678507. BY ADV SRI.BENNY VARGHESE THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 13.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:61183 SATHISH NINAN & = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mat. Appeal No.1082 of 2017 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T", "Issues": "\"10. Ground for dissolution of marriage.--(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, may, on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent-- (i) xxxxx (viii) has failed to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights for a period of two years or upwards after the passing of the decree against the respondent.\" 2025:KER:61183 -: 3 :- 6. In terms of the section, if the respondent failed to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights for a period of two years, then petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage on such ground. 7. In the case at hand, it is the respondent who had obtained a decree against the petitioner, for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The decree for dissolution of marriage granted in OP 333/2015 will stand Mat. Appeal No.1082 of 2017 2025:KER:61183 -: 4 :- set aside. The OP will stand dismissed. It is clarified that this shall not affect the rights of the petitioner to seek for dissolution of marriage on any other grounds available under law.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144017763/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "restitution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "144017763", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144017763/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad vs Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad on 16 April, 2026", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2026-04-16", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 32", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2026:BHC-AUG:17007-DB 1 992 FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.8 OF 2024 Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad ..Appellant Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad ..Respondent ..... Shri. Parag Vijay Barde, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Bhushan S. Dhawale, Advocate for the Respondent ..... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7644 OF 2023 IN FCA/8/2024 ...... AND FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2024 Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad ..Appellant Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad ..Respondent ..... Shri. Parag Vijay Barde, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Bhushan S. Dhawale, Advocate for the Respondent ..... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7651 OF 2023 IN FCA/9/2024 ..... AND 3. Today, both the parties, i.e., the Appellant as well as the Respondent are present before this Court. They confirm the terms of compromise. The Appellant further confirms receipt of the amount as per the terms of the settlement and therefore, we are reading the compromise terms and recording the same.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2026:BHC-AUG:17007-DB 1 992 FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.8 OF 2024 Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad ..Appellant Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad ..Respondent ..... Shri. Parag Vijay Barde, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Bhushan S. Dhawale, Advocate for the Respondent ..... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7644 OF 2023 IN FCA/8/2024 ...... AND FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2024 Manjushri Nilesh Gaikwad ..Appellant Nilesh Uttam Gaikwad ..Respondent ..... Shri. Parag Vijay Barde, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Bhushan S. Dhawale, Advocate for the Respondent ..... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7651 OF 2023 IN FCA/9/2024 ..... AND", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "5. In view of the compromise terms taken on record and marked as Exh.'X', the Wife accepts the decree of divorce. Under such circumstances, the orders passed in both the Petitions are confirmed and in view of the same, both the Family Court Appeals filed by the Wife stand disposed of in terms of the compromise terms marked as Exh. 'X'.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29240663/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 343, 344, 345)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "29240663", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29240663/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "R. Frederick vs H. Malini on 7 November, 2017", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2017-11-07", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 19, Section 32", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Reserved on : 30.08.2017 Pronounced on : 07-11-2017 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1799 and 1800 of 2016 --- R. Frederick .. Appellant in both appeals H. Malini .. Respondent in both appeals Appeals filed under Section 19 of The Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order and decreetal order dated 18.04.2015 passed in O.P. No. 2385 of 2006 and O.P. No. 2809 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mrs. Sheila Jayaprakash in both the appeals For Respondents : Mr. S. Silambannan, Senior Advocate for Mr. S. Kalimuthu in both the appeals COMMON JUDGMENT Both these appeals arise out of the common order dated 18.04.2015 passed in O.P. No. 2385 of 2006 and O.P. No. 2809 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai. By the said order dated 18.04.2015, the Family Court dismissed OP No. 2385 of 2006 filed by the husband/appellant under Section 10 (ix) & (x) of Indian Divorce Act for dissolution of the marriage dated 14.01.1988 and consequently OP No. 2809 of 2007 filed by the wife/respondent under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Reserved on : 30.08.2017 Pronounced on : 07-11-2017 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1799 and 1800 of 2016 --- R. Frederick .. Appellant in both appeals H. Malini .. Respondent in both appeals Appeals filed under Section 19 of The Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order and decreetal order dated 18.04.2015 passed in O.P. No. 2385 of 2006 and O.P. No. 2809 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mrs. Sheila Jayaprakash in both the appeals For Respondents : Mr. S. Silambannan, Senior Advocate for Mr. S. Kalimuthu in both the appeals COMMON JUDGMENT", "Issues": "16. Now, it has to be seen whether such averments relating to adulterous relationship of the appellant with other woman has been proved to the satisfaction of the Court. This is more so because according to the appellant, it is because of the suspicious nature of the respondent that he is having illicit relationship with other women, he was subjected to matrimonial cruelty and had underwent sleepless night for several months. 17. First of all, the appellant, in his cross-examination, has clearly stated that the said Shubha was not his Secretary at any point of time and she was a colleague. Further, to prove the relationship between appellant and the said Shubha, the respondent filed two photographs, marked as Exs. R9 and R10. According to the appellant, the photographs were taken during their training in Singapore along with other co-worker one Poonam and these photographs would not make out a...", "Petitioner Argument": "(iii) Due to the wedlock between the appellant and the respondent, on 09.02.1990, a son Michael Fredrick was born. Soon after the birth of the male child, the male child was left under the care of the mother of the respondent at Krishnagiri as they felt that he would be brought up well by the grand mother. During 1992, the father of the appellant died and therefore his mother stayed with him. Thereafter, in the year 1993, the appellant purchased a house in Hosur, which house is situate few meters away from the house where the mother of the respondent was living. The appellant, who is a Doctor by profession, attended to his work at a Primary Health Centre, Bangalore and came back to Hosur in frequent intervals. In the year 1995, the second son Daniel Fredrick was born. In the meantime, the mother of the respondent, under the guise of visiting the respondent in his house, ill-advised her which led to frequent quarrel between the appellant and the respondent. Above all, the respondent suspected the appellant as having an...", "Respondent Argument": "11. As regards averments relating to cruelty, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the respondent has clearly stated in the counter in OP No. 2385 of 2006 that she never suspected the appellant and she was not a person to be ranked as suspicious in nature. It was further stated that she never disclosed the friendly relationship the appellant had with his colleagues or others to any one, including his family member. Further, the respondent has clearly proved through the evidence of RW2, son of the appellant and the respondent that the appellant has taken the children along with him on several occasion, while so, the averment that the respondent denied access to the children and thereby caused him mental cruelty is without any basis. Even according to RW2, the appellant regularly met him and his brother intermittently and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent prevented the appellant from interacting with his children. Therefore, the averment that the respondent subjected the appellant to matrimonial cruelty by denying access to the children is disproved by the...", "Factors to be Considered": "20. Thus, the plea of mental cruelty cannot be precisely defined, yet, making unfounded, indecent, defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse would itself amount to cruelty. In the present case, the respondent has harped upon by contending that the appellant led an adulterous life with one Shubha, Bharathi and other women, but such allegations are largely not substantiated either by examining the aforesaid persons or by any other proof to show that the appellant was in fact having illicit intimacy with them. Further, it was proved from the oral evidence as well as pleadings of the respondent that she has informed the sister, brother and mother of the appellant as though the appellant was living an adulterous relationship with other woman. When the respondent, without any substance, has informed the sister, brother and mother of the appellant as though the appellant is leading an adulterous life, definitely, it would be difficult, rather the appellant would be ashamed, to even interact or meet his own sister, brother and mother in the wake of such scandalous and disparaging remarks made against him by...", "Decision": "25. For all the above reasons, the common order dated 18.04.2015 passed in O.P. No. 2385 of 2006 and O.P. No. 2809 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai are set aside. Consequently, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed. No costs. Resultantly, OP No. 2385 of 2006 filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage is allowed granting a decree of divorce and OP No. 2809 of 2007 filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights is dismissed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/169558625/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; adultery", "Judgment Year": 2017, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "169558625", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/169558625/", "Chunks Indexed": 12 }, { "Court": "Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)", "Case Title": "M. Vijaya vs Chairman And Managing Director, ... on 29 August, 2001", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2001-08-29", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 17, Section 2, Section 27, Section 32, Section 37, Section 52, Section 53", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a writ petition taken up on the basis of a letter written by one Suit. Masaraboina Vijaya wife of Ailaiah, a resident of Indiranagar, Regional Hospital Area, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District, addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court alleging that she was infected with dreadful disease of AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) on account of the negligence on the part of the authorities of Maternity and Family Welfare Hospital, Godavarikhani, a hospital under the control of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., (SCCL), in conducting relevant precautionary blood tests before transfusion of blood of her brother (donor) into her body when she was operated for hysterectomy (Chronic Cervicitis) on 30-1-1998 at the hospital. She prays for an enquiry into matter and to take action against those responsible for causing the infectious disease and for a direction to the SCCL to provide sufficient financial assistance. 3. In response to the said notice, one Sri S. Jeevan Kumar, Convenor, Human Rights Forum, Hyderabad, Dr. P.V.R. Bhaskara Rao, Chairman, \"People for Economical and Effective Medicare\", Hyderabad and Ms. Jyotirmayee, Secretary, Srikakulam Mandal Mahila Viniyogadarula Sangham, Srikakulam have filed separate petitions to permit them to participate in the proceedings as interveners. The husband of the petitioner also filed a petition to implead him as 2nd petitioner, Sri K.G. Kannabhiran, learned Senior Counsel...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a writ petition taken up on the basis of a letter written by one Suit. Masaraboina Vijaya wife of Ailaiah, a resident of Indiranagar, Regional Hospital Area, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District, addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court alleging that she was infected with dreadful disease of AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) on account of the negligence on the part of the authorities of Maternity and Family Welfare Hospital, Godavarikhani, a hospital under the control of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., (SCCL), in conducting relevant precautionary blood tests before transfusion of blood of her brother (donor) into her body when she was operated for hysterectomy (Chronic Cervicitis) on 30-1-1998 at the hospital. She prays for an enquiry into matter and to take action against those responsible for causing the infectious disease and for a direction to the SCCL to provide sufficient financial assistance.", "Issues": "7. A lengthy counter-affidavit has been filed by the Medical Superintendent of SCCL, wherein the allegations made in the petition were denied. But, it is admitted that her blood was not tested for HIV status but the blood of the donor was tested and was found to be negative. The counter-affidavit narrates the events from the day the petitioner approached the hospital for treatment on 23-1-1998 onwards, purported care being taken by the company for the health of its employees as well as their dependants, the history of the hospital, and details regarding the spreading of AIDS etc. It was stated that the brother of the petitioner was conducted blood test ten months after donating the blood and it is not known whether he had been infected with HIV+ve at the time he had donated the blood. 8. The counter also states about the background of chronic cervicitis disease the...", "Petitioner Argument": "6. When HIV tests were conducted both to her husband and to her elder brother, the donor of the blood, it was revealed that her brother was a HIV+ve patient. It is alleged that before transfusion of the blood of her brother, no care was taken to conduct the relevant and necessary blood tests and because of the negligence on the part of the hospital authorities, she was infected with the disease. She got issued a notice to SCCL through a consumer welfare council to which it was replied that the medical and health staff of the hospital are neither responsible nor negligent in conducting any blood tests.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "57. In Lucy S. D'Souza v. State of Goa, , Section 53(1)(vii) of Goa, Daman and Diu Public Health Act, 1985 was challenged as unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 , 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The said provision authorised the Government to isolate and keep persons who are found to be positive for AIDS by serogical tests in separate institutions or wards for such period as may be considered necessary. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the provision does not violate Articles 14 , 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India and observed thus: Isolation, undoubtedly, has several serious consequences. It is an invasion upon the liberty of a person. It can affect a person very adversely in many matters including economic. It can also lead to social ostracization. But in matters like this individual right has to be balanced the public interest. In fact liberty of an individual and public health are not opposed to each other but are well in accord. Even if there is a conflict between the right of an individual and public interest, the former must yield to the latter. That apart, isolation is not merely...", "Decision": "75. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/859256/ | I(2002)ACC32, 2002ACJ32, 2001(5)ALD522, 2001(5)ALT154, AIR 2001 ANDHRA PRADESH 502, 2002 A I H C 475, (2002) 3 RECCIVR 135, (2002) 1 ACJ 32, (2001) 5 ANDHLD 522, (2001) 5 ANDH LT 154", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity", "Judgment Year": 2001, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: I(2002)ACC32, 2002ACJ32, 2001(5)ALD522, 2001(5)ALT154, AIR 2001 ANDHRA PRADESH 502, 2002 A I H C 475, (2002) 3 RECCIVR 135, (2002) 1 ACJ 32, (2001) 5 ANDHLD 522, (2001) 5 ANDH LT 154", "Kanoon Doc ID": "859256", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/859256/", "Chunks Indexed": 15 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "H.M. Prakash @ Dali vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 March, 2004", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2004-03-19", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A, Section 112, Section 125, Section 13, Section 139, Section 165, Section 17, Section 173, Section 185, Section 2, Section 3, Section 313, Section 319, Section 32, Section 37, Section 5, Section 53, Section 54, Section 540, Section 73", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Venereal Disease", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 01.02.2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C Somwarpet in crime No. 156 of 2002, whereby the Magistrate has allowed the application dated 26.11.2002 filed by the Investigation Officer seeking direction to the medical officer to conduct blood test, of the accused by collecting sample of blood from him in order to ascertain as to whether the accused has caused pregnancy of the complainant or not, the accused has come forward with the present petition . 2. The brief facts of the case giving raise to the present petition are that :", "Fact/ Respondent": "Firstly, he contended that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which enables the Court or police to take sample of the blood of the accused for, determining the blood group/ DNA test and that the expressions used in Section 53 of the code will have to be given a restricted meaning in as much as the said provision can include only physical or external examination and cannot include taking of blood sample for determination of blood group which is brutal and offensive.", "Issues": "1. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 01.02.2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C Somwarpet in crime No. 156 of 2002, whereby the Magistrate has allowed the application dated 26.11.2002 filed by the Investigation Officer seeking direction to the medical officer to conduct blood test, of the accused by collecting sample of blood from him in order to ascertain as to whether the accused has caused pregnancy of the complainant or not, the accused has come forward with the present petition . 2. The brief facts of the case giving raise to the present petition are that : 7. In our justice dispensation system, while adjudicating the questions involved in litigation, in the absence of any direct and positive evidence on record, if the Court is of the considered opinion that the scientific investigation is just and necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute, the Court will make use of the...", "Petitioner Argument": "19. As aforesaid, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AMARJIT KAUR v. HARBHAJAN SINGH AND ANR. in support of his contention. In the said judgment , the Apex Court referred to the judgment of GOUTAM KUNDU v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. , wherein, the legal position was declared as to the circumstances and the limitations to be observed in compelling anyone to give a sample of blood against his/her will for DNA analysis, keeping in view, the serious consequences flowing from the same, i.e., the branding of a child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman. The facts in the case of Amarjit Kaur, cited supra, disclose that the High Court had imposed a condition, while considering the question of grant of maintenance pendentelite, of subjecting the child to DNA test. The said condition imposed by the High Court was questioned in the Apex Court. The Apex Court, while considering the said question observed thus: 27. Specimen handwriting, signature, finger impressions, blood...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "\"So far as the contention based on Article 20(3) is concerned, in our opinion there is no substance in the said contention. As held by the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad , , mere taking of blood for determination of the blood group will not amount to testimonial compulsion within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.\" The Allahabad High Court, in Jamshed 's case referred to supra observed thus: \"Whatever reasoning is adopted, the taking of the blood of the appellant, as in the instant case, will not amount to the accused becoming a witness against himself.\" 24. The Rajasthan High Court, in the case of MISS. SWATI LODHA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN , 1991 Crl.LJ. 939, while dealing with similar question with reference to Article 20(3) of the Constitution observed thus: \"A specimen handwriting or signature of finger impressions by themselves, are no testimony at all, being wholly innocuous, because they are unchangeable except in rare cases where the ridges of the fingers or the style of writing have been tampered with. They are only materials for comparison in order to lend assurance to the Court that its inference based...", "Decision": "The petition is dismissed accordingly.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1502997/ | ILR2004KAR2637", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; venereal_disease", "Judgment Year": 2004, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: ILR2004KAR2637", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1502997", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1502997/", "Chunks Indexed": 28 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "H.M. Prakash Alias Dali vs State Of Karnataka on 19 March, 2004", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2004-03-19", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 112, Section 125, Section 13, Section 139, Section 165, Section 17, Section 173, Section 2, Section 27, Section 3, Section 319, Section 32, Section 37, Section 5, Section 53, Section 54, Section 540, Section 6, Section 73", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Venereal Disease", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 1-2-2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Somwarpet in Crime No. 156 of 2002, whereby the Magistrate has allowed the application dated 26-11-2002 filed fey the Investigation Officer seeking direction to the medical officer to conduct blood test of the accused by collecting sample of blood from him in order to ascertain as to whether the accused has caused pregnancy of the complainant or not, the accused has come forward with the present petition. 2. The brief facts of the case giving raise to the present petition are that:", "Fact/ Respondent": "Firstly, he contended that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which enables the Court or police to take sample of the blood of the accused for, determining the blood group/D.N.A. test and that the expressions used in Section 53 of the Code will have to be given a restricted meaning inasmuch as the said provision can include only physical or external examination and cannot include taking of blood sample for determination of blood group which is brutal and offensive.", "Issues": "1. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 1-2-2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Somwarpet in Crime No. 156 of 2002, whereby the Magistrate has allowed the application dated 26-11-2002 filed fey the Investigation Officer seeking direction to the medical officer to conduct blood test of the accused by collecting sample of blood from him in order to ascertain as to whether the accused has caused pregnancy of the complainant or not, the accused has come forward with the present petition. 2. The brief facts of the case giving raise to the present petition are that: 7. In our justice dispensation system, while adjudicating the questions involved in litigation, in the absence of any direct and positive evidence on record, if the Court is of the considered opinion that the scientific investigation is just and necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute, the Court will make use of...", "Petitioner Argument": "19. As aforesaid, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Amarjit Kaur , supra, in support of his contention. In the said judgment , the Apex Court referred to the judgment of Goutam Kundu 's case, wherein the legal position was declared as to the circumstances and the limitations to be observed in compelling anyone to give a sample of blood against his/her will for D.N.A. analysis, keeping in view, the serious consequences flowing from the same, i.e., the branding of a child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman. The facts in the case of Amarjit Kaur , supra, disclose that the High Court had imposed a condition, while considering the question of grant of maintenance pendente lite, of subjecting the child to D.N.A. test. The said condition imposed by the High Court was questioned in the Apex Court. The Apex Court, while considering the said question observed thus: 27. Specimen handwriting, signature, finger impressions, blood or semen samples by themselves are not testimony...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "\"So far as the contention based on Article 20(3) is concerned in our opinion there is no substance in the said contention. As held by the Supreme Court in Kathi Kaul Oghad 's case, supra, mere taking of blood for determination of blood group will not amount to testimonial compulsion within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India\". The Allahabad High Court in Jamshed 's case, supra, observed thus: \"Whatever reasoning is adopted, the taking of the blood of the appellant, as in the instant case, will not amount to the accused becoming a witness against himself\". 24. The Rajasthan High Court in the case of Miss Swati Lodha v. State of Rajasthan , while dealing with similar question with reference to Article 20(3) of the Constitution observed thus: \"A specimen handwriting or signature of finger impressions by themselves, are no testimony at all, being wholly innocuous, because they are unchangeable except in rare cases where the ridges of the fingers or the style of writing have been tampered with. They are only materials for comparison in order to lend assurance to the Court that its inference based on other pieces of evidence is reliable. They are...", "Decision": "The petition is dismissed accordingly.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1093244/ | 2004(3)KARLJ584, 2004 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1485, (2004) 3 KANT LJ 584, (2004) 3 RECCRIR 879, (2004) 3 ALLCRILR 517(2)", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; venereal_disease", "Judgment Year": 2004, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2004(3)KARLJ584, 2004 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1485, (2004) 3 KANT LJ 584, (2004) 3 RECCRIR 879, (2004) 3 ALLCRILR 517(2)", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1093244", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1093244/", "Chunks Indexed": 26 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "D.Samuvel Joseph vs J.Mercy Sheefa on 16 April, 2025", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2025-04-16", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1192 of 2025 D.Samuvel Joseph ...Petitioner/Petitioner Vs. J.Mercy Sheefa ...Respondent/Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in Unnumbered I.D.O.P.No. of 2025, on the file of Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, dated 28.03.2025, and thereby allow the present civil revision petition and thereby order to take into file of the Petition and number the I.D.O.P. and pass such further orders in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram for Mr.S.Kishore Kumar ***** The petitioner in unnumbered I.D.O.P.CNR.TNVR01-0001104 of 2025, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, has filed the present revision petition challenging the rejection of I.D.O.P. without being numbered.", "Fact/ Respondent": "THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1192 of 2025 D.Samuvel Joseph ...Petitioner/Petitioner Vs. J.Mercy Sheefa ...Respondent/Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in Unnumbered I.D.O.P.No. of 2025, on the file of Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, dated 28.03.2025, and thereby allow the present civil revision petition and thereby order to take into file of the Petition and number the I.D.O.P. and pass such further orders in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram for Mr.S.Kishore Kumar *****", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "4.With the above said observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. No costs. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:16 pm ) 5.The Registry is directed to return the original impugned order after obtaining due signature from the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. 16.04.2025 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No RJR To The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. Copy to:- The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:16 pm ) R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J. RJR C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1192 of 2025 16.04.2025 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:16 pm )", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116407105/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "116407105", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116407105/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Rabindra Nath Mukherjee vs Iti Mukherjee @ Chatterjee on 22 January, 1991", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1991-01-22", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 13, Section 13A, Section 14, Section 21B, Section 23, Section 23A, Section 29, Section 34, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. A petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce filed by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty has been dismissed by the trial Court on merits as well as on the ground of the petition having been presented few days before the expiry of one year from the date of the marriage in contravention of the provisions of Section 14(1) . My learned brother Banerjee, J. has, for the reasons stated in his judgment hereinafter, upheld the decision of the trial Judge on merits. While I respectfully agree with the view of Banerjee, J. that the petition has been rightly dismissed on merits and that the alleged cruelty by the wife has not been proved. I have my doubts as to whether the provisions of Section 14(1) prohibiting the entertainment of a petition for divorce before the expiry of one year from the date of marriage is that mandatory to require compliance with mathematical precision and to warrant rejection for any and every non-compliance. The provisions of Section 14(1) are reproduced herein below : \"14(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, it shall not be competent for any Court to entertain any petition for dissolution of a marriage by a decree of divorce, unless...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. A petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce filed by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty has been dismissed by the trial Court on merits as well as on the ground of the petition having been presented few days before the expiry of one year from the date of the marriage in contravention of the provisions of Section 14(1) . My learned brother Banerjee, J. has, for the reasons stated in his judgment hereinafter, upheld the decision of the trial Judge on merits. While I respectfully agree with the view of Banerjee, J. that the petition has been rightly dismissed on merits and that the alleged cruelty by the wife has not been proved. I have my doubts as to whether the provisions of Section 14(1) prohibiting the entertainment of a petition for divorce before the expiry of one year from the date of marriage is that mandatory to require compliance with mathematical precision and to warrant rejection for any and every non-compliance. The provisions of Section 14(1) are reproduced herein below :", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "21. The petitioner Rabindra Nath Mukherjee, a Commerce Graduate working in a Bank, was married to the respondent Iti on the 4th December, 1979 according to Hindu rites. At the time of their marriage, which was a negotiated one, Rabindra Nath was 34 years old and Iti 19. On the following day, that is on 5th December, the petitioner brought his wife to his place of reidence at Makardah within district Howrah where he used to live jointly with his widowed mother P.W. 3 Binapani, brother P.W. 4 Madan, his wife and their children P.W. 5 Ranjit and P.W. 6 Kalpana. 'Phulsajya' Ceremony took place in the groom's house on 6th December. The petition for divorce starts with the narration of two incident stated to have taken place in the petitioner's house on that night. It is alleged that the petitioner was surprised to see \"the ugly and silly behaviour of the respondent towards her brother-in-law before the petitioner's relations who had to move away'. The second one is alleged to have occurred when the petitioner got his wife exclusively...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "1. A petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce filed by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty has been dismissed by the trial Court on merits as well as on the ground of the petition having been presented few days before the expiry of one year from the date of the marriage in contravention of the provisions of Section 14(1) . My learned brother Banerjee, J. has, for the reasons stated in his judgment hereinafter, upheld the decision of the trial Judge on merits. While I respectfully agree with the view of Banerjee, J. that the petition has been rightly dismissed on merits and that the alleged cruelty by the wife has not been proved. I have my doubts as to whether the provisions of Section 14(1) prohibiting the entertainment of a petition for divorce before the expiry of one year from the date of marriage is that mandatory to require compliance with mathematical precision and to warrant rejection for any and every non-compliance. The provisions of Section 14(1) are reproduced herein below : \"14(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, it shall not...", "Decision": "The question as to whetherer the bar, imposed under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (called the Act) in respect of petitions for dissolution of Marriage by a decree of divorce filed prematurely, is absolute or not is not free from controversy and while questioning the wisdom of the legislature, the circumstances giving rise to such controversy have been dealt with exhaustively by My Lord Bhattacherjee, J. in the preceding paragraphs. I find no reason to take a contrary view in that regard.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1432260/ | 95CWN1085, II(1991)DMC227", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; adultery", "Judgment Year": 1991, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 95CWN1085, II(1991)DMC227", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1432260", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1432260/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Mahalingam Pillai vs Amsavalli on 3 January, 1956", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1956-01-03", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 107, Section 13, Section 172, Section 2, Section 209, Section 22, Section 24, Section 28, Section 36, Section 39, Section 397, Section 4, Section 45, Section 488, Section 5, Section 531, Section 535, Section 546, Section 557, Section 560, Section 561, Section 6, Section 62, Section 7, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. The facts are: The appellant-petitioner before us Mahalingam Pillai is the husband of the respondent Amsavalli. The appellant is a resident of Poundarigapuram village and the respondent is a resident of Abhishekamangalam village in Nannilam Taluk. The married life of this couple pawed short-lived. The case for the husband in a notice which he gave before filing this O.P. was that the respondent had left him to lead an openly immoral and improper life. In this petition his case was that she had eloped with one Saravana Pillai, P.W. 4, of Maruvancheri in Nannilam Taluk in January, 1952 and has been living with him as his concubine openly. The case for the wife was that this appellant has had incestuous relationship with his sister Gundu Achi and that on that account there were quarrels-and finally the petitioner beat her, removed her tali, branded and drove her away from his residence. The petitioner has come to Court on the foot of the allegations-setout above for dissolution of marriage under Section 5(1)(b) of Madras Act VI of 1919. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the petitioner had not proved his case for dissolution of marriage and dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The facts are: The appellant-petitioner before us Mahalingam Pillai is the husband of the respondent Amsavalli. The appellant is a resident of Poundarigapuram village and the respondent is a resident of Abhishekamangalam village in Nannilam Taluk. The married life of this couple pawed short-lived. The case for the husband in a notice which he gave before filing this O.P. was that the respondent had left him to lead an openly immoral and improper life. In this petition his case was that she had eloped with one Saravana Pillai, P.W. 4, of Maruvancheri in Nannilam Taluk in January, 1952 and has been living with him as his concubine openly. The case for the wife was that this appellant has had incestuous relationship with his sister Gundu Achi and that on that account there were quarrels-and finally the petitioner beat her, removed her tali, branded and drove her away from his residence. The petitioner has come to Court on the foot of the allegations-setout above for dissolution of marriage under Section 5(1)(b) of Madras Act VI of 1919.", "Issues": "5. Two points that arise for determination in this appeal are: Firstly, whether on the facts alleged a case of concubinage or prostitution or living in adultery has been made out; and secondly, what is the scope and extent of and the consequence of the contumacious non-compliance with the order of Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., regarding the payment of costs and alimony pendente lite. 22. Adultery is nowhere defined either in the English or Indian Divorce Act . But its meaning in Divorce Law is beyond doubt and is understood to mean the willing sexual intercourse between a husband or wife with one of the opposite sex while the marriage subsists Sexual commerce falling short of complete penetration may constitute adultery It is immaterial whether the marriage itself has been consummated or not. The act of intercourse must be voluntary but if it is involuntary, for example, rape, there can...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "23. There is a distinction between \"committing adultery and \"living in adultery\". Living in adultery means, following in a course of adulterous conduct more or less continuous; a single act of adultery cannot be considered as living in adultery. The words \"living in adultery\" used in Sub-section (4) of Section 488 , Criminal Procedure Code and Section 13 of Act XXV of 1955, are merely an indication of the principle that occasional lapses from virtue are not a sufficient reason; either for refusing maintenance under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or for granting divorce under Act XXV of 1955, as distinguished from judicial separation. The question, therefore, for Courts to decide is whether there had been such adulterous conduct at or about the time of the application, that is to say, shortly before or shortly after the application was made, interpreting the word \"shortly\" in a reasonable manner. Gantapalli v. Gantapalli (1897) 7 M.L.J. 303 : 20 Mad. 470 (F.B.), Parki v. Vishwandth (1909) 9 Cr.L.J. 390, Patala v. Patala (1907) 17 M.L.J. 279 : I.L.R. 30 Mad. 332 In re Fulchand (1927) 29 Cr.L.J. 314, Ram Autar v. Raghurai (1926) 27 Cr.L.J. 1190, Gopaldeo v. Ratni...", "Decision": "45. In the result this appeal is dismissed with costs.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91910/ | (1956)2MLJ289", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1956, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1956)2MLJ289", "Kanoon Doc ID": "91910", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91910/", "Chunks Indexed": 12 }, { "Court": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Madhusudan vs Smt. Chandrika on 22 March, 1975", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1975-03-22", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 13, Section 17, Section 19, Section 25, Section 28, Section 5", "Legal Topics": "Venereal Disease; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a husband's appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against a decree passed by the Fifth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, on 18th December, 1973, dismissing his petition for annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) and, in the alternative, for judicial separation under Section 10(1)(d) of the Act 2. The parties were married at Raipur on 6th December 1972. After marriage the wife came to Jabalpur on 7th December, 1972, where the husband resides, At the time of marriage the husband was aged 24 years and the wife 21 years. Both of them are graduates and come from respectable Guiarati families. The parties had marital intercourse from 8th to 10th December, 1972. The husband, it seems, noticed some ulcer near the private parts of the wife. He got her examined by Dr. (Miss) Swami (P.W. 1) who advised blood test. The husband then took the wife to Dr. Raja Indurkhya (P.W. 2) for pathalogical examination of the blood. The blood test was positive for syphilis. On further examination Dr. Swami diagnosed that the wife was suffering from syphilis and prescribed treatment. On 17th January, 1973 the husband applied under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act for annulment of marriage. The wife was again examined at the instance of the husband by Dr. (Mrs.) Urmila Jamdar (P.W....", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a husband's appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against a decree passed by the Fifth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, on 18th December, 1973, dismissing his petition for annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) and, in the alternative, for judicial separation under Section 10(1)(d) of the Act", "Issues": "6. The first question that arises in this appeal is whether the finding of the trial Court that the wife was suffering from venereal disease of syphilis at the time of marriage is correct. The wife was first examined by Dr. (Miss) Swami (P.W. 1) on 11th December, 1972. At that time the wife complained of temperature and cold. Dr. Swami made a general examination and prescribed medicines for sore throat. On 12th December the husband and wife again came to Dr. Swami. The husband complained that the wife was having an ulcer on her private parts. On examination of the wife, Dr. Swami found an ulcer on the left labia majora. She first thought that this might be a local ulcer, but she advised for blood examination. She prescribed penicillin injections. The blood examination was done on 12th December by Dr. Raja Indurkhya (P.W. 2), who practices as Radiologist...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "24. For the reasons given above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. We shall, however, make", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1948843/ | AIR1975MP174, AIR 1975 MADHYA PRADESH 174, 1975 MPLJ 381 1975 JABLJ 486, 1975 JABLJ 486", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Venereal Disease", "All Grounds": "venereal_disease; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 1975, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1975MP174, AIR 1975 MADHYA PRADESH 174, 1975 MPLJ 381 1975 JABLJ 486, 1975 JABLJ 486", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1948843", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1948843/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "M.Jasmine Devapriya vs A.Stephen Dhanaraj on 20 September, 2017", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2017-09-20", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Leprosy", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN C.M.A.(MD).No.1772 of 2010 M.Jasmine Devapriya ... Appellant/Respondent Vs. A.Stephen Dhanaraj ... Respondent/Petitioner PRAYER : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin in I.D.O.P.No.165 of 2004, dated 27.08.2010. !For Appellant : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar ^For Respondent : Mr.S.Kadarkarai :JUDGMENT This Appeal is at the instance of the wife. The respondent herein filed I.D.O.P.No.165 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin on 05.07.2004, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the appellant herein that was solemnised on 21.01.2004. The said Original Petition was filed under Section 10 (1) (iv) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1969.", "Fact/ Respondent": "THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN C.M.A.(MD).No.1772 of 2010 M.Jasmine Devapriya ... Appellant/Respondent Vs. A.Stephen Dhanaraj ... Respondent/Petitioner PRAYER : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin in I.D.O.P.No.165 of 2004, dated 27.08.2010. !For Appellant : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar ^For Respondent : Mr.S.Kadarkarai :JUDGMENT", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (leprosy) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.09.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN C.M.A.(MD).No.1772 of 2010 M.Jasmine Devapriya ... Appellant/Respondent Vs. A.Stephen Dhanaraj ... Respondent/Petitioner PRAYER : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin in I.D.O.P.No.165 of 2004, dated 27.08.2010. !For Appellant : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar ^For Respondent : Mr.S.Kadarkarai :JUDGMENT This Appeal is at the instance of the wife. The respondent herein filed I.D.O.P.No.165 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin on 05.07.2004, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the appellant herein that was solemnised on 21.01.2004. The said Original Petition was filed under Section 10 (1) (iv) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1969. 2. According to the pleadings set out in the said Original Petition, the appellant herein was suffering from leprosy and that without disclosing the existence of the said disease, the appellant was given in marriage to the respondent. The parties herein lived together for hardly few months. The appellant left the matrimonial house on 12.05.2004. In support of his case, he examined himself as P.W.1. He also examined his...", "Decision": "8.This Court therefore sets aside the order dated 27.08.2010 made in I.D.O.P.No.165 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed. No costs. To 1.The Principal District Judge, Tuticorin. 2.The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/128723555/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Leprosy", "All Grounds": "leprosy", "Judgment Year": 2017, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "128723555", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/128723555/", "Chunks Indexed": 2 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Atul Sashikant Mude vs Niranjana Atul Mude on 16 December, 1997", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1997-12-16", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 125, Section 144, Section 151, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 24, Section 25, Section 3, Section 4, Section 75, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This appeal, which was admitted by the 1st Court on 29th July 1997, was taken up for hearing as it was stated on behalf of the appellant that the order is such that it is impossible for him to comply with and will result into grave hardship to the appellant-husband. 2. The order impugned is an ad-interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in a Notice of Motion taken out in a suit filed by the wife under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the \"Act\") for maintenance for herself and her minor daughter. The learned Judge by the impugned order dated 17th July 1997 awarded an ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 7,500/- per month commencing from July 1997. The amount, the learned Judge clarified would include Rs. 1,600/- which the defendant-husband is prepared to pay for the maintenance of the child.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This appeal, which was admitted by the 1st Court on 29th July 1997, was taken up for hearing as it was stated on behalf of the appellant that the order is such that it is impossible for him to comply with and will result into grave hardship to the appellant-husband.", "Issues": "\"18. Maintenance of wife---(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime. (2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance--- (a) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning her without reasonable cause and without her consent or against her wish, or of wilfully neglecting her; (b) If he has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with her husband; (c) If he is suffering from a virulent form of leprosy; (d) If he has any other wife living; (e) If he keeps a concubine in the same house in which his wife is living...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "20. Mr. Naphade relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Padam Sen v. State of U.P. , , wherein the Apex Court has observed that the Court has no inherent powers under section 151 to appoint a Commissioner to seize account books in the possession of the plaintiff, upon an application by the defendant that he has apprehension that they would be tampered with. It was further observed that powers saved by section 151 are not powers over substantive rights which a litigant possesses. Party has full rights over his account books. The Court cannot seize them forciby. It can summon them and if not produced, it can penalise the party and draw adverse presumption against him. As we are holding that the power to pass ad-interim and interim orders must be read in the provisions of section 18 , in view of the very scheme of the Act, this judgment on the provision of section 151, in our opinion, is not relevant to the issue. 21. Mr. Naphade has also brought to our notice the various provisions regarding alimony pendente lite or maintenance, pendente lite under the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act, the Hindu Marriage Act...", "Decision": "27. In the result, we find no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed with costs. We quantify Rs. 1,500/- as costs of this appeal to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/598966/ | AIR1998BOM264, 1998(4)BOMCR83, II(1998)DMC271, 1998(1)MHLJ618", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1997, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1998BOM264, 1998(4)BOMCR83, II(1998)DMC271, 1998(1)MHLJ618", "Kanoon Doc ID": "598966", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/598966/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Salome vs Dr.Prince D.Immanuel on 6 April, 2017", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2017-04-06", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 23, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Reserved on : 14.03.2017 Delivered on : 06.04.2017 THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI C.M.A.(MD)Nos.238 of 2012 and 239 of 2012 C.M.A.(MD)No.238 of 2012: Salome, W/o.Prince D.Immanuel .. Appellant Vs. Dr.Prince D.Immanuel .. Respondent Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 55 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.11.2011, passed in I.D.O.P.No.8 of 2007, by the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi. C.M.A.(MD)No.239 of 2012: Dr.Salome Devadson, W/o.Prince D.Immanuel .. Appellant Vs. Dr.I.Prince Devadson .. Respondent Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Petition filed under Section 55 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.11.2011, passed in I.D.O.P.No.42 of 2007, by the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi. !For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai (in both the C.M.As.) for Mr.D.Rajkumar ^For Respondent : Mr.M.Vallinayagam (in both the C.M.As.) Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Samidurai :COMMON JUDGMENT These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.11.2011, passed in I.D.O.P.Nos.8 and 42 of 2007, by the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Reserved on : 14.03.2017 Delivered on : 06.04.2017 THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI C.M.A.(MD)Nos.238 of 2012 and 239 of 2012 C.M.A.(MD)No.238 of 2012: Salome, W/o.Prince D.Immanuel .. Appellant Vs. Dr.Prince D.Immanuel .. Respondent Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 55 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.11.2011, passed in I.D.O.P.No.8 of 2007, by the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi. C.M.A.(MD)No.239 of 2012: Dr.Salome Devadson, W/o.Prince D.Immanuel .. Appellant Vs. Dr.I.Prince Devadson .. Respondent Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Petition filed under Section 55 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.11.2011, passed in I.D.O.P.No.42 of 2007, by the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi. !For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai (in both the C.M.As.) for Mr.D.Rajkumar ^For Respondent : Mr.M.Vallinayagam (in both the C.M.As.) Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Samidurai :COMMON JUDGMENT", "Issues": "?10.The question for consideration is whether the conduct of the respondent/wife in the circumstance of the case, amounted to cruelty, to entitle the husband to divorce. Cruelty could be physical or mental or both. While it is easy to discern physical cruelty, mental cruelty has to be assessed from the overall behavior of spouses as well as other incidental factors. There is no doubt that in a matrimonial setup, a couple, which decides to live together, invariably has different attitudes and opinions, likes and dislikes, and more often than not spouses behave differently when faced with the same situations. While disputes and arguments are normal in a marriage, in order to constitute cruelty, the conduct of the spouse should be something more serious than the ordinary ?wear and tear? of a marital life.", "Petitioner Argument": "11.The learned counsel for the appellant referred various averments in the petition, counter statement filed by the appellant and the grounds of appeals. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that mental cruelty is not defined under the Act and there is no strait-jacket definition for the same. Each case must be decided based on its own facts and circumstances of the case to conclude whether the incidents alleged by the party amounts to mental cruelty or not. In the present case, the appellant has averred various incidents, by which, the respondent has repeatedly caused mental agony and cruelty to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the respondent has admitted in his evidence that he put up 10 locks, not 22 locks to lock the home. Any normal prudent man would not put 10 locks to lock the home. This fact coupled with the fact that the respondent was friendly with the parents of the appellant in their presence and talked about them shows mental illness of the respondent. Only due to the mental cruelty, the...", "Respondent Argument": "5.The respondent filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the appellant. According to respondent, the marriage is an arranged marriage. After the appellant and the respondent met only, the marriage was arranged and after betrothal, they were married. The respondent is very proud of having appellant as his wife and has lot of love and affection for her. He took her along with him wherever he went and when she was staying with him in Hyderabad, they visited number of places. He denied the various allegations made by the appellant in her petition. According to the respondent, he informed the appellant and her parents when he left to U.S.A. and gave his address. The notice issued by the appellant was served on him only in U.S.A. The respondent also stated that he has not put 22 locks in his home. The appellant only without any reason, left the matrimonial home and at the instigation of her father, she made these allegations. The respondent was not informed about betrothal and marriage of appellant's younger sister and was not...", "Factors to be Considered": "( ii)AIR 2005 SC 3297 [Durga Prasanna Tripathy Vs. Arundhati Tripathy ], wherein at paragraphs 29 and 30, it has been held as follows: ?29.The facts and circumstances in the above three cases disclose that reunion is impossible. Our case on hand is one such. It is not in dispute that the appellant and the respondent are living away for the last 14 years. It is also true that a good part of the lives of both the parties has been consumed in this litigation. As observed by this Court, the end is not in sight. The assertion of the wife through her learned counsel at the time of hearing appears to be impractical. It is also a matter of record that dislike for each other was burning hot. 30.Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to say the following: Marriages are made in heaven. Both parties have crossed the point of no return. A workable solution is certainly not possible. Parties cannot at this stage reconcile themselves and live together forgetting their past as a bad dream. We, therefore, have no other option except to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court...", "Decision": "?88.In short, it would be difficult for the parties to bury the past and to begin a new relationship of Husband and Wife. For the past 15 years both parties have remained separately. During these years, they developed their own life style, remained in isolation and grown in their own thoughts. Marriage tie between the parties has become emotionally dead and the same is beyond repair because of the emotionally dead relationship which is a positive act of oppressive mental cruelty, in our considered opinion. There is no chance for both parties to live together in future. In such a context, the decree of Divorce is the only remedy to be passed, so that the parties may choose their life of their own way, when there has been no scope for their reunion.?", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163276397/ | AIR 2017 MADRAS 256, (2019) 1 HINDULR 564, (2017) 4 MAD LJ 69, (2018) 1 CIVILCOURTC 490, (2018) 3 CURCC 230, (2017) 176 ALLINDCAS 616 (MAD), (2017) 178 ALLINDCAS 8 (MAD)", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2017, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR 2017 MADRAS 256, (2019) 1 HINDULR 564, (2017) 4 MAD LJ 69, (2018) 1 CIVILCOURTC 490, (2018) 3 CURCC 230, (2017) 176 ALLINDCAS 616 (MAD), (2017) 178 ALLINDCAS 8 (MAD)", "Kanoon Doc ID": "163276397", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163276397/", "Chunks Indexed": 17 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Gnanasigamani vs Kamala Bai And Anr. on 17 April, 1990", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1990-04-17", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 14, Section 19, Section 4, Section 45, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Leprosy; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. O.M.S. No.9 of 1985 has been filed by Gnanasigamani, the husband, for the dissolution of his marriage with his wife, Kamala Bai. O.M.S. No. 12 of 1983 has been filed by the wife for the restitution of conjugal rights. 2. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of these two suits and the defences raised therein, in pith and substance, may succinctly be stated as follows: The marriage between the spouses was solemnized on 14,5.1979 in the C.S.I. Church, S.T. Mangaud, Kanyakumari District. The husband was employed as Junior Assistant. Medical Section, University of Madras and was residing in Madras. Even before marriage, the wife, who was a resident of Kalliyikkavilai Village in Kanyakumari District, was employed as a Typist in the office of the Christian Literary Society, Madras, and she continued her employment after marriage also, living at the matrimonial abode. It is alleged that while so living, the wife's behaviour towards the elders at home was beyond tolerable limits and very often she returned home late in the night for no reason whatsoever, giving rise to a suspicion of her fidelity. When the husband enquired, he came to know that his wife even before marriage was intimate with one John Rose for fairly long period, in the sense of they living as husband and wife, and...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. O.M.S. No.9 of 1985 has been filed by Gnanasigamani, the husband, for the dissolution of his marriage with his wife, Kamala Bai. O.M.S. No. 12 of 1983 has been filed by the wife for the restitution of conjugal rights.", "Issues": "(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the restitution of conjugal rights? (ii) Whether the first respondent has withdrawn from the company of the petitioner? 8. Following are the issues framed for trial in O.M.S.No.9 of 1985: (i) Whether the first respondent had committed adultery as alleged by the petitioner? (ii) Whether this petition is maintainable in view of the dismissal of O.M.S. No. 19 of 1982 for the same relief? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce as prayed for?", "Petitioner Argument": "2. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of these two suits and the defences raised therein, in pith and substance, may succinctly be stated as follows: The marriage between the spouses was solemnized on 14,5.1979 in the C.S.I. Church, S.T. Mangaud, Kanyakumari District. The husband was employed as Junior Assistant. Medical Section, University of Madras and was residing in Madras. Even before marriage, the wife, who was a resident of Kalliyikkavilai Village in Kanyakumari District, was employed as a Typist in the office of the Christian Literary Society, Madras, and she continued her employment after marriage also, living at the matrimonial abode. It is alleged that while so living, the wife's behaviour towards the elders at home was beyond tolerable limits and very often she returned home late in the night for no reason whatsoever, giving rise to a suspicion of her fidelity. When the husband enquired, he came to know that his wife even before marriage was intimate with one John Rose for fairly long period, in the sense of they living as husband and wife, and...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "27. In view of what has been stated above, the finding on Issue No.(i) in O.M.S. No. 9 of 1985 regarding adultery by wife, has to be answered necessarily against the husband.. Once such a finding is given, it goes without saying that the husband is not entitled to a decree of divorce and hence Issue No. (iii) in O.M.S. No. 9 of 1985 is also found against him.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1264372/ | (1990)2MLJ80", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; leprosy; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1990, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1990)2MLJ80", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1264372", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1264372/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "A.V. Arockiam And Etc. vs Arul Mary Alias Latchumi Devi And Anr. on 5 March, 2002", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2002-03-05", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 120, Section 15, Section 16, Section 18, Section 19, Section 2, Section 20, Section 22, Section 23, Section 24, Section 3, Section 4, Section 45, Section 482, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The question for consideration in both these matters is whether the High Court will have jurisdiction to entertain matrimonial matters irrespective of whether the husband and wife reside at Madras or last resided together at Madras or not? 2. As pointed out in Thelma Agnes Kershaw v. Archibald Cyril Kershaw, AIR 1930 Lahore 916, in cases under the Divorce Act , the question of jurisdiction is of paramount importance and does not fall to be determined purely on allocation of the onus of proof. In these cases, it is the duty of the Court, apart from any objection that might have been taken by one or other of the parties, to enquire into and set out in the judgment, facts which show clearly that it possesses jurisdiction to pronounce a decree' for dissolution of marriage.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The question for consideration in both these matters is whether the High Court will have jurisdiction to entertain matrimonial matters irrespective of whether the husband and wife reside at Madras or last resided together at Madras or not?", "Issues": "1. The question for consideration in both these matters is whether the High Court will have jurisdiction to entertain matrimonial matters irrespective of whether the husband and wife reside at Madras or last resided together at Madras or not? \"On the question whether the District courts should be allowed a jurisdiction in divorce cases, there was a difference of opinion. The main reason why the Select Committee had given this jurisdiction was that the refusal of it would amount to a denial of relief to large classes of persons affected by the Bill. It would be a mere mockery of Europeans and East Indians in distant cities, and Native Christians in mofussil villages, to tell them to come to the High Courts in the Presidency towns for judgments of divorce. It is however said that the District Courts are not equal to those duties. That argument is one which should...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "40. Both O.M.S. No. 24/96 and O.M.S. No. 7/2001 are disposed of accordingly.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1768126/ | AIR2002MAD435, (2002)2MLJ506", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2002, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR2002MAD435, (2002)2MLJ506", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1768126", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1768126/", "Chunks Indexed": 14 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Maharaja Nadar vs Muthukani Ammal on 5 December, 1985", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1985-12-05", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 125, Section 13, Section 18, Section 2, Section 4, Section 488", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty; Conversion; Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. The defendant, Maharaja Nadar in the suit is the appellant herein. - 3. The plaintiff, Muthukani Animal filed the suit for maintenance. Her case is as follows : - The marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant was celebrated about 11 years prior to the institution of the suit, in the father's house of the plaintiff at Sivahthipuram, as per the caste custom and usage of the community to which they belong. Since the date of marriage, they lived happily as husband and wife. The defendant was often beating the plaintiff and was cruelly treating her and was driving her out of his house. In spite of it, the plaintiff was bearing all the cruel treatment of her husband and was living as dutiful wife. At one time, the plaintiff was charged with the commission of offence of, theft. The defendant demanded the plaintiffs consent for the second marriage since they have no child. On her refusal, she was beaten and treated with cruelty. At last, the end of 1151 Andu, Adi month, the defendant beat the plaintiff and drove her from his house. He also threatened that in case she returned to his house, she would have to face dire consequences. The plaintiff apprehends that if she joins her husband, her life would be in danger. While so,...", "Fact/ Respondent": "3. The plaintiff, Muthukani Animal filed the suit for maintenance. Her case is as follows : - The marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant was celebrated about 11 years prior to the institution of the suit, in the father's house of the plaintiff at Sivahthipuram, as per the caste custom and usage of the community to which they belong. Since the date of marriage, they lived happily as husband and wife. The defendant was often beating the plaintiff and was cruelly treating her and was driving her out of his house. In spite of it, the plaintiff was bearing all the cruel treatment of her husband and was living as dutiful wife. At one time, the plaintiff was charged with the commission of offence of, theft. The defendant demanded the plaintiffs consent for the second marriage since they have no child. On her refusal, she was beaten and treated with cruelty. At last, the end of 1151 Andu, Adi month, the defendant beat the plaintiff and drove her from his house. He also threatened that in case she returned to his house, she would have to face dire consequences. The plaintiff apprehends that if she joins her husband, her...", "Issues": "\"(1) Whether the cruelty and desertion alleged by the respondent herein i.e., the plaintiff in the suit are true? (2) Whether the respondent herein is entitled to maintenance? If so, what is the quantum of maintenance?\" 8. The point for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether the concept of the act of desertion and the act of cruelty under Hindu law, as codified, have been properly understood and applied to the facts of the present case before us. 9. It is not in dispute that the defendant-appellant is the husband of the respondent-plaintiff and their marriage took place 11 years prior to the date of the suit, as per the Hindu custom and usage. It is also not in dispute that they were living happily for some time after marriage and they have no issues. According to the respondent, the appellant often beat her and drove her away to...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "26. The husband is the lawful guardian of his minor wife and is entitled to require her to live with him, however young she may be, unless there is a custom enabling the wife to live with her parents until she hag arrived at puberty Arumuga v. Viraraghava (196 1) ILR 24 Mad 255. As soon as the wife is mature, her home is necessarily in her husbands house Kondal Roya v. Rangayanaki (1923) ILR 46 Mad 791 : (AIR 1924 Mad 49), Dadaji v. RukmaBai(1886) ILR 10 Bom301, and Tekait v. Basanta(1901) ILR28 Ca175l. He is bound to maintain her in his house while she is willing to reside with him and discharge her duties. If she quits him of her own accord, either without cause or on account of such ordinary quarrels as are incidental to married life in general, she can set up no claim to separate maintenance vide Bommadevaraya Naganna v. Bommadevara Rajya Lakshmi Devi (1928) 55 Mad U 242 : AIR 1928 PC 187; Kullya Nessuree v. Dwarkanath 6 Suth WR 115 (2), Sidlingappa v. Sidava ( 1878) ILR 2 Bom 634, and Surampalli Bangaramma v. Surampalli Branbaze (1908) ILR 31 Mad338. 27. Where the...", "Decision": "54. In the result, the Second Appeal faili) and it is dismissed. Under the circumstances, there is", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/219392/ | AIR1986MAD346, AIR 1986 MADRAS 346, (1986) 99 MADLW 24", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty; conversion; adultery", "Judgment Year": 1985, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1986MAD346, AIR 1986 MADRAS 346, (1986) 99 MADLW 24", "Kanoon Doc ID": "219392", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/219392/", "Chunks Indexed": 12 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "A.Anand Abeson Daniel vs P.R.Sheena Parimala on 20 March, 2024", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2024-03-20", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 114, Section 32, Section 494", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "C.M.A.(MD).Nos.1118 and 1119 of 2018 RESERVED ON : 19.12.2023 PRONOUNCED ON : 20.03.2024 THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1118 and 1119 of 2018 A.Anand Abeson Daniel ... Appellant in both C.M.As. Vs. P.R.Sheena Parimala ... Respondent in both C.M.As. COMMON PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree in I.D.O.P.Nos.84 and 151 of 2012 on the file of the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. For Appellant : Mr.T.Arul For Respondent : Mr.N.Shankar Ganesh COMMON JUDGMENT These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant/husband, challenging the common order passed by the learned District Judge, at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District in I.D.O.P.Nos.84 and 1/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).Nos.1118 and 1119 of 2018 151 of 2012 dated 27.07.2017.", "Fact/ Respondent": "C.M.A.(MD).Nos.1118 and 1119 of 2018 RESERVED ON : 19.12.2023 PRONOUNCED ON : 20.03.2024 THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1118 and 1119 of 2018 A.Anand Abeson Daniel ... Appellant in both C.M.As. Vs. P.R.Sheena Parimala ... Respondent in both C.M.As. COMMON PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree in I.D.O.P.Nos.84 and 151 of 2012 on the file of the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. For Appellant : Mr.T.Arul For Respondent : Mr.N.Shankar Ganesh COMMON JUDGMENT", "Issues": "“18.It may be true that there is no definition of cruelty under the said Act. Actually such a definition is not possible. In matrimonial relationship, cruelty would obviously mean absence of mutual respect and understanding between the spouses which embitters the relationship and often leads to various outbursts of behavior which can be termed as cruelty. Sometime cruelty in a matrimonial relationship may take the form of violence, some time it may take a different form. At times, it may be just an attitude or an approach. Silence in some situations may amount to cruelty. Therefore, cruelty in matrimonial behavior defies any definition and its category can never be closed. Whether husband is cruel to his wife or the wife is cruel to her husband has to be ascertained and judged by taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the given case and not by any pre- determined...", "Petitioner Argument": "7.The learned counsel for the appellant husband claimed that the respondent wife always quarrelled with the appellant husband and she failed to maintain smooth and cordial relationship with her husband and continued disrespecting the appellant husband even after giving birth to two children. She went to the extent of stabbing the appellant husband with knife. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent wife did not even take minimum care to maintain 3/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).Nos.1118 and 1119 of 2018 children and did not even provide the children with food in time, which caused untold pain and agony to the appellant husband. That apart, on 30.05.2005, the respondent wife dropped their children in the appellant's parent's house and after which, she failed to come forward to maintain her children. 8.It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent wife wantonly took away the second child Rakesh Daniel with the help of her sister and sister's husband at the time of final examination, which resulted in demotion of the second child and...", "Respondent Argument": "12.Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent refuting the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the trial Court has elaborately dealt with both the cases and on the basis of the appropriate oral and documentary evidence had proceeded to dismiss the petition for divorce and allowed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. In view of the same, he pressed for dismissal of the appeal. 13.It is the specific case of the appellant husband that the respondent wife had deserted him during October 2003 and right from the inception of marriage, the respondent wife never showed any love 7/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).Nos.1118 and 1119 of 2018 and affection towards him. However, it is pertinent to note that the first child Trevor Daniel was born on 29.11.1998 and the second child namely Rakesh Daniel was born on 15.05.2000 and during the pregnancy period, in both the occasions, the respondent wife was living with the appellant husband at Dubai. Hence, it is needless to state that from the year 1997 till 2000, the marriage between the...", "Factors to be Considered": "14.In order to get a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion, it has to be proved by the appellant husband that the other party to the marriage has deserted his or her without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of the petitioner including willful neglect of the 33/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).Nos.1118 and 1119 of 2018 petitioner by the other party to the marriage. In addition to the fact of separation, the animus deserendi and animus non reverendi it has to be proved by the petitioner/husband that the wife, where she is the deserting spouse and does not prove hust cause for her leaving apart, and to satisfy the Court that the desertion was without just cause. We have found in evidence that wife has expressed her willingness and eagerness to reunite with her husband and to reuse her conjugal live. There is no reason to disbelieve her. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, and in view of the legal principles as discussed above, we are of the opinion that in the instant case, it is the wife/respondent who has been deserted by the husband/appellant.” 41.Having heard the rival contentions raised by both...", "Decision": "14.In order to get a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion, it has to be proved by the appellant husband that the other party to the marriage has deserted his or her without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of the petitioner including willful neglect of the 33/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).Nos.1118 and 1119 of 2018 petitioner by the other party to the marriage. In addition to the fact of separation, the animus deserendi and animus non reverendi it has to be proved by the petitioner/husband that the wife, where she is the deserting spouse and does not prove hust cause for her leaving apart, and to satisfy the Court that the desertion was without just cause. We have found in evidence that wife has expressed her willingness and eagerness to reunite with her husband and to reuse her conjugal live. There is no reason to disbelieve her. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, and in view of the legal principles as discussed above, we are of the opinion that in the instant...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/119259366/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2024, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "119259366", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/119259366/", "Chunks Indexed": 15 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Monika Sanctis vs Henry Joseph And Anr. on 17 December, 2002", "Case Number": "No. 117 of 1998", "Judgment Date": "2002-12-17", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 22, Section 34, Section 35, Section 45, Section 5, Section 52, Section 55, Section 56, Section 57, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty; Nullity Sec19; Desertion", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is an appeal by the wife under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act read with Section 19 of the Family Court Act directed against the order dated 8-3-1999 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, at Bangalore in M.C. No. 117 of 1998 allowing the petition of the wife under Sections 10 and 11 of the Divorce Act partially and granting a decree for judicial separation. 2. The wife being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, refusing her the full relief of dissolution of marriage and denying her a decree of divorce has come up in appeal.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is an appeal by the wife under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act read with Section 19 of the Family Court Act directed against the order dated 8-3-1999 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, at Bangalore in M.C. No. 117 of 1998 allowing the petition of the wife under Sections 10 and 11 of the Divorce Act partially and granting a decree for judicial separation.", "Issues": "8. The respondents having remained absent and set ex parte, the Trial Court was only required to look into the petition averments and framed question as to whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce. 9. The petitioner examined herself and deposed that she has been treated with such cruelty and that the first respondent was living in adultery and also that the first respondent has committed acts of sodomy and perverse sex. 10. The learned Trial Judge though recorded a finding of cruelty as against the husband accepting the pleadings supported by the evidence, nevertheless thought that act of adultery on the part of the first respondent having not been, proved inasmuch as the petitioner had not deposed that she had seen the first and second respondents living in adultery, that a decree of divorce cannot be granted and only granted the relief of judicial separation. 11....", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "11. One very salient change brought about is doing away with the requirement of confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the District Court by a Bench of 3 Judges of the High Court. This indicates that a decree for dissolution of a marriage passed under the Divorce Act after the amending Act, becomes effective on its own and does not require any further confirmation. If that is the situation we do not see any reason to impose the restriction of waiting in period of 6 months before a decree for dissolution of the marriage can be made absolute, when the High Court is passing such a decree. In fact on a proper understanding of the provisions of the Act, the provisions of Section 16 are applicable only in a situation where the petition for divorce is examined by the High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. We commend that this is a proper understanding of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. Accordingly, we hold that the provisions of Section 16 does not...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/447004/ | ILR2004KAR2081, 2003(2)KARLJ588", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 48)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty; nullity_sec19; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2002, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: ILR2004KAR2081, 2003(2)KARLJ588", "Kanoon Doc ID": "447004", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/447004/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Mary Latha Regini vs Maria James on 9 January, 2026", "Case Number": "I.D.O.P.No.86 of 2018", "Judgment Date": "2026-01-09", "Judges": "P.Velmurugan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Family Courts Act, 1984; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 19, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019 made in I.D.O.P. No.86 of 2018 on the file of the learned Family Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, whereby the marriage between the appellant and the respondent solemnised on 08.05.2003 was dissolved under Section 10(ix)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, on the ground of cruelty. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the at Nagercoil, in I.D.O.P. No.86 of 2018, by which the respondent– husband’s petition under Section 10(ix)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, came to be allowed and the marital tie between the parties was severed. The wife, who was the respondent before the learned Family Court, is the appellant before this Court.", "Fact/ Respondent": "This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019 made in I.D.O.P. No.86 of 2018 on the file of the learned Family Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, whereby the marriage between the appellant and the respondent solemnised on 08.05.2003 was dissolved under Section 10(ix)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, on the ground of cruelty.", "Issues": "3. The appeal raises, in essence, the recurring question as to when a spouse’s protest, suspicion and complaint regarding the conduct and association of the other spouse crosses the line and becomes “cruelty” in law, and equally, whether such protest, if founded upon some admitted factual substratum, can at all be branded as reckless and unfounded so as to furnish a ground for divorce. Case of the Husband before the learned Family Court: 13. Before the learned Family Court, the husband examined himself as P.W.1 and produced Exs.P1 to P5. The wife examined herself as R.W.1 and produced Exs.R1 to R4. The learned Family Court framed issues, inter alia, as to (i) whether the husband had proved cruelty, (ii) whether he had proved desertion, and (iii) whether he was entitled to a decree of divorce and consequential reliefs. 14. Ultimately, while holding that desertion was not proved, the learned Family...", "Petitioner Argument": "5. According to the husband, though the marriage subsisted in form, the appellant-wife never showed compassion, understanding, true love or affection. It is alleged that she persistently humiliated him, both at home and in public, including in the presence of neighbours, strangers and colleagues, by levelling wild accusations of adultery, and sodomy with young children, without any foundation. The husband would allege that these accusations were figments of imagination, for which she refused to correct herself despite his exhortations. 6. The husband further alleged that after the appellant took employment at Vaniyakudi, she gradually withdrew from the matrimonial home and ultimately left in the year 2004 along with her personal belongings and the minor children, ceased to discharge marital obligations, never cooked or cared for him, and refused to return to the matrimonial home, thereby causing mental cruelty and desertion. On these allegations, the husband approached the learned Family Court seeking dissolution of the marriage on the twin grounds of cruelty and desertion. 4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) C.M.A.(MD)No.606 of 2021 Case of the Wife before...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "21. The pivot of the learned Family Court’s finding on cruelty is that the wife allegedly levelled baseless imputations of immoral/unnatural conduct and undesirable association with the young man Ajith and, without any foundational material, branded the 6 AIR 1981 SC 1972 12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) C.M.A.(MD)No.606 of 2021 husband as one having sexual relations with young boys. Proceeding on that premise, the learned Family Court held that such aspersions constituted grave mental cruelty. 22. However, a careful reading of the cross-examination of R.W.1 (wife) and P.W.1 (husband), which has been extracted in the lower Court judgment, presents a more nuanced picture. R.W.1, in her cross- examination, has consistently deposed that the husband and the boy Ajith used to go together wherever they went. The husband used to visit a certain house at Kootumangalam frequently and return late in the night. The husband admitted the said Ajith in a school at Pallam as the guardian of that boy. She approached the village elders and the Village President, and the President warned the husband and Ajith’s family. She had been raising these issues not only at home, but also before the schools where they worked and...", "Decision": "43. The judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019 passed in I.D.O.P. No.86 of 2018 on the file of the learned Family Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, in so far as it grants a decree for dissolution of marriage between the appellant and the respondent, are hereby set aside.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/49821959/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 105)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "49821959", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/49821959/", "Chunks Indexed": 14 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "M.Kumar vs Nil on 5 November, 2025", "Case Number": "2025:MHC:2594", "Judgment Date": "2025-11-05", "Judges": "S. Sounthar, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A, Section 28, Section 32B", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "This civil revision petition is filed, challenging the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, rejecting the petition in OP Sr No.3223 of 2025 filed by the petitioner, seeking divorce under Section 10(A) of the Indian Divorce Act on the ground that the statutory minimum period of 2 years has not been completed on the date of presentation of the O.P. 2. The petitioner/ husband and the respondent/wife filed the above said petition seeking divorce under Section 10(A) of Indian Divorce Act on the ground of mutual consent. The marriage between the parties got solemnized on 13.05.2024 and the petition for divorce on the ground of mutual consent was filed on 11.06.2025. The said petition was rejected by the court below by citing Section 10(A) of Indian Divorce Act “Dissolution of marriage by mutual consent”, which says that the petition shall be filed only after two years of separation.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The petitioner/ husband and the respondent/wife filed the above said petition seeking divorce under Section 10(A) of Indian Divorce Act on the ground of mutual consent. The marriage between the parties got solemnized on 13.05.2024 and the petition for divorce on the ground of mutual consent was filed on 11.06.2025. The said petition was rejected by the court below by citing Section 10(A) of Indian Divorce Act “Dissolution of marriage by mutual consent”, which says that the petition shall be filed only after two years of separation.", "Issues": "(1) subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, a petition for dissolution of marriage may be presented to he District Court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 02:33:04 pm ) CRP No.5257 of 2025 the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001 (51 of 2001), on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of 2 years or more, that they have not been able to live together and they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. (2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of presentation of the pettiion referred to in sub- section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "4. The validity of the said section was challenged before the Kerala High Court in Saumya Ann Thomas V. The Union of India reported in 2010 KLT 1869 mainly on the ground that this stipulation offends the right to equality under Article 14 of Constitution of India, as it prescribed a longer period for persons covered under this Act, as against the prescribed time limit of one year under Hindu Marriage Act, Parsi Marriage and Special Marriage Act . Having agreed with the contention raised by the petitioner, the Division Bench of Kerala High Court held that the period prescribed under Section 10(A) of the Act shall be read down as one year. The relevant observation made by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court reads as follows. 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 02:33:04 pm ) CRP No.5257 of 2025 43. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the stipulation of a higher period of two years of mandatory minimum separate residence for those to whom the Divorce Act applies, in contra-distinction to those similarly placed to whom Section.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, Sec.32B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act...", "Decision": "45. We come back to the facts of the case. The marriage was solemnized on 06.04.2008. Separate residence commenced on 21.09.2008. Separate residence has been there for a period of exceeding one year on the date of application. A period of six months has already elapsed from the date of filing of the petition. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that a decree for divorce can be granted as prayed for by the petitioners under Sec.10A of the Divorce Act.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/22771704/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "22771704", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/22771704/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Law Commission Report", "Case Title": "The Indian Divorce Act 1869", "Case Number": "Ca1", "Judgment Date": "1869-01-01", "Judges": "and, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 102, Section 14, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, Section 2, Section 20, Section 22, Section 3, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Desertion", "Outcome": "Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "represented by counsei. we feei that it is high time that the provision regarding confirmation under sections 17 and 20 of the Indian Divorce Act 1869 are deieted from the statute. Section 17 provides that every decree for dissoiution of marriage made by a district judge shaii be subject to confirmation by the High Court. It is further provided that cases for confirmation of a decree for dissoiution of marriage shaii be heard (where the number of the judges of the High Court is three or upwards) by a court composed of three such judges or (where the number of the judges of the High Court is two) by a court composed of such two judges. Section 20 provides that every decree of nuiiity of marriage made by a district judge shaii be subject to confirmation by the High Court. That too by a bench of three judges in courts where the number of judges is three or upwards and where the number of High Court is two, by a bench composed of two judges. A petition under section 10 for grant of divorce and section 18 for deciaring the marriage nu11 and void can be_ fiied both before the district court as we11 as the High Court. when such petitions are fiied in the High Court, it is being...", "Fact/ Respondent": "Respondent contested the petition, denying allegations of desertion under Section 10 and submitting that no statutory grounds exist for dissolving the marriage.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (desertion) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "So1omon Devasahayam Se1varaj v. Qhghdirah Magi, (1968) 1 M.L.J. 289.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86162589/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion", "Judgment Year": 1869, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "86162589", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86162589/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Law Commission Report", "Case Title": "The Ground Of Divorce Amongst Christians In India", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 19, Section 22, Section 32, Section 320, Section 34, Section 4, Section 5, Section 50, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19; Adultery; Cruelty; Desertion; Constitutional Validity; Non Consummation", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "that either. party was a lunatic or idiot at the_ time of the marriage; that the former husband or wife or either party was living at the time of the marriage; and the marriage with such former husband or wife was then in force.\"", "Fact/ Respondent": "that the former husband or wife or either party was living at the time of the marriage; and the marriage with such former husband or wife was then in force.\"", "Issues": "that the parties are within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity (whether natural or legal) or atlinity; that either. party was a lunatic or idiot at the_ time of the marriage; that the former husband or wife or either party was living at the time of the marriage; and the marriage with such former husband or wife was then in force.\" Nothing in this section shall affect the jurisdiction -of the High Court to make decrees of nullity of. marriage on the ground that the consent of either party was obtained by force or fraud. . - _ We proceed to examine if the section leaves out any important ground_ of nullity that might have been canvassed in the View pressed on the subject, 4.8. In this connection, we may again state that concrete points as to the Annutmnt in deieets, if any, in the \"existing legal approach have been made...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA NINETIETH REPORT ON THE GROUNDS OF DIVORCE AMONGST CHRISTIANS IN INDIA: SECTION 10 INDIAN DIVORCE ACT 1869 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA : MINISTRY OF L.-\\\\\\' K, K_ MATHEW D.O. No. F. 2(6)/82-I.C. Chairman Law Commission ' Government of India Shastri Bhavan New Delhi--1 l0 001 1'7th May, 1983. My dear Minister, I send herewith the 90th Report of the Law Commission regarding \"Grounds of Divorce amongst Christians in India: Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869\". ' 2. Revisionlof Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, was taken up by the Law Commission suo moto in view of the existing element of discrimination based on sex under the Indian Divorce Act as applicable to the Christians in India. ' 3. In the field of marriage law, extensive developments have taken place both in law and in Society.-It is proper that these developments should\"'bc taken note . of and the law brought in tune with the times. 4. The Commission expresses its appreciation to Shri P. M. Bakshi, Part-time Member of the Commission for the finalisation of the Report. ' With regards, Yours sincerely, Sd/- (K. K. MATHEW w Shri Jagannath Kaushal, Minister of Law, Justice...", "Decision": "Canon 1080, Persons who according to the civil law are regarded as incapable of marrying each other because of a legal relationshipiarising from adoption, cannot .v_alidly contract marriagetogether according to canon law. _A ' \\ \"sis.r.:iacI>)1t71\\f¢or1JaccA--s3o--2§.5.ss-'-airsu :_, -- .", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90496067/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19; adultery; cruelty; desertion; constitutional_validity; non_consummation", "Judgment Year": null, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "90496067", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90496067/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Mary Sonia Zachariah vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 February, 1995", "Case Number": "O.P. No. 5805 of 1988", "Judgment Date": "1995-02-24", "Judges": "T.V. Ramakrishnan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 112, Section 13, Section 13B, Section 18, Section 2, Section 22, Section 27, Section 28, Section 32, Section 32A, Section 488", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Adultery; Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The constitutional validity of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short \"the Act\") which regulated divorce among Christians in India for a century and a quarter is directly under challenge in the two Original Petitions at the instance of two Christian women on the ground that the provisions in Section 10 are violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to them and other similarly situated Christian women under Articles 14 , 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Mary Sonia Zachariah, petitioner in O.P. No. 5805 of 1988 is a Syrian Christian governed by the Act. At the time of filing the O.P. she was aged 36 and was working as an Asst. Warden at Corpus Christi School, Kottayam. She was married to one P.C. Zachariah on 6.1.1972 at Emmanual Marthoma Church, Pazhanni, Thrissur according to the customary rites and ceremonies of the Church. A daughter, Elizabeth Zachariah @ Kittu was born out of the said wedlock on 16.9.1974. On the basis of Exts. P. 3 and P. 4 letters the petitioner has specifically pleaded that her husband has taken an irreversible decision to live with an English lady whom he met while in Nairobi where he was employed from 1977 onwards, deserting the petitioner and her child once and for all. Petitioner has specifically...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. Mary Sonia Zachariah, petitioner in O.P. No. 5805 of 1988 is a Syrian Christian governed by the Act. At the time of filing the O.P. she was aged 36 and was working as an Asst. Warden at Corpus Christi School, Kottayam. She was married to one P.C. Zachariah on 6.1.1972 at Emmanual Marthoma Church, Pazhanni, Thrissur according to the customary rites and ceremonies of the Church. A daughter, Elizabeth Zachariah @ Kittu was born out of the said wedlock on 16.9.1974. On the basis of Exts. P. 3 and P. 4 letters the petitioner has specifically pleaded that her husband has taken an irreversible decision to live with an English lady whom he met while in Nairobi where he was employed from 1977 onwards, deserting the petitioner and her child once and for all. Petitioner has specifically alleged that from 1978 onwards her husband has deserted her and has not cared to cohabit with her or to perform any of the marital obligations and to maintain her and her daughter. She has further alleged in the petition that she is not even aware of the whereabouts of her husband at present.", "Issues": "32. The further question to be considered is if this be the direct and/ inevitable consequence of the law governing dissolution among Christians governed by the Act whether such a provision will be valid in the light of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "33. The Supreme Court has in unmistakable terms declared in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) that the test or yardstick to be applied for determining whether a statute infringes a particular fundamental right is to see what exactly is the direct and inevitable consequence or effect of the impugned provision of law on the fundamental right alleged to have been violated. The test so laid down has by now to be treated as settled. Further in Maneka Gandhi 's case the Supreme Court has given an expansive interpretation to the expression 'life' and 'personal liberty' used in Article 21 of the Constitution of India which has been described as 'heart of fundamental rights' in Unnikrishnan's case (AIR 1993 SC 2178). Thus it has been held that 'life' and 'personal liberty' will not only include physical security, but would comprehend those rights enumerated in Article 19 as well as others \"which would go to make a man's life meaningful, complete and worth living\". In Pathumma's case (AIR 1978 SC 771), the Supreme Court has stated thus : \"The attempt of the Court should be to expand the reach and ambit of the fundamental rights rather than...", "Decision": "24. Learned Counsel for the Central Government has however tried to support the constitutionality of the provision relying strongly upon the reasoning contained in Dwarka Bai v. Maiman (AIR 1953 Mad. 792). In that case Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. has held that \"since the husband even by committing adultery does not bear a child as a result of such adultery and make it child of his wife to be maintained by the wife\", the wife by committing adultery \"may bear a child as a result of such adultery and the husband will have to treat it as his legitimate child and will be liable to maintain that child under Section 488 , Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act\", and that \"this very difference in the result of the adultery may form some ground\" of justification for this differentiation.\" We think that so long as the difference in the after effect of adultery committed by the husband and wife pointed out by the learned Judge as a justification for differential treatment is a difference solely resulting...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/637104/ | II(1995)DMC27", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; adultery; desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1995, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: II(1995)DMC27", "Kanoon Doc ID": "637104", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/637104/", "Chunks Indexed": 24 }, { "Court": "Gujarat High Court", "Case Title": "S. vs E. on 11 May, 1999", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1999-05-11", "Judges": "M.S. Parikh, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 3, Section 497, Section 498A, Section 60", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 moved by the petitioner-husband against the respondent No. 1 -wife, joining the respondent No. 2 as alleged adulterer. Short facts on the basis of which this petition has been moved may briefly be noted: 2. The marriage of the petitioner and the 1st respondent was solemnized according to the Christian Law on 4-11-1995. There is no child out of the said marriage. The parties could not live together for more than a year and in October/ November 1996 their relations got strained with the result that they were required to live separately from each other. It is the petitioner's case that thereafter on or around 2-11-1998 the respondent No. 1 got married with respondent No. 2 and on account of that occasion, it is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 is guilty of adultery.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 moved by the petitioner-husband against the respondent No. 1 -wife, joining the respondent No. 2 as alleged adulterer. Short facts on the basis of which this petition has been moved may briefly be noted:", "Issues": "6. Following issues were framed on 3-5-1999: I. Is it proved that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized at Ahmedabad on 4th November, 1995 as per the custom of the caste and as per the Christian form of marriage as alleged? II. Is it proved that the relations between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 strained in October/November, 1996 and they started living separately as alleged? III. Is it proved that on 2nd November, 1998, the first respondent and the second respondent got married with each other as alleged and that since then, the respondent No. 1 herein has been guilty of adultery ? IV. Is there any other legal impediment in granting prayer for decree of dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 as solemnized on 4th November, 1995 by a decree of divorce nisi ? V. What order and decree...", "Petitioner Argument": "2. When the parties have been called in the chamber for knowing their present status, the opponent No. 1 [*** ***] stated before this Court that she had entered into customary divorce as per divorce deed dated 4-6-1998. The petitioner also stated before this Court that such divorce deed was entered into between the petitioner and the opponent No. 1. Opponent No. 1 [******] has further stated before this Court that she has married opponent No. 2 [*** ***] who is also present before the Court. He also states before this Court that he has married opponent No. 1. Such marriage has been solemnized in the presence of [*** ***] Registrar of Marriage. Both the opponents jointly submit that they do not want to adduce any evidence even after issues are framed. 3. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court could not suggest any possibility of reconciliation of the petitioner and the opponent No. 1. 4. There does not appear to be any collusion between the parties. The matter is now kept for framing of issues and recording of evidence of...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "16. The petitioner's marriage with respondent No. 1 solemnized on 4-11-1995 is ordered to be dissolved by a decree of dissolution of marriage to be a decree nisi for a period of six months from today. The petitioner is directed to move the Court for passing order for decree absolute immediately upon the expiry of period of six months from today.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143044/ | (1999)2GLR1814", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1999, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1999)2GLR1814", "Kanoon Doc ID": "143044", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143044/", "Chunks Indexed": 13 }, { "Court": "Gujarat High Court", "Case Title": "Silvance Franklin Baria vs Elizabeth David Hendry on 11 May, 1999", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1999-05-11", "Judges": "M.S. Parikh, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 3, Section 497, Section 498A, Section 60", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a petition u/S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 moved by the petitioner - husband against the respondent No. 1 - wife, joining the respondent No. 2 as alleged adulterer. Short facts on the basis of which this petition has been moved may briefly be noted :- 2. The marriage of the petitioner and the 1st respondent was solemnized according to the Christian law on 4/11/1995. There is no child out of the said marriage. The parties could not live together for more than a year and in October/November 1996 their relations got strained with the result that they were required to live separately from each other. It is the petitioner's case that thereafter on or around 2/11/1998 the respondent No. 1 got married with respondent No. 2 and on account of that occasion it is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 is guilty of adultery.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a petition u/S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 moved by the petitioner - husband against the respondent No. 1 - wife, joining the respondent No. 2 as alleged adulterer. Short facts on the basis of which this petition has been moved may briefly be noted :-", "Issues": "6. Following issues were framed on 3/5/1999 :- I. Is it proved that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized at Ahmedabad on 4th November, 1995 as per the custom of the caste and as per the christian Form of Marriage as alleged ? II. Is it proved that the relations between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 strained in October/November, 1996 and they started living separately as alleged ? III. Is it proved that on 2nd November, 1998, the first respondent and the second respondent got married with each other as alleged and that since then, the respondent No. 1 herein has been guilty of adultery ? IV. Is there any other legal impediment in granting prayer for decree of dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 as solemnized on 4th November, 1995 by a decree of divorce nisi ? V. What...", "Petitioner Argument": "2. When the parties have been called in the chamber for knowing their present status, the opponent No. 1 - Elizabeth David Hendry stated before this Court that she had entered into customary divorce as per divorce deed dated 4/6/1998. The petitioner also stated before this Court that such divorce deed was entered into between the petitioner and the opponent No. 1. Opponent No. 1 Elizabeth David Hendry has further stated before this Court that she has married opponent No. 2 - Sanjay Alick Stephen, who is also present before the Court. He also states before this Court that he has married opponent No. 1. Such marriage has been solemnized in the presence of John T. Christian, Registrar of Marriage. Both the opponents jointly submit that they do not want to adduce any evidence even after issues are framed. 3. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court could not suggest any possibility of reconciliation of the petitioner and the opponent No. 1. 4. There does not appear to be any collusion between the parties. The matter is now kept for framing...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "15. In this view of the matter and bearing in mind peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, following order is required to be passed while answering the issues as aforesaid :- The petitioner's marriage with respondent No. 1 solemnized on 4/11/1995 is ordered to be dissolved by a decree of dissolution of marriage to be a decree nisi for a period of six months from today. The petitioner is directed to move the Court for passing order for decree absolute immediately upon the expiry of period of six months from today.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/208893/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1999, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "208893", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/208893/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Sameer Joseph Francis Saldanha vs Shona Christable D'Sa Prabhu on 11 March, 2014", "Case Number": "WRIT PETITION NO.12422 OF 2013", "Judgment Date": "2014-03-11", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 14", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion", "Outcome": "Partly_Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "This writ petition is directed against the order in M.C.No.3610/2009 dated 12.02.2013, on the file of the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore, whereby the Court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the petition. 2. The petitioner filed the above case for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent solemnized on 27.05.2000 under Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 (for short 'the Act'). He filed the application - I.A.No.6 under amendment of the petition. He wanted to 3 introduce additional grounds under Section 10(i) and (ix) of the Act.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The petitioner filed the above case for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent solemnized on 27.05.2000 under Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 (for short 'the Act'). He filed the application - I.A.No.6 under amendment of the petition. He wanted to 3 introduce additional grounds under Section 10(i) and (ix) of the Act.", "Issues": "9. Whether, the petitioner is also guilty of adultery or not has to be established by the respondent by leading evidence. Similarly, whether, the adultery complained of, is after desertion or willfully separating himself from the respondent and without reasonable excuses has also to be established by leading evidence. These questions are on the merits of the case. It is settled that merits of the case cannot be gone into, while considering the application for amendment of the pleadings.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "5. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the respondent submits that in order to 4 plead commission of adultery as a ground under Section 10(i) of the act, the petitioner has to make the alleged adulterer as a co-respondent unless the petitioner is excused from doing so. The petitioner has not made an application seeking exemption from impleading the adulterer as a party. He has also drawn my attention to the proviso of Section 14 and submits that the Court is not bound to pronounce decree for dissolution of marriage, if it finds that the petitioner has, during the marriage, been guilty of adultery, or of having deserted or willfully separated himself or herself from the other party before the adultery complained of, and without reasonable excuse. In the instant case, the petitioner is guilty of committing adultery. He has deserted the respondent before the alleged adultery is complained of. Therefore, no useful purpose will be 5 served even if the amendment is allowed. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47827097/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2014, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "47827097", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47827097/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Varadharajan John D. Britto vs Saraswathi And Moni on 15 November, 2007", "Case Number": "I.D.O.P. No. 2 of 1999", "Judgment Date": "2007-11-15", "Judges": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Fair and Decreetal Order of the Principal District Court at Perambalur dated 15.12.1999 in I.D.O.P. No. 2 of 1999. The marriage between the appellant and the first respondent was solemnised on 23.05.1973 at St. Joseph Church, Narkunam, Perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District according to the rules, rites, ceremonies and custom of the Roman Catholic Church. The marriage was an arranged one. They have three children. At the time of marriage, the appellant was employed as a Teacher at Little Flower Middle School at Nakalathur, Thanjavur Taluk, Thanjavur District. The appellant is now employed as a Teacher at St. Mary's School, Ariyalur, Tiruchirapalli District. The first two children are under the care and custody of the appellant and the third child is under the custody of the first respondent. Later, the appellant made allegations against the first respondent that the first respondent has been living in adultery with the second respondent for the past two years and also the first respondent lost her love for the children. Hence the appellant filed a petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act (\"Act\" in short) on the ground of adultery. The said petition was filed before the District Court at Tiruchirapalli in Matrimonial O.P. No. 15 of 1992. The first respondent denied all the...", "Fact/ Respondent": "The marriage between the appellant and the first respondent was solemnised on 23.05.1973 at St. Joseph Church, Narkunam, Perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District according to the rules, rites, ceremonies and custom of the Roman Catholic Church. The marriage was an arranged one. They have three children. At the time of marriage, the appellant was employed as a Teacher at Little Flower Middle School at Nakalathur, Thanjavur Taluk, Thanjavur District. The appellant is now employed as a Teacher at St. Mary's School, Ariyalur, Tiruchirapalli District. The first two children are under the care and custody of the appellant and the third child is under the custody of the first respondent. Later, the appellant made allegations against the first respondent that the first respondent has been living in adultery with the second respondent for the past two years and also the first respondent lost her love for the children. Hence the appellant filed a petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act (\"Act\" in short) on the ground of adultery. The said petition was filed before the District Court at Tiruchirapalli in Matrimonial O.P. No. 15 of 1992. The first respondent denied all the allegations and resisted the claim. On the pleadings,...", "Issues": "Whether the appellant is entitled to divorce on the ground of adultery or not? 10. Grounds for dissolution of marriage.-(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, may, on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent-", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "4. Learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent has submitted that the Lower Court had considered all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and came to the correct conclusion and that therefore, the order passed by the Lower Court is in accordance with law. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the appellant, witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were examined. P.W. 1 is the appellant himself. P.W. 2 is one Arockiaswamy, who is the common friend of both the appellant and the first respondent. On the side of the first respondent, witness R.W. 1 was examined, who is the first respondent herself. No documents were adduced on both the sides.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "7. In view of the foregoing reasons, I find no error or illegality in the order of the Lower Court so as to warrant interference. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1313746/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 2007, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1313746", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1313746/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Law Commission Report", "Case Title": "Law Relating To Marriage And Divorce Amongst Christians In India", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 11, Section 118, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 140, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 17A, Section 18, Section 19, Section 193, Section 199, Section 2, Section 20, Section 21, Section 22, Section 23, Section 24, Section 25, Section 26, Section 27, Section 28, Section 29, Section 2D, Section 3, Section 30, Section 31, Section 32, Section 33, Section 34, Section 35, Section 36, Section 37, Section 38, Section 39, Section 4, Section 40, Section 41, Section 42, Section 43, Section 44, Section 45, Section 46, Section 47, Section 48, Section 49, Section 495, Section 4O, Section 5, Section 50, Section 51, Section 52, Section 53, Section 54, Section 55, Section 56, Section 57, Section 58, Section 59, Section 5O, Section 6, Section 60, Section 61, Section 62, Section 63, Section 66, Section 67, Section 69, Section 7, Section 70, Section 71, Section 73, Section 74, Section 75, Section 76, Section 79, Section 8, Section 80, Section 81, Section 83, Section 831, Section 84, Section 86, Section 88, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19; Desertion; Adultery; Cruelty; Conversion; Non Consummation; Venereal Disease; Leprosy", "Outcome": "Decree of Nullity Adjudicated", "Fact/ Petitioner": "_.,,,_'J_'*_ 35 whenever there is a decree for divorce or nullity of mar- riage. For the reasons already given, we are unable to agree with this view. It may be mentioned here 'that no such provision has been enacted either in the Special Mar- riage Act, 1954, or in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . Qur proposal to omit section 39 will bring the law in line with those two statutes. jurisdiction and procedure under the proposed Act._ The provisions of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 , relating to jurisdiction fall under two categories: (1) Section 2 pres- cribes the conditions on which the court could pass decrees under the Act, such as for dissolution of marriage, for nullity and so forth. (2) The Act further specifies in the several sections relating to the different kinds of action, the courts in which they could be instituted. These two categories have reference to two distinct aspects of juris- diction. The former views the question from the stand- point of private international law, the latter from that of municipal law. Dealing first with the former, a Sovereign State can enact laws providing for the conditions on which its courts could grant relief by Way of decree for divorce or nullity of marriage, and the decrees passed by the courts acting within the...", "Fact/ Respondent": "jurisdiction and procedure under the proposed Act._ The provisions of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 , relating to jurisdiction fall under two categories: (1) Section 2 pres- cribes the conditions on which the court could pass decrees under the Act, such as for dissolution of marriage, for nullity and so forth. (2) The Act further specifies in the several sections relating to the different kinds of action, the courts in which they could be instituted. These two categories have reference to two distinct aspects of juris- diction. The former views the question from the stand- point of private international law, the latter from that of municipal law. Dealing first with the former, a Sovereign State can enact laws providing for the conditions on which its courts could grant relief by Way of decree for divorce or nullity of marriage, and the decrees passed by the courts acting within the authority conferred by these provisions will be valid and enforceable within its terri- tories. But when the status of the parties to such a decree becomes the subject-matter of a dispute in a proceeding between them in another State, the question arises whether courts of that State are bound to recognise...", "Issues": "(i) whether the Church is properly organised; {till wheilicr the Church is 1*egistei'ed under any law for the time being in force relatlnr' to the regis- tration of societies in general or religious societies in ioarticular; {iii} whether the Church has well--established rules for the sole:-nnization of marriages; ii-o} whether the Church has proper places oi worship; (1)) whether, according to the rules of the Church, clergj,-'men are ordinarily ordained to solemnize marriages; {oi} whether the strength or standing of the Church is such as to justify recognition being accord- ed thereto. (3) The State Government, after taking into considera- tion the recommendations made by the Committee under this section, may by notification in the Oillcial Gazette declare any Church to be a recognised Church for the purposes of this Act, and any such notification may also dectare a group of Churches belonging to any organisation or denomination to be...", "Petitioner Argument": "the full by the authorities; and it is submitted that it ' consistent with sound principle, because a person's fiatus is, as a general rule, determined by the law of his domicile, questions of status cannot be affected by ' e intention of the parties, and a person's capacity Eldmarry is a matter of public concern to the country if his domicile.\" Schmitthofi\" thinks that the decision, however, could be sustained on other grounds than those on which it was decided and he also points out that the decision of Willmer J. in Chapelle v. Chap-elle° indicates clearly that the alleged exception does not exist. In that case, it may be stated, the marriage was celebrated in England while the husband was domiciled in Malta where the wife went after the- marriage and where she lived with him for about ten (1379) 5 PI). 94- 31:1908) P. 46. 'Dicey on Private Intcmaiionll Law, 7th ed. pp. 250-51. '($77) PD. 1, 6-7. 'Clive M. Schmitthofl, The English Conflict of Lawn, 3rd ed, p. 3.52- |(195o) P. 134. . an anomalous exception...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "has been regarded as unnecessary'- Clause 50 Existing section 54 of the Indian Divorce Act deals with- two topics--- (i) appeal; (it) enforcement. For the sake of convenience, it has been broken up into two clauses. The clause under discussion deals with enforcement. Clause 51 A person married under the Christian Marriage Act may marry again-- (11) under the Christian Marriage Act ; or (it) under any other system of law. So far as the situation at No. {i} above is concerned, the second marriage will be void by reason of breach of the condition providing that there should be no \"spouse living at the time of the marriage\", and will be punishable as bigamy under the Penal Code. So far, however, as the situation at (iii above is con- cerned, it is not clear if the Christian Marriage Act will apply, and it is better to make a specific provision for such a situation. Hence the necessity of the clause uiider discussion, which follows section 44 of the Special l'vIarriage Act. [So far as the situation at No. {i} above is concerned, the clause under discussion will be +1 repetition of the clause which provides that such marriages shall...", "Decision": "77. A question on which there is divergence of opinion is as to the procedure to be followed before a decree for divorce is finally made. Under section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act, a decree mist has first to be passed, and a decree absolute could thereafter be made only after the expiration of such time as the High Court might direct but not less than six months from the pronouncement of the decree -n-iii. The point for consideration now is, whether the proposed legislation should retain that procedure, or whether, dispensing with the decree nisi, it should provide for a decree for divorce being straightway passed. In support of the latter view, it is said that that would simplify the procedure in an action for divorce, save time and reduce expense. It is also pointed out that both the Special Marriage Act, 1954 , and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , provide for the passing of only a single decree, and it is said that it is desirable that the law relating to divorce among Christians must also...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26391119/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19; desertion; adultery; cruelty; conversion; non_consummation; venereal_disease; leprosy", "Judgment Year": null, "Relief Status": "nullity", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "26391119", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26391119/", "Chunks Indexed": 63 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Mary Soniz Zachariah vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 13 December, 1989", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1989-12-13", "Judges": "Thomas, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Special Marriage Act, 1954", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. A primitive statute which still lingers in the law book is being attacked by a woman who is one of the victims struggling to squirm out of the legal tentacles of broken marriage alliance. The statute under attack is the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 passed by the British Parliament more than a century and two decades ago as the law to govern the marriages of Christians in India. The British Parliament in enacting the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act practically adopted the provisions of the English Matrimonial law, as they stood in 1869. The British Parliament did not make any improvement in the Indian Divorce Act until the British left India, even though they made substantial improvements in the mother statute, namely, the English Matrimonial Causes Act. After independence, the Indian Parliament brought about radical changes in the marriage law applicable to Hindus, Parsis and even to foreigners living in India by incorporating progressive and realistic grounds for divorce in such enactments. But either for no reason or for reasons which are not easy to comprehend, the law of marriage applicable to Christians remains unrealistic and antiquated. 2. One of the reasons advanced for not changing this primitive statute is that there is no demand from the Community concerned for changes. According to the petitioner, the said stand...", "Fact/ Respondent": "\"Before parting with the case, we may observe that the provisions of Act 4 of 1869 appear to be highly antiquated, and that they have not kept pace with the provisions of similar enactments relating to marriage in other communities, which are of a far more progressive character It is only under this Act 4 of 1869 that the law remains where it was, when this enactment was born, so that parties governed by this law are under the grave disadvantage that, even if a husband deserts his wife for a considerable period, that will be no ground for divorce; in our view, it is a genuine hardship, and there is urgent need for re-examination of the provisions of Act 4 of 1869, as the Act governs a large body of persons in this country to see that its provisions are rendered humane and up-to-date\".", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (constitutional validity) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Constitutional Doctrine: Gender equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21; severance of discriminatory conditions requiring Christian wives to prove adultery coupled with cruelty/desertion (Ammini E.J. / Pragati Varghese).", "Decision": "4. Without establishing adultery of the other spouse a decree for divorce is unthinkable under the Indian Divorce Act . Those spouses who found their matrimonial lives irretrievably broken down remain helpless in view of the unrealistic and unhelpful provisions of the Indian Divorce Act . (A decree declaring the marriage null and void can be passed if it is established that opposite party was insane at the time of marriage). Thus, unless one of the spouses was insane, or one of them is guilty of adultery, Indian Divorce Act will not help a spouse to get out of the marriage alliance. As the legislature did not help them till how, some of them invented devices to wriggle out the imbroglio. One device is to undergo a marriage again under the Special Marriage Act and then apply for a decree for divorce under that law. Some other spouses, in order to surmount the difficulty, collide between each other, so that one of them would make false allegations of adultery against the other and the latter would remain ex parte. Some...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1298038/ | II(1990)DMC119", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity", "Judgment Year": 1989, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: II(1990)DMC119", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1298038", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1298038/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "G. Packia Raj vs P. Subbammal Alias Susila Bai on 9 November, 1990", "Case Number": "No. 79 of 1987", "Judgment Date": "1990-11-09", "Judges": "Abdul Hadi, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 2, Section 4, Section 5, Section 7, Section 7A", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The judgment dated 9-3-1988 in O.S. No. 79 of 1987 on the flic of the District Judge, Kanyakumari dissolving the marriage of the plaintiff/husband with the 1st defendant/ wife under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869) hereinafter referred to an 'the Act\") on the ground that the 1st defendant has been guilty of adultery is placed before us for confirmation under S. 17 of the Act. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff, a Christian, married in 1975 the 1st defendant who was a Hindu then, according to \"seerthirutha\" form of marriage and also brought forth a child. The further case is that the 1st defendant developed illicit intimacy with other men during the time when the plaintiff used to go for his daily work, that on 16-5-1987 when the plaintiff returned home from the place of work unusually earlier, he found the 1st defendant \"keeping bed\" with the 2nd defendant, that he reprimanded her for her immoral act, that she then left the house and that subsequently she also refused to receive a notice sent by plaintiff on 10-6-1987.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The judgment dated 9-3-1988 in O.S. No. 79 of 1987 on the flic of the District Judge, Kanyakumari dissolving the marriage of the plaintiff/husband with the 1st defendant/ wife under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869) hereinafter referred to an 'the Act\") on the ground that the 1st defendant has been guilty of adultery is placed before us for confirmation under S. 17 of the Act.", "Issues": "\"Nevertheless, the proviso does show that in a case to which it applies, relief can be had under the Indian Divorce Act in respect of any kind of marriage, whether monogamous or not\". (Underlining is ours ) The said decision also observed as follows (Paras 15 and 16): However, the whole position has been radically altered by the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, which, by S. 2(a) , applies to Arya Samajist. A Hindu Marriage has now been rendered monogamous by that Act, as S. 5 makes it a condition that 'neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage'. The bar to relief emanting from English law by virtue of S. 7 of the Indian Divorce Act no longer operates. Relief can now be had under that Act in respect of a Hindu Marriage provided, of course, one of the parties professess the Christian religion when the...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "\"Nowhere in the Act is it required that the marriage, in respect of which relief is sought, should have been solemnised in any particular form. It is sufficient that one of the parties is a Christian when the petition is filed: see Sasivarnamv. Gnanasundari Kamalam, (SB); Nina Dalai v. Merwanji Pherozshaw Dalai , AIR 1930 Bom 385 (FB) and Mrs. Chandramani Oubey v. Rama Shankar Dubey, . Consequently, it was held in Gobrdhan Das v. Jasa Damoni Dassi , (1891) ILR 18 Cal 252, that a marriage between Hindus, who afterwards became converts to Christianity, could be dissolved under the Indian Divorce Act as the petitioner was a Christian at the time of presenting the petition. That case expressly rules that a decree of dissolution may be passed under that Act though the marriage \"was not performed according to Christian rites\". Since; here the petitioner has unequivocally alleged in her petition that she 'professes the Christian religion' this requirement of the Act is fulfilled\". The said decision also pointed out the proviso to S. 7 of the Indian Divorce Act....", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/982655/ | AIR1991MAD319, (1991)IMLJ271, AIR 1991 MADRAS 319, (1991) 1 MADLJ271, (1991) 2 HINDULR 4, (1992) MARRILJ 49, (1991) 2 CIVLJ 365", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1990, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1991MAD319, (1991)IMLJ271, AIR 1991 MADRAS 319, (1991) 1 MADLJ271, (1991) 2 HINDULR 4, (1992) MARRILJ 49, (1991) 2 CIVLJ 365", "Kanoon Doc ID": "982655", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/982655/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Dr.Rajiv Verghese vs Rosy Chakkrammakkil Francis on 1 December, 2022", "Case Number": "C.M.A.No.1539 of 2022", "Judgment Date": "2022-12-01", "Judges": "V.M.Velumani, J., Sunder Mohan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Family Courts Act, 1984", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 19, Section 24, Section 25, Section 28, Section 36, Section 397, Section 55, Section 96", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Partly_Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "[Judgment of the Court was made by SUNDER MOHAN, J.] The appellant/husband aggrieved by the order passed by the learned VII Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in I.D.O.P.No.1284 of 2019, directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.1,75,000/- per month to the wife, the respondent herein, has preferred the present appeal. 2. Heard Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/husband and Mr.Rahul Jagannathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife.", "Fact/ Respondent": "[Judgment of the Court was made by SUNDER MOHAN, J.] The appellant/husband aggrieved by the order passed by the learned VII Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in I.D.O.P.No.1284 of 2019, directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.1,75,000/- per month to the wife, the respondent herein, has preferred the present appeal.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (nullity sec19) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "11. The learned counsel for the respondent took us through the 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1539 of 2022 contents of the exhibits marked by the respondent before the Family Court, Chennai. Ex.P2 is an agreement entered into between the appellant and an Hospital in Kerala wherein the hospital agreed to pay a monthly salary of Rs.1,25,000/- to the appellant. Further, the agreement provided for 70% share to the appellant in the profit of the hospital. That apart, the lease agreement entered between the appellant and his mother on one hand and Mr.Jijo George, the lesseee on the other hand dated 01.06.2018 (Ex.P.3) would show that the appellant along with his mother was getting a monthly rent of Rs.2,73,301/-. The respondent further took us through Ex.P4, an agreement of sale entered into between the appellant and his mother on one side and M/s.Abad Builders Private Limited, wherein it is stated that the builder would pay the appellant and his mother the sale consideration in monthly installment of Rs.20 lakhs. The learned counsel further submitted that the Family Court, Chennai therefore had taken into...", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear.", "Decision": "4.Registry is directed to issue order copy after carrying out the above correction. The other contents of the judgment of this Court dated 01.12.2022 shall remain unaltered.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55261276/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2022, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "55261276", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55261276/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)", "Case Title": "Meesarapu Mary Ratnam vs Measarapu Babu Rao on 10 December, 1984", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1984-12-10", "Judges": "P. Chennakesav Reddy, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14, Section 17, Section 2, Section 50, Section 55, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Adultery; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. In this case which comes up before us on a reference by the District Judge under S. 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (Act IV of 1869), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', a question of considerable importance and frequent occurrence arises. The question is whether fresh notice of hearing should be effected on the party to be affected before a decree for dissolution of marriage under S.17 of the Act by the High Court. 2. For the full and proper appreciation of the problem posing for resolution, the facts may be made plain at the outset. The wife, Meesarapu Mary Ratnam presented a petition before the District Judge, West Godavari at Elura, for dissolution of the marriage with her husband Meesarapu Baburao under S.10 of the Act on grounds of adultery coupled with cruelty and desertion. The respondent husband on service of notice of the petition appeared by an advocate and filed a counter admitting the marriage and denying the allegation of adultery coupled with cruelty and desertion. But subsequently there was in representation on behalf of the respondent in the case. Therefore, he was set ex parte. After examining the petitioner and her witnesses, the learned District Judge granted a decree for dissolution of the marriage subject to confirmation by the High Court under S.17 of...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. For the full and proper appreciation of the problem posing for resolution, the facts may be made plain at the outset. The wife, Meesarapu Mary Ratnam presented a petition before the District Judge, West Godavari at Elura, for dissolution of the marriage with her husband Meesarapu Baburao under S.10 of the Act on grounds of adultery coupled with cruelty and desertion. The respondent husband on service of notice of the petition appeared by an advocate and filed a counter admitting the marriage and denying the allegation of adultery coupled with cruelty and desertion. But subsequently there was in representation on behalf of the respondent in the case. Therefore, he was set ex parte. After examining the petitioner and her witnesses, the learned District Judge granted a decree for dissolution of the marriage subject to confirmation by the High Court under S.17 of the Act and made a reference to the High Court for confirmation. Notice was sent to the respondent by the High Court, but it was returned unserved with the endorsement of the postman that no such person was present at the address given in the notice. The petitioner was not able to furnish the correct address of...", "Issues": "1. In this case which comes up before us on a reference by the District Judge under S. 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (Act IV of 1869), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', a question of considerable importance and frequent occurrence arises. The question is whether fresh notice of hearing should be effected on the party to be affected before a decree for dissolution of marriage under S.17 of the Act by the High Court. 2. For the full and proper appreciation of the problem posing for resolution, the facts may be made plain at the outset. The wife, Meesarapu Mary Ratnam presented a petition before the District Judge, West Godavari at Elura, for dissolution of the marriage with her husband Meesarapu Baburao under S.10 of the Act on grounds of adultery coupled with cruelty and desertion. The respondent husband on service of notice of the petition appeared...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "19. Now turning to the facts of this case, both the parties to the petition are Christians by religion. The husband was set ex parte. The learned District Judge on a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case by the wife held that the respondent-husband was guilty of adultery coupled with cruelty and desertion and granted a decree for dissolution of the marriage. Indeed it is clear from the order of the District Judge that the husband himself has admitted before PWs. 1 and 2 that he was guilty of adultery. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to confirm the decree granted by the District Judge.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/563709/ | AIR1985AP340, AIR 1985 ANDHRA PRADESH 340, 1985 MATLR 153, (1984) 2 ANDHLT 418, (1985) 1 HINDULR 123, (1985) 1 APLJ 1, (1985) 1 CURCC 637", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; adultery; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1984, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1985AP340, AIR 1985 ANDHRA PRADESH 340, 1985 MATLR 153, (1984) 2 ANDHLT 418, (1985) 1 HINDULR 123, (1985) 1 APLJ 1, (1985) 1 CURCC 637", "Kanoon Doc ID": "563709", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/563709/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Usborn Lewis vs Phylis Jordan on 23 May, 1985", "Case Number": "F.A.O. 155/82", "Judgment Date": "1985-05-23", "Judges": "Sunanda Bhandare, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 14, Section 16, Section 17, Section 55, Section 56, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "(2) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The appellant and respondent 1 being Christians were married according to Roman Catholic rites at St. Thomas Church, Calcutta on 26.11.49. A female child was born out of this wed-lock on25.l2.56. Since the appellant got a job at Delhi, the Appellant Along with respondent 1 shifted to Delhi in 1967. However, sometimes in 1974 respondent 1 returned to Calcutta and refused to come back to Delhi. The appellant persuaded her to come back but without any success. The appellant, therefore, filed a petition for judicial separation in the court of Adj, Delhi in 1979. Though notice was sent to respondent 1 she did not appear and therefore, the Adj on 1. 2 80 granted an ex-parte decree for Judicial separation. (3) On 15. 10. 80 a petition was filed by the appellant in the court of the Adj, Delhi for dissolution of marriage u/s 10 of the Acton the ground that respondent 1 was living in adultery with respondent 2. Since notice of the petition could not be served on either of the respondents the same was served by publication. Inspite of publication of the notice the respondents did not chose to appear before the Adj in the said proceedings and therefore, the proceedings were held ex-parte against...", "Fact/ Respondent": "(2) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The appellant and respondent 1 being Christians were married according to Roman Catholic rites at St. Thomas Church, Calcutta on 26.11.49. A female child was born out of this wed-lock on25.l2.56. Since the appellant got a job at Delhi, the Appellant Along with respondent 1 shifted to Delhi in 1967. However, sometimes in 1974 respondent 1 returned to Calcutta and refused to come back to Delhi. The appellant persuaded her to come back but without any success. The appellant, therefore, filed a petition for judicial separation in the court of Adj, Delhi in 1979. Though notice was sent to respondent 1 she did not appear and therefore, the Adj on 1. 2 80 granted an ex-parte decree for Judicial separation.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "(5) A separate application was filed by the appellant being C.M. No. 492 of 1985 praying that the High Court should exercise its power u/s 8 of the Act and dispose of the main petition on merits instead of remitting it back to the Adj for deciding it afresh. This prayer of the appellant also did not find favor with Single Judge and by a separate order dated 14. 2. 85 Single Judge refused to exercise jurisdiction u/s 8 of the Act. The appellant has filed this L.P.A. only against the order of remand made by Single Judge in F. A. O. 155/82 (6) It was contended by the counsel for the appellant that once the Single Judge had held that the judgment and order of Adj was patently illegal and absurd, the Single Judge ought to have allowed the appeal on merits and not remanded the case back for a fresh decision. It was contended that the Single Judge failed to appreciate that since the case had proceeded ex-parte all the evidence that could be available to the appellant...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "(16) We cannot part with this appeal without expressing our concern that this archaic Act of 1869 has remained as it was without any major amendment. The law roust keep pace with changing times. If it fails to do so it loses its efficacy. Where the marriage has broken down in fact it must also be dissolved by law. Modern law of divorce ought to achieve this object and the Indian Divorce Act is far too removed from this object. Law was brought on the Statute Book during British times when under Hindu law marriage remained a sacrament incapable of dissolution. Both the Hindu law and law of divorce in England has undergone a sea change whereas this Act has remained where it was. The Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act provide for divorce by mutual consent. Desertion and cruelty are grounds by themselves for divorce under the Statutes. On the other hand, under the Indian Divorce Act unless adultery is alleged and proved a decree for dissolution of marriage cannot be granted to the wife on the...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1552703/ | AIR1986DELHI72, 1986RLR175", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1985, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1986DELHI72, 1986RLR175", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1552703", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1552703/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Lavina Martin vs Sam Bosco Martin on 5 May, 2017", "Case Number": "FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.183 OF 2008", "Judgment Date": "2017-05-05", "Judges": "Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "The Appellant wife has by this application challenged the Court, Mumbai allowed the Petition under section 10(x) and 10(ix) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 filed by the Respondent-husband and dissolved the marriage solemnised between them. The marriage between the Appellant-wife and the Megha 1/21 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:16 ::: Megha fca_183_2008.doc Respondent-husband was solemnised on 2.1.1988 at St. Joseph Church, Umarkhadi, Mumbai as per Christian Rules and rituals. On 19.6.1989, a son was born in the wedlock. On 12 th October, 2006 the Respondent -husband filed a petition under section 10(x) and 10(ix) of the Divorce Act, 1869 for a decree of divorce.", "Fact/ Respondent": "The Appellant wife has by this application challenged the Court, Mumbai allowed the Petition under section 10(x) and 10(ix) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 filed by the Respondent-husband and dissolved the marriage solemnised between them.", "Issues": "27. The aforesaid evidence reveals that in the month of April- 1992 the Appellant-wife had gone to Kenya for about 15 days to see her brother. The mere fact that the Appellant-wife had visited her brother at Kenya with or without consent of the Respondent - husband, or that upon her return she had started residing at her parental house would not per say amount to desertion or final separation as alleged by the Respondent-husband. The moot question is whether the Appellant-wife had no intention of resuming cohabitation. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the evidence of Appellant-wife indicates that she had made attempts to join matrimonial house and that the Respondent-husband had not allowed her to resume cohabitation. The contention of the Appellant-wife is fortified by the fact that the Respondent-husband had issued a legal notice immediately after her return from Kenya. In the said legal...", "Petitioner Argument": "11. Mr. Mulla, the learned counsel for the Appellant-wife has assailed the judgment on the following grounds. a) The learned Judge has blindly accepted the allegations levelled against the Appellant-wife and discarded the case of the Appellant-wife without any cogent reason. b) The inference drawn by the learned Judge on the basis of the writing at Exhibit-16 that the Appellant-wife was avoiding physical relations with the Respondent-husband is totally erroneous. c) The learned Judge has failed to consider that the marriage was consummated and a child was born in the wedlock. Therefore, the finding that the Appellant-wife was frigid and psychologically impotent are totally contrary to the evidence on record. d) The learned Judge erred in holding that the Appellant- wife had subjected the Respondent-husband to cruelty. e) The learned Judge discarded the evidence of the Appellant-wife that she was forced to leave the matrimonial-home and that the efforts to resume co- Megha 6/21 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:16 ::: Megha fca_183_2008.doc habitation were frustrated by the Respondent-husband. f) The findings on cruelty and...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "was made in the majority judgment to the earlier decision in Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhawati (2) in which all the English decisions as also the statement contained in authorita- tive text books were considered. After referring to the two es- sential conditions, namely, the factum of physical separation and the animus deserendi which meant the intention to bring the cohabitation permanently to an end as also two elements Megha 15/21 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:17 ::: Megha fca_183_2008.doc so far as the deserted spouse was concerned i.e. (1) the absence of consent and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the inten- tion aforesaid, it was observed while examining how desertion might come to an end \"In the first place,, there must be con- duct on the part of the deserted spouse which affords just and reasonable cause for the deserting spouse not to seek reconcili- ation and which absolves her from her continuing obligation to return to the matrimonial home. In this one has to have re- gard to the conduct of the deserted spouse. But there is one other matter which...", "Decision": "31. Under the circumstances and in view of discussion (supra) the Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 17 th July, 2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Application No.192 of 2009 stands dismissed as not maintainable.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3294126/", "Review": "Needs Review", "Review Issues": "Duplicate Kanoon doc entry (matches row(s) 26)", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 2017, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "3294126", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3294126/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Thresiamma.P.J vs Bijo Abraham Varkey on 3 November, 2008", "Case Number": "OP.No. 22537 of 1998", "Judgment Date": "2008-11-03", "Judges": "M.N, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 16", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "This writ petition is filed u/s 10 of the Divorce Act for dissolution of marriage. It is a petition filed by the wife against the husband alleging cruelty. A brief reference to the writ petition would reveal that the unfortunate couples got married on 16.12.97 and immediately after three days the husband left for his place of work in gulf countries. The wife would allege that even for obtaining consent it was misrepresented that he is a graduate in science with diploma in polytechnic and thereafter it was revealed that he is only a S.S.L.C. with ITC and he did not have a salary of 1,200 Soudhi Riyal and only having 600 Soudhi Riyals. On persuasion of the husband the wife resigned her job and came back to the native place and then applied for employment in the place of work of the husband. During her stay in the husband's house she was deprived of her ornaments, she was deprived of her savings -2- and there was a further demand for Rs.50,000/- from the father of the petitioner and though there was some communication to start with between the husband and wife ultimately that also ended and the husband totally neglected the wife. Ultimately with the hope of joining the husband she secured a job in his place of work...", "Fact/ Respondent": "This writ petition is filed u/s 10 of the Divorce Act for dissolution of marriage. It is a petition filed by the wife against the husband alleging cruelty. A brief reference to the writ petition would reveal that the unfortunate couples got married on 16.12.97 and immediately after three days the husband left for his place of work in gulf countries. The wife would allege that even for obtaining consent it was misrepresented that he is a graduate in science with diploma in polytechnic and thereafter it was revealed that he is only a S.S.L.C. with ITC and he did not have a salary of 1,200 Soudhi Riyal and only having 600 Soudhi Riyals. On persuasion of the husband the wife resigned her job and came back to the native place and then applied for employment in the place of work of the husband. During her stay in the husband's house she was deprived of her ornaments, she was deprived of her savings -2- and there was a further demand for Rs.50,000/- from the father of the petitioner and though there was some communication to start with between the husband and wife ultimately that also ended and the husband totally...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "Therefore the O.P. is allowed and dissolution of marriage under clause (x) of sub- section 1 of Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 is granted and a decree Nisi is issued for dissolution of marriage u/s 16 of the Divorce Act.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1258284/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2008, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1258284", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1258284/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Nina Dalal vs Merwanji Pheeozshaw Dalal on 11 April, 1930", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1930-04-11", "Judges": "Amberson Marten, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 18, Section 2, Section 22, Section 32, Section 33, Section 4, Section 6, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This appeal comes before us on the preliminary issue whether this High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned trial Judge decided that issue in the negative feeling himself bound by a decision of the appellate Court in Nusserwanji Wadia v. Eleonora Wadia (1913) 15 Bom. L.R. 693, s.c. I.L.R. 38 Bom. 125. The petitioner now appeals, and as this is a Full Bench, we are not bound, as the learned Judge was, by that particular decision. So in effect this appeal is an appeal from the decision in Wadia v. Wadia . The sole ground on which it is contended by the respondent that the judgment should be upheld is that both parties to the petition are not Christians but only one, and that, consequently, the jurisdiction given or continued to this Court by the Indian Divorce Act 1869, as subsequently amended, does not apply. 2. As regards the facts, it is sufficient to say that the lady claims to be a Russian and a Christian who was married in Paris in June 1929 to the defendant, a Parsi, according to the law of France before the local mayor. A certificate of that marriage is annexed to the petition. She alleges that at her husband's invitation she subsequently...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This appeal comes before us on the preliminary issue whether this High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned trial Judge decided that issue in the negative feeling himself bound by a decision of the appellate Court in Nusserwanji Wadia v. Eleonora Wadia (1913) 15 Bom. L.R. 693, s.c. I.L.R. 38 Bom. 125. The petitioner now appeals, and as this is a Full Bench, we are not bound, as the learned Judge was, by that particular decision. So in effect this appeal is an appeal from the decision in Wadia v. Wadia . The sole ground on which it is contended by the respondent that the judgment should be upheld is that both parties to the petition are not Christians but only one, and that, consequently, the jurisdiction given or continued to this Court by the Indian Divorce Act 1869, as subsequently amended, does not apply.", "Issues": "28. The trial Court in deciding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition followed with some reluctance the decision of this Court in Wadia v. Wadia , and what this Bench has to decide is whether that case, in which it was decided that the High Court had no jurisdiction to grant a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against a respondent who is not a Christian or who is not within its jurisdiction, was correctly decided. I agree with the learned Chief Justice that our answer ought to be that Wadia v. Wadia was not correctly decided and that it should be overruled.", "Petitioner Argument": "1. This appeal comes before us on the preliminary issue whether this High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned trial Judge decided that issue in the negative feeling himself bound by a decision of the appellate Court in Nusserwanji Wadia v. Eleonora Wadia (1913) 15 Bom. L.R. 693, s.c. I.L.R. 38 Bom. 125. The petitioner now appeals, and as this is a Full Bench, we are not bound, as the learned Judge was, by that particular decision. So in effect this appeal is an appeal from the decision in Wadia v. Wadia . The sole ground on which it is contended by the respondent that the judgment should be upheld is that both parties to the petition are not Christians but only one, and that, consequently, the jurisdiction given or continued to this Court by the Indian Divorce Act 1869, as subsequently amended, does not apply.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "30. Sir Basil Scott's reasoning in Wadia v. Wadia was on these lines. He pointed out first that under Section 10 and the following sections of the Act the Court has jurisdiction to grant decrees for dissolution of marriage, but that is subject to the limitation contained in Section 2 , which does not require that both parties should be Christians. Apparently, he considered that the same would apply in the case of proceedings for nullity, but that appears to have been a slip, because the High Court's existing jurisdiction included jurisdiction to grant a decree for nullity and its powers in that respect therefore must be governed by Section 4 . Section 32 is the section of the Act which empowers the Courts to decree restitution of conjugal rights. As regards this, Sir Basil Scott held that there was another limitation besides the limitation laid down in Section 2 , Section 4 confirms in the case of the High Courts and confers on the District Courts the jurisdiction which was formerly exercised by the High Courts in respect of...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/577119/ | (1930)32BOMLR1046, **AIR 1930 BOMBAY 385", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 1930, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1930)32BOMLR1046, **AIR 1930 BOMBAY 385", "Kanoon Doc ID": "577119", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/577119/", "Chunks Indexed": 12 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "David Alias Balasaheb Sunderrao ... vs Kalpana Alias Mai Alias Vijayamala ... on 12 December, 1974", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1974-12-12", "Judges": "Gandhi, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 18, Section 19, Section 2, Section 22, Section 23, Section 3, Section 34, Section 37, Section 417, Section 537, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19; Adultery; Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a petition filed by the husband who is an Indian Christian under the Indian Divorce Act and under Clause 35 of the Letters Patent for obtaining a decree that his marriage with the respondent be declared null and void. The original petition has been amended pursuant to the order dated April 3, 1974 on April 17, 1974, making allegation that the respondent committed frequent acts of adultery with the co-respondent since December 6, 1970. An additional prayer has been made that in the alternative to the prayer of declaring the marriage null and void, the Court may pass a decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner. Though this was an ex parte matter, after recording the evidence of certain witnesses, my brother Kania J. felt that the petition raises some important questions of law and the Court would require assistance of some advocate and made an order requesting Mrs. Manohar to appear as amicus curiae to assist the Court. After this order, the petitioner has amended the petition and has also prayed for a decree for divorce as mentioned above. It is the case of the petitioner that in April 1968, one V.R. Lond he and one L.W. Bansode of Poona met petitioner's maternal uncle Rev. N.R. Pandit and made representations that respondent was a virgin;...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a petition filed by the husband who is an Indian Christian under the Indian Divorce Act and under Clause 35 of the Letters Patent for obtaining a decree that his marriage with the respondent be declared null and void. The original petition has been amended pursuant to the order dated April 3, 1974 on April 17, 1974, making allegation that the respondent committed frequent acts of adultery with the co-respondent since December 6, 1970. An additional prayer has been made that in the alternative to the prayer of declaring the marriage null and void, the Court may pass a decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner. Though this was an ex parte matter, after recording the evidence of certain witnesses, my brother Kania J. felt that the petition raises some important questions of law and the Court would require assistance of some advocate and made an order requesting Mrs. Manohar to appear as amicus curiae to assist the Court. After this order, the petitioner has amended the petition and has also prayed for a decree for divorce as mentioned above. It is the case of the petitioner that in April 1968, one V.R. Lond he and...", "Issues": "6. Mr. Sethna has further submitted that the petitioner has led evidence to show that certain representations were made and those representations were false. He further submits that the evidence discloses that the petitioner who was a believer in Christian religion, had made it clear that he would not have married the respondent unless she was a virgin and a woman of good character. He also submits that the petitioner would not have married the respondent if the representations which were made, were not made, but they were made to induce the petitioner to consent to a marriage. Mr. Sethna submits that there is sufficient evidence to draw an inference that the respondent's parents must have known that their daughter, the respondent, was not bearing good moral character or was not virgin and knowingly made false representations. He further submits that in any event the respondent was present when such...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "7. Mrs. Manohar who has been appearing as amicus curiae in this matter, submitted that unless the consent was obtained by such fraud as under Matrimonial law would entitle the petitioner to have the marriage declared invalid or obtain a decree of nullity, the petitioner would not be entitled to a decree. She further submitted that even if such fraud is established, the Court has to consider the conduct of the petitioner and to see whether such right to obtain a decree for nullity is lost to the petitioner by reason of acquiescence, approbation, condonation or waiver. She submitted that fraud under Matrimonial law must be of such a nature that the Court would come to the conclusion that there was no real consent to the marriage and submitted that this happens only in two ways; (1) if there is misunderstanding or mistake regarding the nature of ceremonies of the marriage; and (2) if there is a mistake regarding the identity of the person to whom the other person is married. She submitted further that no amount of mis-representation regarding the quality, status or fortune of the person which might have induced the other side to agree to marry will...", "Decision": "12. Coming to the next prayer of the petitioner as per the amended petition, the petitioner relies upon the frequent acts of adultery of the respondent with the co-respondent since December 6, 1970. The petitioner also relies upon the movement of the respondent with the co-respondent on December 10, 1970 and December 30, 1970. These facts are established by independent evidence of witness Prabhune and which evidence is not challenged and therefore, I hold that the petitioner has established that the respondent has been guilty of adultery and the petitioner is entitled to have his marriage dissolved on the ground that his wife has since the solemnization thereof, been guilty of adultery under Section 10 . I have already dealt with that part of the evidence while dealing with the evidence led by the petitioner and I hold that the petitioner is entitled to the relief under Section 10 as prayed for in the alternative prayer and I pass a decree of divorce declaring the said marriage being dissolved on that ground.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1617543/ | (1976)78BOMLR85", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19; adultery; cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1974, "Relief Status": "nullity", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1976)78BOMLR85", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1617543", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1617543/", "Chunks Indexed": 14 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "T.M. Bashiam vs M. Victor on 17 February, 1969", "Case Number": "O. P. No. 240 of 1962", "Judgment Date": "1969-02-17", "Judges": "M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 1, Section 10, Section 14, Section 17, Section 22, Section 7, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a reference by the learned District Judge of South Arcot at Cuddalore, under Sections 10 and 17 of the Indian Divorce Act (4 of 1869), for making absolute the decree nisi granted by him dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. As the entire reference involves an issue of law with regard to jurisdiction, and, further, an issue concerning which we are unable to see any room for doubt or difficulty, it is not necessary to canvass the merits, except to the strict extent required for the disposal of this reference. 2. It is admitted that in certain earlier proceedings between the parties, which are among the typed papers as O. P. No. 240 of 1962, a decree was granted in favour of the petitioner (the wife) for judicial separation from the respondent (the husband) under Section 22 of the Indian Divorce Act. The petitioner alleges that though four years have passed since that decree, there has been no resumption of matrimonial living between the parties. In brief she now desires that she should be granted a decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage, merely because of the lapse of an interval of four years after the decree for judicial separation under Section 22 .", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a reference by the learned District Judge of South Arcot at Cuddalore, under Sections 10 and 17 of the Indian Divorce Act (4 of 1869), for making absolute the decree nisi granted by him dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. As the entire reference involves an issue of law with regard to jurisdiction, and, further, an issue concerning which we are unable to see any room for doubt or difficulty, it is not necessary to canvass the merits, except to the strict extent required for the disposal of this reference.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "Further, we may point out that under Section 8 of the same Act, the High Court has the power to remove any cause from the Court of any District Judge, to itself. If a particular petitioner requires a trial on the original side of this Court, that petitioner has a mode of approach to this Court for redress by invoking this provision, of course, in a suitable case. Again, even a decree for dissolution granted by a learned single Judge of this Court is admittedly a decree nisi, and may be sub-icct to a Letters Patent Appeal under Sec-ion 15 of the Letters Patent. We are unable to see any principle of discrimination whatever in Section 17 of the Act, and we may finally observe that, even if such an argument has to be accepted tor the sake of hypothesis, it would still involve an adverse result to the petitioner, because the reference itself will have to be quashed, as well as the decree nisi of the learned District Judge.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/504250/ | AIR1970MAD12, AIR 1970 MADRAS 12, 1982 MADLW 422 ILR (1970) 1 MAD 591, ILR (1970) 1 MAD 591", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1969, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1970MAD12, AIR 1970 MADRAS 12, 1982 MADLW 422 ILR (1970) 1 MAD 591, ILR (1970) 1 MAD 591", "Kanoon Doc ID": "504250", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/504250/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Biju @ Abraham vs Reni @ Claramma on 28 October, 2010", "Case Number": "Mat.Appeal.No. 55 of 2011", "Judgment Date": "2010-10-28", "Judges": "Antony Dominic, J., P.D.Rajan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "These appeals are filed against the common judgment passed by the Family Court, Kottayam in O.P.(Div)No.1267/2009 and O.P.No.56/2010. 2. O.P.(Div)No.1267/2009 was filed by the appellant husband seeking divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty as provided under Section 10(ix) and (x) of the Indian Divorce Act 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). O.P.No.56/2010 was filed by the respondent wife, seeking return of 28 sovereigns of gold ornaments, Rs.1 lakh PF amount, steel almirah and certificates from the appellant. These cases were jointly tried and on behalf of the husband, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and on behalf of the wife, Rws 1 to 3 were examined. Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 and B2 were marked by both sides. The Family Court by the common judgment rendered on 28th October Mat. Appeal No.55/10 & con.case 2 2010 dismissed O.P.(Div)No.1267/2009 and partly allowed was also rejected. It is in these circumstances, the appellants have filed these appeals", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. O.P.(Div)No.1267/2009 was filed by the appellant husband seeking divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty as provided under Section 10(ix) and (x) of the Indian Divorce Act 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). O.P.No.56/2010 was filed by the respondent wife, seeking return of 28 sovereigns of gold ornaments, Rs.1 lakh PF amount, steel almirah and certificates from the appellant. These cases were jointly tried and on behalf of the husband, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and on behalf of the wife, Rws 1 to 3 were examined. Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 and B2 were marked by both sides. The Family Court by the common judgment rendered on 28th October Mat. Appeal No.55/10 & con.case 2 2010 dismissed O.P.(Div)No.1267/2009 and partly allowed was also rejected. It is in these circumstances, the appellants have filed these appeals", "Issues": "17. Now the question is whether the appellants in Mat. Appeal No.56/2011 are liable to return 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments. 18. As far as this issue is concerned, this liability arises only if it is proved by the wife that the ornaments in question were entrusted to the appellants. Insofar as this aspect of the matter is concerned, evidence is totally lacking and there is also no conclusive finding by the Family Court on this aspect. 19. For that reason, we are unable to sustain the Family Court required the appellants to return 20 sovereigns of gold Mat. Appeal No.55/10 & con.case 8 ornaments. Therefore, the decree passed by the Family Court, Kottayam in O.P.No.56/2010 to the extent it requires the appellants to return 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its then market value of Rs.2,60,000/- with 7% interest from the date of the suit, is set aside. 20....", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "2. O.P.(Div)No.1267/2009 was filed by the appellant husband seeking divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty as provided under Section 10(ix) and (x) of the Indian Divorce Act 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). O.P.No.56/2010 was filed by the respondent wife, seeking return of 28 sovereigns of gold ornaments, Rs.1 lakh PF amount, steel almirah and certificates from the appellant. These cases were jointly tried and on behalf of the husband, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and on behalf of the wife, Rws 1 to 3 were examined. Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 and B2 were marked by both sides. The Family Court by the common judgment rendered on 28th October Mat. Appeal No.55/10 & con.case 2 2010 dismissed O.P.(Div)No.1267/2009 and partly allowed O.P.No.56/2010. The counter claim raised by the appellant was also rejected. It is in these circumstances, the appellants have filed these appeals 3. Insofar as Mat. Appeal No.55/2011 arising out of O.P.(Div)No.1267/2010 is concerned, as already stated by us, the grounds urged are desertion and cruelty. 4. Insofar as plea of desertion is concerned, Section 10 (ix) of the Act permits divorce on this ground, if it is proved that the respondent...", "Decision": "ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE acd Mat. Appeal No.55/10 & con.case 9 Mat. Appeal No.55/10 & con.case 10", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/104118662/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2010, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "104118662", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/104118662/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Mariasoosai vs Clara Mary on 22 August, 1994", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1994-08-22", "Judges": "Srinivasan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 16, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 4, Section 45, Section 5, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Decree of Nullity Adjudicated", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This case raises an interesting question of law. The original petition is one filed under S. 4 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 by the husband for a decree declaring that the alleged marriage between him and the respondent is null and void and consequently, the respondent is not his legally wedded wife. In the petition, it is stated that he was having intimacy with the respondent for a few months and in order to compel him to marry her, the respondent's parents and relatives, with the help of the police, by force got executed a deed of marriage on paper bearing Rs. 2.50 stamp on the 27th October, 1988 and got it registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Andimadam. According to the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 , a Christian marriage can be solemnized only in any of the modes prescribed in S. 5 of the said Act. No formality or ceremony was gone through and only an agreement was executed as stated earlier and that too, under compulsion. The registration of the document would not amount to registration of the marriage and therefore, the marriage is null and void. 2. The respondent remained ex parte and the petitioner gave evidence in support of the allegations made in the petition. He has marked...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This case raises an interesting question of law. The original petition is one filed under S. 4 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 by the husband for a decree declaring that the alleged marriage between him and the respondent is null and void and consequently, the respondent is not his legally wedded wife. In the petition, it is stated that he was having intimacy with the respondent for a few months and in order to compel him to marry her, the respondent's parents and relatives, with the help of the police, by force got executed a deed of marriage on paper bearing Rs. 2.50 stamp on the 27th October, 1988 and got it registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Andimadam. According to the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 , a Christian marriage can be solemnized only in any of the modes prescribed in S. 5 of the said Act. No formality or ceremony was gone through and only an agreement was executed as stated earlier and that too, under compulsion. The registration of the document would not amount to registration of the marriage and therefore, the marriage is null and void.", "Issues": "11. As the section refers to the principles and rules on which the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in England for the time being acts and gives relief; it is necessary to refer to the English law on the subject and at the same time, we must bear in mind that the law in England cannot be imported into the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act , if it is contrary to the provisions of the said Act. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, at page 258 in paragraph 529, it is stated that no action or other proceeding is open to objection on the ground that a merely declaratory judgment or order is sought thereby and the High Court may make binding declarations of right whether or not any consequential relief is or could be claimed. In para 531 it is stated that if anyone persistently and...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "Perhaps, in 1934, when the case was decided, there was no provision in the English law conferring jurisdiction to grant a decree for nullity of marriage on a statutory ground and, therefore, the matter was not discussed in that light. However, we are not in agreement with the observation of the learned Judge that S. 7 does not confer any additional jurisdiction. In our judgment, in so far as S. 7 enacts that action is to be taken on English principles and rules by the Indian Court and not merely in the matter of granting of relief, that section lays down that the Indian Court shall exercise the same jurisdiction which the English Courts enjoy at the time when the question arises.\"", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/838393/ | AIR1995MAD35, II(1995)DMC562, AIR 1995 MADRAS 35, (1995) 2 DMC 562, (1996) MARRILJ 74, (1995) 2 CIVLJ 516, (1995) 3 CURCC 248, (1995) 2 MAD LW 44, (1995) 1 HINDULR 275, (1995) 1 MAD LJ 282", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 1994, "Relief Status": "nullity", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1995MAD35, II(1995)DMC562, AIR 1995 MADRAS 35, (1995) 2 DMC 562, (1996) MARRILJ 74, (1995) 2 CIVLJ 516, (1995) 3 CURCC 248, (1995) 2 MAD LW 44, (1995) 1 HINDULR 275, (1995) 1 MAD LJ 282", "Kanoon Doc ID": "838393", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/838393/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Punjab-Haryana High Court", "Case Title": "Neha vs Ashok Kumar on 20 September, 2022", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2022-09-20", "Judges": "Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 125, Section 24", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 10 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, titled as Ashok Kumar vs. Neha , pending before the Family Court, Gurdaspur to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Pathankot. \"9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 10 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, titled as Ashok Kumar vs. Neha , pending before the Family Court, Gurdaspur to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Pathankot.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is having two minor children, who are living in her care and custody, therefore, it is very difficult for her to defend the said case at Gurdaspur. 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2022 12:52:10 ::: TA-1115-2022 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay , 2002 SC 396 and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC 237, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that \"while deciding the transfer application, the Courts are required to give more weightage and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships.\" Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, considering the fact that issuance of...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "20.09.2022 (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) Waseem Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2022 12:52:11 :::", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/164255174/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2022, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "164255174", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/164255174/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)", "Case Title": "Choppala Lalitha Kumari vs Gogulamudi Bhaskara Rao on 6 October, 2005", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2005-10-06", "Judges": "P.S. Narayana, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 19, Section 3, Section 4, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Heard Sri B. Devadas, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner. The matter is coming up for orders of this Court on an objection taken by the office while numbering the O.P. filed by the petitioner under Section 10-A(1) read with Section 8 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter in short referred to as \"Act\" for the purpose of convenience). 2. This O.P is presented before this Court praying for dissolution of marriage on the strength of an agreement dated 26-11-1984. It is stated that the elders had settled the matter and in pursuance thereto, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. The office raised an objection \"it should be stated how this petition can be presented in the High Court directly without approaching District Court in view of the provisions of Amendment Act (Act 51/2001) which came into force from 3-10-2001\". It was also pointed out \"petition may be filed in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it as per Section 15 C.P.C.\" Complying with the office objections, the counsel for the petitioner re-presented the Original Petition and stated.\" Prior to Amendment Act 51/2001 this Hon'ble Court has got jurisdiction to deal with the Matrimonial Cases. In this case, the department issued proceedings to submit Decree of Divorce after 20 years of service...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. This O.P is presented before this Court praying for dissolution of marriage on the strength of an agreement dated 26-11-1984. It is stated that the elders had settled the matter and in pursuance thereto, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. The office raised an objection \"it should be stated how this petition can be presented in the High Court directly without approaching District Court in view of the provisions of Amendment Act (Act 51/2001) which came into force from 3-10-2001\". It was also pointed out \"petition may be filed in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it as per Section 15 C.P.C.\" Complying with the office objections, the counsel for the petitioner re-presented the Original Petition and stated.\" Prior to Amendment Act 51/2001 this Hon'ble Court has got jurisdiction to deal with the Matrimonial Cases. In this case, the department issued proceedings to submit Decree of Divorce after 20 years of service in the Department. As per Section 8 of the Act, the High Court has got extraordinary jurisdiction to deal with such cases. Hence petition is maintainable\".", "Issues": "(2) that the parties are within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity (whether natural or legal) or affinity; (3) that either party was a lunatic or idiot at the time of the marriage; (4) that the former husband or wife of either party was living at the time of the marriage, and the marriage with such former husband or wife was then in force. Nothing in this section shall affect the jurisdiction of the District Court to make decrees of nullity of marriage on the ground that the consent of either party was obtained by force or fraud. 10-A. Dissolution of marriage by mutual consent:- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under, a petition for dissolution of marriage may be presented to the District Court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of...", "Petitioner Argument": "4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "22. Though the facts of the said case are slightly different, the Full Bench arrived at a definite conclusion that though Section 10-A of the Act refers to District Court, there is no impediment or bar to the High Court in granting decree of divorce on mutual consent. Herein is a case where the wife is approaching this Court by filling O.P. on the ground that way back in 1984 by virtue of an agreement, wife and husband separated themselves. It is one thing to say that at the time of confirmation when an application to grant a decree for divorce on mutual consent is made the same has to be considered by this Court, it is yet another aspect to entertain original petition praying for divorce at the first instance without invoking the jurisdiction of the District Court.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1651492/ | 2005(6)ALT628, I(2006)DMC607", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 2005, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2005(6)ALT628, I(2006)DMC607", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1651492", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1651492/", "Chunks Indexed": 13 }, { "Court": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Benzmin vs Rundbhai on 7 December, 1987", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1987-12-07", "Judges": "Faizan Uddin, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 20, Section 22, Section 24, Section 25", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a reference made by the learned District Judge, Hoshangabad for confirmation of decree of judicial separation under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') passed in Matrimonial Civil Suit No. 38-A of 1986. 2. The petitioner and respondent were married according to the Christian religion in the Methodist Church of Igatpuri on 15-5-1963. Both lived together happily as husband and wife till May, 1964 at Harda. Since the respondent wife was in the family way and the petitioner was transferred from Harda to Itarsi, the respondent went to her parents at Igatpuri and stayed with them. The respondent gave birth to a female child named Margret. According to the petitioner husband, he made concerted efforts to bring back his respondent wife and his daughter Margret to his place but she did not turn up as she had taken up a job as Assistant Teacher in Marathi Girls School, Igatpuri. His daughter Margret committed suicide in March, 1985 and thereafter the petitioner initiated proceedings for judicial separation against his wife respondent under Sections 22 / 23 of the Act on the ground of desertion without any reasonable cause for about 20 years. Despite the service of notice the respondent preferred to remain absent in the trial Court and the learned District...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The petitioner and respondent were married according to the Christian religion in the Methodist Church of Igatpuri on 15-5-1963. Both lived together happily as husband and wife till May, 1964 at Harda. Since the respondent wife was in the family way and the petitioner was transferred from Harda to Itarsi, the respondent went to her parents at Igatpuri and stayed with them. The respondent gave birth to a female child named Margret. According to the petitioner husband, he made concerted efforts to bring back his respondent wife and his daughter Margret to his place but she did not turn up as she had taken up a job as Assistant Teacher in Marathi Girls School, Igatpuri. His daughter Margret committed suicide in March, 1985 and thereafter the petitioner initiated proceedings for judicial separation against his wife respondent under Sections 22 / 23 of the Act on the ground of desertion without any reasonable cause for about 20 years. Despite the service of notice the respondent preferred to remain absent in the trial Court and the learned District Judge passed an ex parte decree for judicial separation in favour of the husband-petitioner and against the wife-respondent on 13th January, 1987. The...", "Issues": "4. The reference made by the learned District Judge appears to be wholly misconceived and, therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we shall first examine whether the law requires a decree for judicial separation to be confirmed by the High Court.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "9. In view of the aforesaid decision taken by us, it is now not necessary for us to go into the questions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent and we decline to express any opinion about the same.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "8. The aforesaid conclusion further finds support from the subsequent sections that is Sections 24 and 25 of the Act. It may be pointed that expression \"such decree shall have the effect of a divorce a mensa et thoro, under the existing law, and such other legal effect as hereinafter mentioned\", appearing at the end of Section 22 . of the Act, are very significant and meaningful (Emphasis provided). The provision for legal effect of a decree for judicial separation is made in Sections 24 and 25 of the Act. Section 24 provides that in every case of a judicial separation under the Act, the wife shall from the date of sentence (Judicial Separation is treated as sentence) and whilst the separation continues, be considered as unmarried with respect to property of every description which she may acquire, or which may come to or devolve upon her. Again Section 25 provides that in every case of Judicial separation the wife shall be considered as an unmarried woman for the purposes of contract and wrongs and injuries and suing and being...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/540325/ | AIR1989MP25, AIR 1989 MADHYA PRADESH 25, (1988) 2 CIV LJ 643, (1988) 24 REPORTS 411, (1988) JAB LJ 721, (1988) 2 HINDULR 657, (1988) 2 DMC 426, (1988) MPLJ 500, (1988) 2 CURCC 786", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; adultery", "Judgment Year": 1987, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1989MP25, AIR 1989 MADHYA PRADESH 25, (1988) 2 CIV LJ 643, (1988) 24 REPORTS 411, (1988) JAB LJ 721, (1988) 2 HINDULR 657, (1988) 2 DMC 426, (1988) MPLJ 500, (1988) 2 CURCC 786", "Kanoon Doc ID": "540325", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/540325/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Abraham Kurian Plamthottam vs Reenu Aliyamma Cherian on 30 June, 2026", "Case Number": "2026:KER:46426", "Judgment Date": "2026-06-30", "Judges": "Sathish Ninan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "A petition filed under Section 10(ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 (\"the Act\", for short), by the husband was dismissed by the Family Court, Ettumanoor. Aggrieved thereby, the husband has preferred this appeal. 2. The appellant married the respondent on 26.12.2011 in accordance with Christian religious rites and ceremonies. The appellant alleges that their matrimonial relationship completely broke down on account of the cruel conduct of the respondent towards him and his mother. According to him, the respondent made false and scandalous allegations against him and his mother, thereby subjecting him to cruelty. The appellant further alleges that the respondent had been undergoing regular medical treatment but never disclosed to him the actual nature of her illness. According to the appellant, when he realised that the respondent had been making false allegations against him and his mother, he arranged several counselling sessions, which both parties Mat.Appeal No.204/2022 3 2026:KER:46426 attended. However, all such attempts proved futile. It is also alleged that the respondent deserted the appellant on 13.01.2013. Accordingly, the appellant filed the petition for divorce, about five years after the marriage.", "Fact/ Respondent": "A petition filed under Section 10(ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 (\"the Act\", for short), by the husband was dismissed by the Family Court, Ettumanoor. Aggrieved thereby, the husband has preferred this appeal.", "Issues": "9. In the light of the rival contentions, the point that arises for determination is whether the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 10. The appellant seeks a decree of divorce primarily on the allegation that, from the very inception of the marriage, the respondent showed no interest in leading a normal matrimonial life as she was suffering from an illness or disease, the details of which she never disclosed to him. It is further alleged that the respondent caused him severe mental agony and hardship by her various acts of cruelty.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "8. Considering the comparatively young age of the appellant and the respondent and the repeated assertion made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent-wife was willing to resume cohabitation, we thought it appropriate to interact Mat.Appeal No.204/2022 6 2026:KER:46426 with both parties. However, the interaction did not instill in us any confidence that there remains a realistic possibility of reconciliation.", "Factors to be Considered": "16. In Shaji Sebastian v. Julie Joseph (2026 (1) KHC 523), this Court observed that the expression \"cruelty\" occurring in Section 10(ix) of the Act cannot be assigned a different standard Mat.Appeal No.204/2022 12 2026:KER:46426 from that applicable to the similar expression employed in other matrimonial statutes. It is settled that where the mental cruelty suffered by one spouse is of such a degree that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together, a decree of divorce may be granted ( Shri Kumar V. Unnithan v. Manju K. Nair (supra)). Whether a particular conduct amounts to cruelty depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, including the social status, educational background and professional standing of the parties. What constitutes cruelty in one case may not necessarily amount to cruelty in another, it is held.", "Decision": "In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned decree and judgment. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent is dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 10 (ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act .", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68419600/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "68419600", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68419600/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Vanitha Arockiyam vs Immanuvel Thomas on 16 March, 2022", "Case Number": "I.D.O.P.No.87 of 2004", "Judgment Date": "2022-03-16", "Judges": "R.Subramanian, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 55", "Legal Topics": "Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "Challenge in this appeal is to the decree for divorce granted by the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli in I.D.O.P.No.87/2004 on the ground that the appellant had deserted her husband in terms of Section 10(ix) of the Divorce Act, 1869. 2. According to the husband, the spouses were married on 02.07.1999 and a male child was born out of the said wedlock on 08.05.2000. Though the wife was behaving indifferently, she went for delivery to her parents' house and did not return thereafter. All his efforts to bring her back were in vain. The husband would also claim that she apart from deserting him wilfully, without any reasonable excuse, the wife also committed cruelty by refusing to live with his parents.", "Fact/ Respondent": "Challenge in this appeal is to the decree for divorce granted by the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli in I.D.O.P.No.87/2004 on the ground that the appellant had deserted her husband in terms of Section 10(ix) of the Divorce Act, 1869.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (desertion) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "7. Despite his best efforts, the learned counsel for the appellant is unable to pick holes in the conclusion of the learned District Judge and the finding reached by him regarding the factum of desertion. Though a faint attempt is made by the learned counsel to contend that it is because of her employment, the wife was living away at Kumarapalayam, the same was not accepted by the learned District Judge, as the wife was earlier working in Page 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA(MD)No.981 of 2008 the husband's place at Murasampatti and she quit the job and joined the job at Kumarapalayam.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "8. In the above backdrop, I do not find any infirmity in the decree passed by the learned trial Judge and the civil miscellaneous appeal fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193277983/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion", "Judgment Year": 2022, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "193277983", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193277983/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Christinamary Stella vs Dr. Vijay Siddharaj And Anr. on 7 September, 1978", "Case Number": "No. 9401 of 1978", "Judgment Date": "1978-09-07", "Judges": "T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 3, Section 47", "Legal Topics": "Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This case comes up before us for confirmation of the order passed by the District Judge, Pudukkottai, who allowed the petition filed by the first wife and dissolved the marriage as between the petitioner and the first respondent on the ground that the first respondent contracted a second marriage with the second respondent after the solemnisation of the first marriage and that the first respondent deserted the petitioner and is permanently living with the second respondent and had a child through her also. The facts, as disclosed in the petition, are that the first respondent married the petitioner on 19th February, 1973 in the Sacred Heart Church, Pudukkottai, and the marriage solemnisation certificate, though not filed in the trial Court, has been filed in this Court which we mark as Exhibit C-1. Having thus married the petitioner on 19th February, 1973, it appears that the first respondent married again, 20 days thereafter on the 11th of March 1973, the second respondent and was not frequenting the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that after the first respondent took the second respondent as his wife without her knowledge and consent, the first respondent suppressed such an act of adultery and neglected the petitioner also far a considerable length of time. The petitioner's further ease is that by mistake she...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This case comes up before us for confirmation of the order passed by the District Judge, Pudukkottai, who allowed the petition filed by the first wife and dissolved the marriage as between the petitioner and the first respondent on the ground that the first respondent contracted a second marriage with the second respondent after the solemnisation of the first marriage and that the first respondent deserted the petitioner and is permanently living with the second respondent and had a child through her also. The facts, as disclosed in the petition, are that the first respondent married the petitioner on 19th February, 1973 in the Sacred Heart Church, Pudukkottai, and the marriage solemnisation certificate, though not filed in the trial Court, has been filed in this Court which we mark as Exhibit C-1. Having thus married the petitioner on 19th February, 1973, it appears that the first respondent married again, 20 days thereafter on the 11th of March 1973, the second respondent and was not frequenting the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that after the first respondent took the second respondent as his wife without her knowledge and consent, the first respondent suppressed such an act of adultery...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (desertion) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "5. The only other ground of attack by the learned Counsel for the first respondent is that the allegation as to collusion has not been expressly mentioned and that such a reference as to collusion is the sine qua non for the grant of relief under the Indian Divorce Act . No doubt, the language of Section 47 of the Divorce Act says that every petition under the Act for a decree of dissolution of marriage, or of nullity of marriage, or of judicial separation shall state that there is not any collusion or connivance between the petitioner and the other party to the marriage. Rightly, therefore, an accent is given to the verb \"shall\" appearing in Section 47 and the contention of Mrs. Rajendran is that in the absence of compliance with the imperative guideline set in Section 47 , the petition has to fail. We are of the view that the use of the word \"shall\" in Section 47 ought not to be understood in such a rigid manner. Collusion as between the two spouses in order to...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1474626/ | (1979)1MLJ57, AIR 1979 MADRAS 100, (1979) 1 MADLJ57, 1992 MADLW 110, (1978) 10 LAWYER 224, (1979) MATLR 202, (1978) 92 MAD LW 110", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion", "Judgment Year": 1978, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1979)1MLJ57, AIR 1979 MADRAS 100, (1979) 1 MADLJ57, 1992 MADLW 110, (1978) 10 LAWYER 224, (1979) MATLR 202, (1978) 92 MAD LW 110", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1474626", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1474626/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Bombay High Court", "Case Title": "Asis Ubaldo Rodrigues And Ors. vs Maria Asis Rodrigues And Anr. on 13 January, 2006", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2006-01-13", "Judges": "Lodha R.M, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001; Family Courts Act, 1984", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 17, Section 19, Section 2, Section 20, Section 3, Section 4, Section 7, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Disposed_Of", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Pune passed the judgment on 9th August, 1996 dissolving the marriage between the parties under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act and has referred the matter to this Court for confirmation. This is how this civil reference has been placed before us. 2. Asis and Maria got married on 24.1.1982 as per Christian religious rites at Pune. Out of the wedlock, three daughters were born. The matrimonial relationship between the parties got disturbed on diverse grounds. According to Asis, Maria was suffering from some mental disorder prior to the marriage but that was not disclosed. Allegedly after few days of the marriage, Maria started quarreling with Asis and also used to insult his old parents. Maria was taken to Dr. Naik for her medical examination but she refused to cooperate. Maria left the matrimonial home on 24.8.1990 without telling Asis and without his consent. Asis alleged that Maria developed intimate relations with John Victor D\"Souza and was having illicit relations with him. In this backdrop, Asis prayed that the marriage solemnized between the parties on 24:971982 be dissolved and decree be passed.", "Fact/ Respondent": "6. The Indian Divorce Act, 1869 came into operation on the 1st April, 1869. The Act is applicable where either of the parties profess Christian religion and are married in accordance with Christian religious rites and customs. Section 2 provides the extent of power of the court to make decrees of dissolution of marriage or make decrees of nullity of marriage. Section 10 sets out the grounds for dissolution of marriage on diverse grounds in a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife. Section 17 provides that every decree for dissolution of marriage made by the District Court shall be subject to the confirmation by the High Court. It further provides that cases for confirmation of the decree for dissolution of marriage shall be heard (where the number of the Judges of the High Court is three or upwards) by a Court composed of three such Judges. In the scheme of the Act, first, the decree for dissolution of marriage is passed by the District Judge. That decree is called decree nisi. Then the District Judge refers the said decree to the High Court for confirmation. Section 17 of the Act, prior to the...", "Issues": "5. The first question that falls for our consideration is whether the procedure of decree nisi under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 is required to be followed in a case where the petition has been tried and decided by the Family Court under the Family Courts Act, 1984 . 10. The Division Bench of this court in Jyotsna Suresh Jagtap v. Suresh John Jagtap 2001(3) Bom. C.R. 14 was seized with the question \"whether after coming into force of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and the establishment of Family Courts Act , the procedure of decree nisi followed by confirmation by the High Court under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 is to be followed by the Family Court\".", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "9. From the survey of the aforesaid provisions of the Family Courts Act , it can reasonably be concluded that the procedure contemplated in the Indian Divorce Act stood over-ridden on coming into force the Family Courts Act in the State of Maharashtra. The procedure of decree nisi and confirmation by the High Court as provided in the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 has to give way to the procedure provided in the Family Courts Act . The decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the Family Court needs no confirmation since in our considered view the provisions of Family Courts Act shall prevail over the provisions of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 so far as procedural aspects are concerned. The judgement of the Family Court is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under section 19 and is not subject to confirmation as provided in Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 as it stood prior to the amendment in the year 2001.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/659710/ | AIR2006BOM143, 2006(1)BOMCR705, 2006(2)CTC32, II(2006)DMC591, [2006(3)JCR20], 2006(2)MHLJ407, 2009 (4) AIR BOM R 285, AIR 2006 BOMBAY 143, 2006 (3) ALL LJ 186, 2006 (2) AIR BOM R 119, 2006 (3) AIR KANT HCR 220, 2006 A I H C 1670, (2006) 1 HINDULR 686, (2006) 2 ALLMR 402 (BOM), (2006) 41 ALLINDCAS 844 (BOM), (2006) 2 MAH LJ 407, (2006) 2 CTC 32 (BOM), (2006) 3 JCR 20 (BOM), (2006) 1 DMC 867, (2006) 4 EASTCRIC 197, (2006) 1 BOM CR 705", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 2006, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR2006BOM143, 2006(1)BOMCR705, 2006(2)CTC32, II(2006)DMC591, [2006(3)JCR20], 2006(2)MHLJ407, 2009 (4) AIR BOM R 285, AIR 2006 BOMBAY 143, 2006 (3) ALL LJ 186, 2006 (2) AIR BOM R 119, 2006 (3) AIR KANT HCR 220, 2006 A I H C 1670, (2006) 1 HINDULR 686, (2006) 2 ALLMR 402 (BOM), (2006) 41 ALLINDCAS 844 (BOM), (2006) 2 MAH LJ 407, (2006) 2 CTC 32 (BOM), (2006) 3 JCR 20 (BOM), (2006) 1 DMC 867, (2006) 4 EASTCRIC 197, (2006) 1 BOM CR 705", "Kanoon Doc ID": "659710", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/659710/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Doris Padmavathy vs V. Christodass on 11 February, 1969", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1969-02-11", "Judges": "M. Anantanarayanan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 22", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a reference under Sections 10 and 17 of the Indian Divorce Act IV of 1869 made by the learned District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, for confirmation of the decree nisi granted by him dissolving the marriage between Doris Padmavathi (petitioner) and her husband v. Christodass (respondent). We may state, at the outset, that the respondent has remained ex parte throughout, and that the petitioner seeks divorce on the ground specified in a clause of Section 10 of the Act, namely, \"adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to divorce a mensa et thoro.\" 2. The facts are quite simple. In her petition, the petitioner states that she married the respondent on 15-9-1958, according to the rights of the Christian religion. Immediately after the marriage, the husband and wife lived together at Bhilai and later at Tiruchirapalli. The respondent was then transferred in 1961 to the Thermal Station at the Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The respondent was in poor health and began to act in a cruel manner towards the petitioner, sometimes even using physical violence. She tolerated this, hoping that his conduct would improve, as also, his health. On 17-9-1966, the respondent was enraged at the refusal of the petitioner to give finance for a foreign trip, and he beat her and actually attempted to...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a reference under Sections 10 and 17 of the Indian Divorce Act IV of 1869 made by the learned District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, for confirmation of the decree nisi granted by him dissolving the marriage between Doris Padmavathi (petitioner) and her husband v. Christodass (respondent). We may state, at the outset, that the respondent has remained ex parte throughout, and that the petitioner seeks divorce on the ground specified in a clause of Section 10 of the Act, namely, \"adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to divorce a mensa et thoro.\"", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "8. As has been the course taken by us in similar cases where cruelty alone is proved, and not adultery, we are competent to grant a decree for judicial separation under Section 22 of the Act, on the ground of the established grave cruelty, In the present case also, we accept the reference to this extent, and grant a decree for judicial separation between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, if the alleged adulterous relationship between the respondent and a third party is even now continuing, it may be open to the petitioner to take out fresh proceedings for divorce upon that fresh and future cause of action. We do not desire to make any observations in anticipation on such a matter; but if the necessary facts exist, the petitioner may certainly proceed to such remedies at law as the petitioner may be advised to take. No order as to costs throughout.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1246170/ | AIR1970MAD188, AIR 1970 MADRAS 188, 1982 MADLW 595 (1969) 2 MADLJ645, (1969) 2 MADLJ645", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1969, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1970MAD188, AIR 1970 MADRAS 188, 1982 MADLW 595 (1969) 2 MADLJ645, (1969) 2 MADLJ645", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1246170", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1246170/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati", "Case Title": "Sanadakka Divya Prasanthi vs Sandaka Srikanth on 31 October, 2025", "Case Number": "M.O.P. No.131 / 2025", "Judgment Date": "2025-10-31", "Judges": "Venuthurumalli Gopala, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 151, Section 24, Section 85", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. The petitioner/wife herein filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short „ the C.P.C .‟) seeking for withdrawal of C.M.O.P.No.131 of 2025 on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Narsapuram, West Godavari District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, for trial and disposal of the same. I. The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and their marriage was performed on 05.10.2022, in the presence of both side elders and well wishers at Sithara Function Hall, Vijayawada, as per the Christian Marriage Religious, Rites and Caste Customs. During their wedlock, the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband were blessed with a male child on 31.07.2023. After that, due to the matrimonial disputes between the spouses; the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her child aged about two (2) years in her parents‟ house at Vijayawada. The petition/wife further pleaded that in view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint dated 07.04.2025 against the respondent/husband herein, which was registered as F.I.R.No.22 of 2025, for the offences punishable under Section 85 of B.N.S. Act, 2023 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The petitioner/wife herein filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short „ the C.P.C .‟) seeking for withdrawal of C.M.O.P.No.131 of 2025 on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Narsapuram, West Godavari District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, for trial and disposal of the same.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Today, when the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that proof of service Memo has been field before the Registry on 30.10.2025 vide U.S.R.No.123433 of 2025 and the same is placed on the record. As per the Registry endorsement, notice was sent to the respondent and the same was served on 24.09.2025. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, „service held sufficient‟. III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately along with her child aged about two (2) years and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Vijayawada and the distance between Vijayawada and Narsapuram is more than 130Kms, it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings which was filed by the respondent/husband, before the Court at Narsapuram without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking for withdrawal of C.M.O.P.No.131 of 2025 on the file of the...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "11. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the C.M.O.P.No.131 of 2025 on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Narsapuram, West Godavari District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The learned X Additional District Judge, Narsapuram, West Godavari District, shall transmit the case record in C.M.O.P.No.131 of 2025, to the Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/164169846/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "164169846", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/164169846/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "'A' vs 'B' on 20 October, 2000", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2000-10-20", "Judges": "D. Sreedevi, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Nullity Sec19; Desertion", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Petitioner under Sections 10 , 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act. Petitioner Is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The petitioner is a member of the Church of South India and the respondent is a member of Syrian Jacobite Christian Community. 2. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was a practising Gynaecologist after having passed her M.B.B.S. and D.G.O. and at present she is employed at S.U.T. Hospital, Trivandrum. The respondent is an Engineer employed in Traco Cables Ltd.. a Public sector Undertaking of the Government of Kerala. Their marriage was solemnized on 29-11-1993 at Syrian Jacobite Puthen Church, Kundara as per the religious custom prevailing among the member of the Syrian Jacobite Church. It was an arranged marriage. The proposal for the marriage appeared in the matrimonial column of the Malayala Manorama, on behalf of the respondent. This was followed by negotiation among the members of the petitioner's and respondent's families and the marriage was later settled.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. Petitioner under Sections 10 , 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act. Petitioner Is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The petitioner is a member of the Church of South India and the respondent is a member of Syrian Jacobite Christian Community.", "Issues": "1. Whether the consent of the petitioner was obtained by fraud ? 2. Whether the petitioner was treated with cruelty and 3. Whether the petitioner was deserted for a period of two years and upwards ? 4. Reliefs and costs. 10. The next question is whether the respondent is holding a chartered gulf employment. The respondent as RW-1 stated that he has disclosed all his educational qualifications and job to the petitioner and her parents. Exhibit B5 is the letter issued by the General Manager of Traco Cables asking his willingness to undergo training in Spain on condition to serve the Company for five years after training. This would go to show that there was a proposal to send Engineers of Traco Cable Ltd., including the petitioner, for training abroad. According to him, it is a stepping stone for seeking employment abroad. He has also stated that if he gets...", "Petitioner Argument": "5. The petitioner gradually discovered that the respondent was playing fraud on her. The story of having secured employment in Saudi Arabia and the related matters were all utter falsehood. The papers and documents shown at the time of negotiation, before marriage, were all frabricated. The petitioner's father was a senior I.A.S. Officer under the Government of Kerala. Only after the marriage she has come to know that the respondent did not have an adequate income from his employment to support his family as his two brothers were students at that time. The petitioner has agreed to marry the respondent on the specific assurance given by him that he has secured a lucrative job in Saudi Arabia. The respondent was deliberately cheating the petitioner and her parents. Therefore, she prays for a decree declaring that the marriage is a nullity on the ground that her consent was obtained by fraud. She has also prayed for a decree of divorce on the ground that the respondent has treated her with cruelty and refusing to consummate the marriage. She also alleged that...", "Respondent Argument": "12. In order to prove fraud on the part of the respondent, Dr. Sebastian Champappilly, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that eventhough the advertisement was given with his address as \"Thomas Madathiparambil, Thiruvalla\", the address of the respondent's father was given in Ext. Bl on Il-10rl993as\"C.I.ThomasTharakan, Tomland, HospitalJunction, Kundara.\"The respondent has stated that Thomas Madathiparambil is the owner of Engineers Quarters to whom he is paying rent ; The respondent has confessed that he does not know whether a person by name Thomas Madathiparambil really exists or not. According to the petitioner, the respondent adopted this mode of concealment of real identity as people who knows him would understand that he has issued a false matrimonial advertisement. 13. Simply because the advertisement was given with a different address it cannot be said to be a fraud because in response to the advertisement when the petitioner's father sent a letter, the respondent's father gave a detailed reply, wherein his address has been correctly noted. Therefore, a false address given in the advertisement cannot be said to be a fraudulent act. 14....", "Factors to be Considered": "21. The respondent has also stated that the petitioner's father is facing a Vigilance enquiry. But, he could not produce any evidence to prove the same. Another allegation raised against her is that her brother tried to commit suicide. That was also denied by the petitioner and to prove this, the respondent has not produced any evidence. In spite of the mental illness, previous love affair and drug addiction, the respondent wants to live with her. This also appears to be strange. The respondent has made false and scandalous statements against her mental condition. In Gangadharan v. T.K. Thankam , AIR 1988 Kerala 244, this Court held that false, scandalous, malicious, baseless and unproved allegations made by one spouse, whether by letters or written statement or by any other mode, amounts to cruelty. It reads as follows : (Para 19) \"Cruelty should be of such a nature as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress to entitle the party to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and...", "Decision": "In the result, the Original Petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent which was solemnized on 29-11-1993 at Syrian Jacobite Puthen Church, Kundara is dissolved by a decree nisi.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1782590/ | II(2001)DMC35, AIR 2001 KERALA 71, (2001) ILR(KER) 2 KER 235, (2000) 2 KER LJ 734, (2000) 4 ARBILR 467, (2001) 1 ICC 15, (2001) 1 RECCRIR 291, (2001) 2 DMC 35, (2001) 1 HINDULR 434, (2001) 2 KER LT 653, (2001) 2 MARRILJ 52, (2001) MATLR 254, (2001) 1 RECCIVR 436", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; nullity_sec19; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2000, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: II(2001)DMC35, AIR 2001 KERALA 71, (2001) ILR(KER) 2 KER 235, (2000) 2 KER LJ 734, (2000) 4 ARBILR 467, (2001) 1 ICC 15, (2001) 1 RECCRIR 291, (2001) 2 DMC 35, (2001) 1 HINDULR 434, (2001) 2 KER LT 653, (2001) 2 MARRILJ 52, (2001) MATLR 254, (2001) 1 RECCIVR 436", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1782590", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1782590/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Jaison K.Sani vs Rasna on 3 October, 2016", "Case Number": "OP 764/2012", "Judgment Date": "2016-10-03", "Judges": "A.M.Shaffique, J., K.Ramakrishnan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 125, Section 146, Section 275, Section 276, Section 278", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "This original petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P7 order in IA.No.4136/2016 in OP.No.764/2012 on the file of the Family Court, Irinjalakuda under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 22.8.2004 and two children were born to them in that wedlock. Thereafter their relationship strained and the respondent herein filed OP.No.764/2012 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty against the petitioner under Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act. The respondent also filed MC.No.92/2003 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She also filed OP.No.294/2013 and money. The petitioner filed GOP.No.907/2013 for custody of the children. He also filed OP.No.261/2014 for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner further filed IA.No.2104/2014 in OP.No.764/2012 for joint trial of these cases and that was dismissed by the Court below. The petitioner filed OP(FC). No.603/2014 before this Court and this Court allowed the petition and directed joint trial of all the cases. When the trial started, the respondent was examined as PW1 and her witnesses were examined as Pws 2 and 3 and they were partly cross examined. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time for cross examination of Pws 1 to 3 as the petitioner was unwell,...", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 22.8.2004 and two children were born to them in that wedlock. Thereafter their relationship strained and the respondent herein filed OP.No.764/2012 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty against the petitioner under Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act. The respondent also filed MC.No.92/2003 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She also filed OP.No.294/2013 and money. The petitioner filed GOP.No.907/2013 for custody of the children. He also filed OP.No.261/2014 for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner further filed IA.No.2104/2014 in OP.No.764/2012 for joint trial of these cases and that was dismissed by the Court below. The petitioner filed OP(FC). No.603/2014 before this Court and this Court allowed the petition and directed joint trial of all the cases. When the trial started, the respondent was examined as PW1 and her witnesses were examined as Pws 2 and 3 and they were partly cross examined. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time for cross examination of Pws 1 to 3 as the petitioner was unwell, but the Court below did not allow the prayer and the...", "Issues": "\"When the Presiding Officer is satisfied that there is mistake in recording and he has no doubt as to what exactly that mistake is, he can correct the same without the consent and even against the opposition of the opposite party of the Advocate. He can even ignore the opposition of the witness or the party who cited him or his Advocate. The witness who gave evidence alone is having a voice in the matter and that too is only subject to the decision of the Presiding Officer. The Court has a duty to see that its records are truly and correctly recorded and maintained and nobody is prejudiced by any mistake committed by the court. When the Court feels any doubt whether recording was correct or not then alone the question of ascertaining the views of the party O.P.(FC).No.5 of 2017 12 or Advocate will arise\".", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "So the petition is allowed and Ext.P7 order passed by the Court below is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below with a direction to the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Irinjalakuda to record the objection and make his remark regarding the same as contemplated under Rule 146 of the Civil Rules of Practice and then direct the party to sign the deposition as O.P.(FC).No.5 of 2017 14 contemplated under the Rule. If such a procedure is adopted, then the petitioner is directed to affix his signature in the deposition. Only if he complies with this direction, his further cross examination can be permitted to be proceeded with. Considering the fact that there is a direction to the Court below to dispose of the case within a time frame, parties are directed to co- operate with the Court and comply with the direction and dispose of the case at the earliest possible time.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69907908/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2016, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "69907908", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69907908/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati", "Case Title": "Smt Kondru Komal Raj vs Kondru Sarat Babu on 3 November, 2025", "Case Number": "D.O.P.No. 103/2025", "Judgment Date": "2025-11-03", "Judges": "Venuthurumalli Gopala, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 151, Section 2023, Section 24", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "The petitioner/wife herein filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short „ the C.P.C .‟) seeking transfer of D.O.P.No.103 of 2025, on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, to the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, for trail and disposal of the same. I. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 11.10.2018, in the presence of both side elders and well wishers. After that, due to the matrimonial disputes, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents‟ house at Inturu Village, Bapatla District. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that in view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint dated 25.01.2025, against the respondent/husband herein, which was registered as F.I.R.No.8 of 2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 85 , 115(2) , 351(2) r/w 3(5) of B.N.S. 2023, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Amruthaluru Police Station, after completion of investigation, Police filed a charge sheet, which was numbered as C.C.No.84 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali and she also filed two (2) other cases against the respondent/husband i.e., Maintenance Case...", "Fact/ Respondent": "The petitioner/wife herein filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short „ the C.P.C .‟) seeking transfer of D.O.P.No.103 of 2025, on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, to the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, for trail and disposal of the same.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Inturu Village, Bapatla District and it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings which was filed by the respondent/husband, before the Court at Gudivada without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking transfer of D.O.P.No.103 of 2025 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, to the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, for trail and disposal of the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner/wife filed three (3) cases against the respondent/husband before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali. The fact remains that the respondent/husband has not filed any prima facie proof to show that the petitioner/wife herein is residing in Guntur, but the averments mentioned in the affidavit of the petitioner filed in the petition goes to show...", "Respondent Argument": "4. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioner/wife is now residing at Guntur, but not within the territorial jurisdiction of Tenali. As stated supra, no prima facie proof has been filed by the respondent to show that the petitioner has been residing at Guntur. He further submitted that the respondent/husband herein is a Government employee and working in Municipal Department at Vijayawada, if this Court is inclined to transfer the said case i.e., D.O.P.No.103 of 2025, the personal appearance of the respondent/husband may be dispensed with before the transferee Court. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides. 6. Perused the material available on record. 10. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and in view of the ratio laid down by the aforesaid case laws and on considering the facts and circumstances of the present case that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. In view of the matrimonial disputes between the spouses, the petitioner/wife...", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "11. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the D.O.P.No.103 of 2025 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District. The learned XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, shall transmit the case record in D.O.P.No.103 of 2025, to the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, on 21.11.2025, at 10.30 a.m. Later, the transferee Court i.e., learned XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District,, is hereby directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in D.O.P.No.103 of 2025, as long as his counsel is attending the Court proceedings and representing the case except on the day when re-conciliation proceedings are being taken up...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144736472/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2025, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "144736472", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144736472/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Captain David Aberneathy Greenwood vs Gladys Hildred Greenwood (Otherwise ... on 30 July, 1945", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1945-07-30", "Judges": "Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Indian Evidence Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 107, Section 108, Section 19, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19; Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This case is unparalleled and it raises an important question of law. The appellant was married to the respondent on the 9th June, 1933, at All Souls Church, Coimbatore. The appellant had been previously married, but he had not heard of his first wife for over seven years and consequently presumed her to be dead. The appeal arises out of a petition filed by the respondent on the Original Side of this Court under the Indian Divorce Act for a declaration that her marriage with the appellant was null and void because his first wife was still alive. She failed to prove this fact, but maintained that she was entitled to rely on the presumption stated in Section 107 of the. Indian Evidence Act , which says that when the question is whether a person is alive or dead, and it is shown that the person was alive within 30 years, the burden of proving the person to be dead is on him who affirms it. In other words, she maintained that all she had to prove was that the appellant's first wife was alive within 30 years of the petition and if the appellant failed to prove affirmatively that his first wife was dead on the 9th June, 1933, she was entitled to the declaration. The learned Judge...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This case is unparalleled and it raises an important question of law. The appellant was married to the respondent on the 9th June, 1933, at All Souls Church, Coimbatore. The appellant had been previously married, but he had not heard of his first wife for over seven years and consequently presumed her to be dead. The appeal arises out of a petition filed by the respondent on the Original Side of this Court under the Indian Divorce Act for a declaration that her marriage with the appellant was null and void because his first wife was still alive. She failed to prove this fact, but maintained that she was entitled to rely on the presumption stated in Section 107 of the. Indian Evidence Act , which says that when the question is whether a person is alive or dead, and it is shown that the person was alive within 30 years, the burden of proving the person to be dead is on him who affirms it. In other words, she maintained that all she had to prove was that the appellant's first wife was alive within 30 years of the petition and if the appellant failed to prove affirmatively...", "Issues": "2. Before dealing with the question of law involved, we will state the facts in some detail. The. appellant's first marriage was to one Mary Rachel Greenwood and look place at the Roman Catholic Church, Agra Cantonment, on the 10th September, 1913. On the 12th July, 1914, a son was born to this union. On the 20th January, 1920, the wife left her husband and took the boy with her; but in the month of November of the following year she handed over the child to him at Bellary where he was employed as the superintendent of the local jail. From then until the middle of 1923, they corresponded, but the correspondence then ceased. In 1924, the appellant took the boy to England, and placed him in a school there. In 1927, the boy was taken seriously ill and the appellant tried to get in touch with his wife but...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "11. The appeal is allowed and the respondent's petition dismissed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1466251/ | (1945)2MLJ389, AIR 1946 MADRAS 65", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19; adultery", "Judgment Year": 1945, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1945)2MLJ389, AIR 1946 MADRAS 65", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1466251", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1466251/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)", "Case Title": "Dr. B. Vamsi Pavani And Ors. vs Government Of A.P. And Ors. on 9 July, 2004", "Case Number": "Writ Petition No. 12486 of 1999", "Judgment Date": "2004-07-09", "Judges": "B.S.A. Swamy, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 19, Section 28, Section 3", "Legal Topics": "Constitutional Validity; Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The subject-matter of these writ petitions relate to admission into Post-Graduate Courses in Dental Sciences. The complaint of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though she secured highest marks in the common merit list from Andhra University local area for admission to MDS Course, she could not get the admission, while respondent Nos.4 and 5 who secured lesser rank got seats in MDS Course from the local areas of Osmania and Sri Venkateswara University in Dental College, a State wide institution on the basis of class reservation. Hence, she questioned the vires of Rule 4 of the A.P. Regulation of Admission to the MDS Course in the Government Dental College and Hospital, Hyderabad Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Dental Course Rules') providing reservation to the reserved categories speciality-wise on rotation basis by contending that the same is contrary to Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in Devarakonda Rajesh Babu v. Nizam 's Institute of Medical Sciences, (FB).", "Fact/ Respondent": "The complaint of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though she secured highest marks in the common merit list from Andhra University local area for admission to MDS Course, she could not get the admission, while respondent Nos.4 and 5 who secured lesser rank got seats in MDS Course from the local areas of Osmania and Sri Venkateswara University in Dental College, a State wide institution on the basis of class reservation. Hence, she questioned the vires of Rule 4 of the A.P. Regulation of Admission to the MDS Course in the Government Dental College and Hospital, Hyderabad Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Dental Course Rules') providing reservation to the reserved categories speciality-wise on rotation basis by contending that the same is contrary to Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in Devarakonda Rajesh Babu v. Nizam 's Institute of Medical Sciences, (FB).", "Issues": "7. During the course of hearing, this Court noticed that certain grey areas are left open on the issues that arise for consideration under Article 371-D of the Constitution of India. Hence, I have formulated the following issues and directed all the Counsel to address arguments on these issues: 1. Article 371-D is intended to remove the regional imbalances. That being the case, whether it is open to the authorities concerned to fix the local area of a particular individual on the basis of his study. 2. Whether regional reservations provided under Article 371-D override the reservations in favour of constitutionally permissible classes under Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India on the ground that they are general reservations and those reservations are special reservations. 3. Whether the Health University is justified in conducting separate entrance tests to each of the colleges for admission into Post-Graduate Courses,...", "Petitioner Argument": "17. With the result the decisions cited supra upholding the constitutional validity of Article 371-D of the Constitution became non-est and the issue whether Article 371-D opposes the basic structure of the Constitution or not is at large and it has to be gone into. In fact in Devarakonda Rajesh Babu 's case (supra), a Full Bench of this Court did not permit the Counsel for the petitioner to raise the question of constitutional validity of Article 371-D of the Constitution vis-a-vis whether it violates the basic structure of the Constitution on the same ground since the issue was not raised in the writ petition and requires examination at a deeper depth. Hence I am of the opinion that the issue whether Article 371-D is ultra vires of the Constitution or not is wide open and it requires reconsideration.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "12. I have carefully gone through the various judgments of the Supreme Court on the validity of Article 371-D of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships have taken the view that Article 371-D is intra vires of the Constitution. In P. Sambamurthy v. State of A.P. , AIR 1987 SC 663, Dr. C. Surekha v. Union of India , , Dr. Fazal Ghafoor v. Union of India , , S. Prakash Rao v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes , , B. Sudhator v. Union of India (FB), 1994 (2) An. WR 252, Fazil Gaffor v. Osmania Medical College, . Likewise in B. Ramesh v. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada , , a Division Bench of this Court upheld the validity of A.P. Educational Institutions Regulation of Admission Order, 1974 on the ground that validity of Article 371-D was upheld in P. Sambamurthy 's case (supra). In P. Padmanabha Reddy v. State , AIR 1984 AP 1297 a Single Judge of this Court held that by virtue of non-abstante clause in Clause 10 of Article 371-D the Presidential Order 1974 prevails over any other law to the extent of any inconsistency. But at the same time the Supreme Court in Dr. Sureka's...", "Decision": "6. Office is directed to place this order before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and obtain appropriate orders for referring the matter to a Large Bench in the light of the importance of issues raised in this order.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1620495/ | 2004(6)ALD751", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Constitutional Validity", "All Grounds": "constitutional_validity; nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 2004, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2004(6)ALD751", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1620495", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1620495/", "Chunks Indexed": 15 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Jayaraj Antony vs Mary Seeniammal on 12 August, 1966", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1966-08-12", "Judges": "M. Anantanrayan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 18, Section 19", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19; Non Consummation", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a reference made by the learned District Judge of Triunveli under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act (4 of 1869) in a petition by the husband (Jayaraj Anthony) for a declaration of nullity in respect of the marriage between him and his wife (mary Seeniammal) on the substantive ground that the wire(respondent) declined all access to the husband subsequent to the marriage, refused to consummate the marriage, and hence must be regarded as \"important\" both at the time of the marriage and at the time of the proceeding. The learned District Judge accepted the evidence for the plaintiff and granted a decree in the usual form, subject to our confirmation. (2) Under Section 19(1) of Act 4 of 1869, one of the grounds on which the petition for a decree of nullity, in respect of a marriage, could be successfully maintained is that the respondent was impotent at the time of the marriage, and at the time of the institution of the suit. This is what the husband alleged, and we have got to see whether there is evidence which the court can accept in proof of this averment, which is the foundation of the petition for nullity.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a reference made by the learned District Judge of Triunveli under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act (4 of 1869) in a petition by the husband (Jayaraj Anthony) for a declaration of nullity in respect of the marriage between him and his wife (mary Seeniammal) on the substantive ground that the wire(respondent) declined all access to the husband subsequent to the marriage, refused to consummate the marriage, and hence must be regarded as \"important\" both at the time of the marriage and at the time of the proceeding. The learned District Judge accepted the evidence for the plaintiff and granted a decree in the usual form, subject to our confirmation.", "Issues": "(3) When the matter came up before us at the first hearing, we were so dissatisfied with the state of the record that we instructed the learned counsel appearing amicus curiae for the wife (respondent) to get into touch with her and to obtain instruction including the instruction whether she would be willing to submit herself to a medical examination. The learned counsel appearing as amicus cruise reports that he has been unable to get into touch with the respondent, and that she has declined service of a letter sent trough registered post of her address. The respondent (wife) never appeared before the learned District Judge of Tirunelveli, and did not in any way meet the main allegation. As fat as the petitioner(husband) is concerned, the record, as we stated earlier, is sadly inadequate and imperfect. All that is clear from the record, including the letters filed, is that the...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "(8) The wife has never attended court in these proceedings; nor submitted any pleading, nor offered testimony. But she is an essential party, and, in matrimonial jurisdiction, the presence of both spouses at the hearing may well be imperative in the interests of justice. Hence, we consider that the wife should be summoned to court to give evidence, and if she does not appear, that steps should be taken to compel her appearance and examination by the court. The court must the record whether she admits the averments of the husband and corroborates his version of a continuing and persistent denial on her part to allow consummation of marriage, or does not do so. The wife must also be specifically asked why if she did not allow consummation, she adopted that course, and whether she is willing to submit to a medical examination. If she declines to do so, her refusal should be recorded and the entire matter should be further considered by the Court in the light of the evidence subsequent to the remand, as well as the provisions...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/319980/ | AIR1967MAD242, AIR 1967 MADRAS 242, (1966) 79 MADLW 640 (1967) 1 MADLJ152, (1967) 1 MADLJ152", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19; non_consummation", "Judgment Year": 1966, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1967MAD242, AIR 1967 MADRAS 242, (1966) 79 MADLW 640 (1967) 1 MADLJ152, (1967) 1 MADLJ152", "Kanoon Doc ID": "319980", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/319980/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "K. Jagan Mohan Rao vs K. Swarup on 20 April, 1971", "Case Number": "No. 13832 of 1970", "Judgment Date": "1971-04-20", "Judges": "G. Ramanujam, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 13, Section 151, Section 19, Section 20, Section 21, Section 25, Section 3, Section 45, Section 47, Section 488, Section 73, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant herein married the respondent in March, 1955, and they lived together at Narasaraopet from March, 1955, to the middle of 1957. As the respondent became pregnant, she was taken to Madras by the appellant and was left with her parents for confinement. She delivered a still-born child on 10th August, 1957. The respondent thereafter joined the appellant at Guntur by the end of 1967 where she lived with him till about May, 1-958. In May, 1958, the appellant went on leave and took the respondent to Madras and after leaving her with her parents, he went away to Salur, his native place to attend to a litigation concerning his family house. On the expiry of the leave, the appellant was posted to Srikakulam where the respondent joined him in November, 1958. In June, 1959, the appellant was promoted from Supervisor to Assistant Engineer and posted to Vizag. The appellant went to Vizag leaving the respondent at Srikakulam and took charge on 16th June, 1959. After fixing up an accommodation at Vizag the appellant went to Srikakulam and brought the respondent to Vizag on 6th July, 1959. On 9th September, 1959, the couple...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant herein married the respondent in March, 1955, and they lived together at Narasaraopet from March, 1955, to the middle of 1957. As the respondent became pregnant, she was taken to Madras by the appellant and was left with her parents for confinement. She delivered a still-born child on 10th August, 1957. The respondent thereafter joined the appellant at Guntur by the end of 1967 where she lived with him till about May, 1-958. In May, 1958, the appellant went on leave and took the respondent to Madras and after leaving her with her parents, he went away to Salur, his native place to attend to a litigation concerning his family house. On the expiry of the leave, the appellant was posted to Srikakulam where the respondent joined him in November, 1958. In June, 1959, the appellant was promoted from Supervisor to Assistant Engineer and posted to Vizag. The appellant went to Vizag leaving the respondent at Srikakulam and took charge on 16th June, 1959. After fixing up an accommodation at Vizag the...", "Issues": "(1) Whether the lower Court h ad jurisdiction to entertain the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent? (2) Whether this appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the appellant's petition for dissolution of marriage or for judicial separation had been dismissed by the Courts in Andhra Pradesh? (3) Whether the respondent is guilty of adulterous conduct? (4) Whether there has been a condonation of the same by the appellant and (5) Whether the respondent is entitled to any permanent alimony and if so, at what rate? In Baroda State v. Habib Ullah A.I.R. 15 Mad. 82 the question arose as to whether it is open to the defendant to raise a plea of jurisdiction after having defended the suit on its merits. It was held that the defendant though took the plea of want of jurisdiction had taken part in a protracted trial,...", "Petitioner Argument": "3. The case of the appellant husband is, however, as follows : - The couple never intended to vacate their residence at Vizag in September, 1959, but they - came to Madras only for a temporary visit and when it was found that the respondent was unchaste and was writing letters to her paramours in a clandestine manner, the appellant while he was at Neilore on 25th September, 1959, sent a telegram to the respondent's father to come to Neilore and when he came there with his wife and daughter (the respondent), the letters written by the respondent to her paramours were shown to him and he was thoroughly put out and immediately left to Madras with his wife and daughter. Ever since that date both the appellant and the respondent have been living apart and that he has filed O.P. No. 65 of 1961 on the file of the District Court, Vizag for dissolution of marriage impleading the paramours as co-respondents. The appellant also stated that in view of the fact that he is claiming a dissolution of marriage,...", "Respondent Argument": "8. Point 1 : On the question of jurisdiction, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the marriage did not take place in Madras, nor the couple resided at Madras at any time, and that, therefore, the lower Court should not have entertained the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. What the learned Counsel says is that mere temporary stay in Madras for some time will not make Madras a place of residence of the couple, that the decisive test was to find out whether the parties intended to make Madras as their permanent place of residence, and that the Court below has overlooked certain admissions made by the respondent in her evidence as P.W. 6 before the Court that the appellant had no intention to reside at Madras at any time. The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, states that the couple had no permanent place of residence when they came to Madras in September, 1959, they having vacated their rented premises at Vizag that their stay at Madras between 10th September, 1959 to 14th September, 1959, should...", "Factors to be Considered": "15. The more important question is as to whether the appellant has established the case of adultery put forward by him in answer to the claim of the respondent. for restitution of conjugal rights. Stray' acts of adultery on the part of the wife in the absence of proof of her \"living in-adultery\" is no ground for granting the; husband a dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, though such stray acts might entitle the husband to a judicial separation under; Section 10(1)(f) in the absence of proof of condonation or connivance. In view; of Section 9(2) it is enough for the appellant to prove a stray act of adultery. Normally it is difficult to establish the factum of adultery by direct evidence of adulterous intercourse and it has only to be proved by circumstantial evidence from which the Court can draw an inference beyond reasonable doubt. As has been held in Adelaide v. William A.I.R. 198 Cal. 133 the circumstantial evidence must be sufficiently strong and conclusive. Association coupled with opportunity, illicit affection, undue familiarity, guilty attachment are some of the instances which create an inference upon which the Court can act. The burden of...", "Decision": "4. The trial Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, expressing the view that the appellant and the respondent when they came over *O Madras on 10th September, 1959, had intended to take up permanent residence in Madras after winding to their establishment at Vizag, and that the appellant and the respondent had stayed in Madras for a period of 4 days from 10th September, 1959, to 14th September, 1959 with intention to set up a home there. On the question whether the respondent had forfeited her rights to obtain restitution of conjugal rights by reason of her adulterous conduct, the lower Court had found that the letters, Exhibits B-1 to B-3 said to have been written by the respondent to her paramours h ad not been duly proved, that the evidence adduced in the case showed that the appellant himself was a victim of a plot hatched up by his brother and others, and that the letters, Exhibits B-1 to B-3 had been concocted by them with a view...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1646892/ | (1972)2MLJ77", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1971, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1972)2MLJ77", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1646892", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1646892/", "Chunks Indexed": 20 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court", "Case Title": "Ashok Ratti Lal Trivedi vs Anjani Madhusudan Oza on 16 May, 1967", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1967-05-16", "Judges": "M.M. Ismail, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 11, Section 115, Section 12, Section 13, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 22, Section 23, Section 24, Section 25, Section 36, Section 37, Section 5, Section 7, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "(1) This Civil revision petition filed under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, raises an important question regarding the construction of section 25 of the. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Central Act 25 of 1955). The petitioner married the respondent herein in May, 1864. On a petition filed by the respondent herein in January, 1965, the marriage was annulled uner section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marrriaga Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act by a decree of mullity passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, on 26th April, 1966. On. 9th June, 1966, the respondent herin applied for an order for payment of permanent alimony to her. That application of the respondent wa resisted by the petitioner herein on the ground that the marriage having been declared to be a nullity, the relationship of husband and wife never existed between the parties and hence, in any event, it ceased with the passing of the said decree and in consequence 237. the petition filed by the respondent was nto maintainable. It was contended by the petitioner herein, in the alternative, that the petition filed by the respondent herein for permanent maintenance would nto lie because it was made after the passing of the decree of nullity. This being a question regarding the maintainability of the petition itself, the questions were tried as...", "Fact/ Respondent": "(1) This Civil revision petition filed under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, raises an important question regarding the construction of section 25 of the. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Central Act 25 of 1955). The petitioner married the respondent herein in May, 1864. On a petition filed by the respondent herein in January, 1965, the marriage was annulled uner section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marrriaga Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act by a decree of mullity passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, on 26th April, 1966. On. 9th June, 1966, the respondent herin applied for an order for payment of permanent alimony to her. That application of the respondent wa resisted by the petitioner herein on the ground that the marriage having been declared to be a nullity, the relationship of husband and wife never existed between the parties and hence, in any event, it ceased with the passing of the said decree and in consequence 237. the petition filed by the respondent was nto maintainable. It was contended by the petitioner herein, in the alternative, that the petition filed by the respondent herein for permanent maintenance would nto lie because it was made after the passing of...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (nullity sec19) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Judges of the Madras High Court in the decision reported in Naraganaswami v. Pudmanabhan referred to only one aspect of the reasoning of the learned Judge in this Madras case but did nto refer to the toher aspect, namely that under our law certain phrases are used which have gto wider implications than they bear if literally interpreted. The learned counsel for the Respondent 1n this c\"ntext relied upon a decision in Bullmore v. Wenter\". In that case one Henry Bullmore, by his will dated in 1865, devised his residue to trustees upon trust to sell and covert the same, and to hold the trust moneys upon trust to pay the income to his daughter Beatrice during her life for her separate use, independent of any husband, restrained from anticipation; and after the death of his said daughter, in trust for any husband with whom she might intermarry, if he should survive her, for his life. Bestrice Bullmore married W. Barber in 1867, who died in 1870 and in 1972...", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "Two things may be ntoed in this connection. Section 36 refers to 'any proceeding under Chapter V or Chapter VI' and section 37 refers to any Court exercising Jurisdiction under Chapter V or Chapter VI'. Chapter V deals with the provisions regarding restitution of conjugal rights and judicial separation while Chapter Vi deals with nullity of marriage and divorce. Thus the provisions for ordering payment of alimony pendente lite and payment of permanent alimony and maintenance were made applicable to all proceedings, that is, proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, nullity of marriage and divorce. The second thing that has to be ntoiced is that section 37 again uses the expression at the time of passing any decree or at anytime subsequent to the decree\". Thus, when these provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 were before the Parliament it is difficult to hold that when the Parliament wanted to make similar provisions in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , it intended to make a departure with regard to the scope of the provisions. Really, there was no...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/354444/ | 4(1968)DLT235", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19", "Judgment Year": 1967, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 4(1968)DLT235", "Kanoon Doc ID": "354444", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/354444/", "Chunks Indexed": 18 }, { "Court": "Punjab-Haryana High Court", "Case Title": "Sapna vs Dalbir Singh on 13 February, 2020", "Case Number": "No.520 of 2019", "Judgment Date": "2020-02-13", "Judges": "Arun Monga, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Special Marriage Act, 1954", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 125, Section 19, Section 32", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Applicant-wife seeks transfer of petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act for restitution of conjugal rights titled as \"Dalbir Singh Vs. Sapna\" 6. Both the cases pending between the parties are aftermath of matrimonial discord. Keeping in view the contentions in the application and the conceded position that petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance is already pending in the Court at Mukerian, it would be proper, appropriate and in the interest of justice if both the cases are tried and decided at one place.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. Applicant-wife seeks transfer of petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act for restitution of conjugal rights titled as \"Dalbir Singh Vs. Sapna\"", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the transfer application on the ground that distance from the residence of the applicant to Gurdaspur is only 50 Kms. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "(ARUN MONGA) 13.02.2020 JUDGE vandana Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 01-03-2020 09:55:03 :::", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120453283/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 2020, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "120453283", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120453283/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Gujarat High Court", "Case Title": "Wolson vs Anjali", "Case Number": "No. 17262 of 2011", "Judgment Date": "", "Judges": "Sonia Gokani, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 125, Section 24, Section 32, Section 36", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This petition is preferred challenging the order of the Family Court passed below Exhibit 9 in Family Suit No. 1529 of 2009 dated 30th July 2011. 1.1 To briefly state the facts : The petitioner herein is the original applicant before the Family Court who preferred Family Suit under section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for restitution of conjugal rights. It is the say of the petitioner that he married the respondent original opponent on 6th June 2002 as per the Christian Rites and Rituals and two children were begotten of the said wedlock. On 6th September 2009 the respondent alleged to have left the home of the petitioner and started living with her step mother at Himmatnagar. She also never cared for the children and therefore notice was issued in the month of November 2009 asking the respondent to fulfill her obligation of conjugal rights. Reply to which was received and thereafter the said suit was filed being Family Suit No.1529/2009.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1.1 To briefly state the facts : The petitioner herein is the original applicant before the Family Court who preferred Family Suit under section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for restitution of conjugal rights. It is the say of the petitioner that he married the respondent original opponent on 6th June 2002 as per the Christian Rites and Rituals and two children were begotten of the said wedlock. On 6th September 2009 the respondent alleged to have left the home of the petitioner and started living with her step mother at Himmatnagar. She also never cared for the children and therefore notice was issued in the month of November 2009 asking the respondent to fulfill her obligation of conjugal rights. Reply to which was received and thereafter the said suit was filed being Family Suit No.1529/2009.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "12. This petition stands disposed of in the above terms.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81860953/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": null, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "81860953", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81860953/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)", "Case Title": "Giddi Gowthami @ Jyoti vs Giddi Samuel on 19 November, 2004", "Case Number": "O.P.No. 790 of 2003", "Judgment Date": "2004-11-19", "Judges": "B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 20, Section 32, Section 36", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 27-7-2004 passed in I.A.No. 162 of 2001 in O.P.No. 790 of 2003 on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram, whereby the learned District Judge refused to grant interim alimony. 2. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The respondent herein filed O.P.No. 790 of 2003 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner/wife filed I.A.No. 162 of 2001 under Section 36 of the Act for grant of interim alimony at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-(rupees one thousand only) per month and legal expenses of Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) pending the main proceedings. The respondent/husband filed counter resisting the application. It is averred in the counter that the petitioner filed M.C.No. 2 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram, claiming maintenance and the same was ended in dismissal on 25-2-2004, and therefore the petitioner/wife is not entitled for interim alimony pending disposal of the main proceedings in O.P.No. 790 of 2003.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The respondent herein filed O.P.No. 790 of 2003 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner/wife filed I.A.No. 162 of 2001 under Section 36 of the Act for grant of interim alimony at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-(rupees one thousand only) per month and legal expenses of Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) pending the main proceedings. The respondent/husband filed counter resisting the application. It is averred in the counter that the petitioner filed M.C.No. 2 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram, claiming maintenance and the same was ended in dismissal on 25-2-2004, and therefore the petitioner/wife is not entitled for interim alimony pending disposal of the main proceedings in O.P.No. 790 of 2003.", "Issues": "\"In any suit under this Act, whether it is instituted by a husband or a wife, and whether or not she has obtained an Order of protection, the wife may present a petition for expenses of the proceedings and alimony pending the suit. Such petition shall be served on the husband; and the Court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements therein contained, may make such Order on the husband for payment to the wife of the expenses of the proceedings and alimony pending the suit as it may deem just.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the Order dated 27-7-2004 passed in I.A.No. 162 of 2001 in O.P.No. 790 of 2003, and remanding the matter back to trial Court for fresh disposal. The learned District Judge, Vizianagaram is directed to dispose of the I.A.No. 162 of 2001 in O.P.No. 790 of 2003 on merits.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44914/ | 2005(3)ALT102, II(2005)DMC605", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2004, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2005(3)ALT102, II(2005)DMC605", "Kanoon Doc ID": "44914", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44914/", "Chunks Indexed": 7 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Lucas Daniel Raj vs Pertreesia Maria on 11 November, 2022", "Case Number": "C.M.A.No.220 of 2022", "Judgment Date": "2022-11-11", "Judges": "V.M.Velumani, J., Sunder Mohan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 125, Section 19, Section 32", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "The appeal is filed by the appellant/ husband aggrieved by the grant of maintenance by the learned III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.6 of 2020 in O.P.No.4741 of 2019 wherein the appellant was directed to pay Rs.30,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs.25,000/- per month towards litigation expenses to the respondent herein. The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 05.02.2018 at Chennai. The respondent left the matrimonial home due to differences on 10.05.2018. The appellant filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in I.D.O.P.No.4741 of 2019 under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, on 16.10.2019. Pending the said petition, the respondent herein filed I.A.No.6 of 2020 on 31.08.2020 for interim maintenance. Meanwhile, it appears that a criminal complaint was lodged against the appellant and his relatives by the respondent. The appellant filed his counter in the said I.A.No.6 of 2020 on 30.11.2020. 2. The learned Judge found that the respondent had stated that the 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.220 of 2022 appellant was earning Rs.3,00,000/- per month and that the appellant had not denied the said fact. The learned Judge found that the appellant had not filed his affidavit of assets in spite of several opportunities and the respondent had filed her affidavit of assets. The learned Judge thereafter found that...", "Fact/ Respondent": "The appeal is filed by the appellant/ husband aggrieved by the grant of maintenance by the learned III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.6 of 2020 in O.P.No.4741 of 2019 wherein the appellant was directed to pay Rs.30,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs.25,000/- per month towards litigation expenses to the respondent herein. The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 05.02.2018 at Chennai. The respondent left the matrimonial home due to differences on 10.05.2018. The appellant filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in I.D.O.P.No.4741 of 2019 under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, on 16.10.2019. Pending the said petition, the respondent herein filed I.A.No.6 of 2020 on 31.08.2020 for interim maintenance. Meanwhile, it appears that a criminal complaint was lodged against the appellant and his relatives by the respondent. The appellant filed his counter in the said I.A.No.6 of 2020 on 30.11.2020.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that: a. The grant of interim maintenance is unsustainable and erroneous and that the maintenance cannot be awarded on mere filing of petition. She further submitted that the appellant is working in a Multi National Company and it was not possible for him to appear before the Court on all hearings. No sufficient opportunity was given for the appellant to file his affidavit of assets and liabilities. 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.220 of 2022 b. It was the appellant who took efforts for re-union and hence he filed O.P.No.4741 of 2019 for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent on her own making spoilt the chances of re-union by filing a false complaint against the appellant and his relatives. The appellant was therefore forced to file a memo in I.D.O.P.No.4741 of 2019 praying for permission to withdraw the said O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights. Strangely, the Family Court did not permit the withdrawal of the said petition since the respondent herein had made an endorsement in the said memo stating that she had strong...", "Respondent Argument": "2. The learned Judge found that the respondent had stated that the 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.220 of 2022 appellant was earning Rs.3,00,000/- per month and that the appellant had not denied the said fact. The learned Judge found that the appellant had not filed his affidavit of assets in spite of several opportunities and the respondent had filed her affidavit of assets. The learned Judge thereafter found that the respondent was entitled to get maintenance and the litigation expenses. The learned Judge directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month towards interim maintenance from the date of filing of the petition and further directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses. The appellant aggrieved by the said order has filed the above appeal. 5. Heard, Ms.Shabhnam Banu learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.Revathi Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent and perused 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.220 of 2022 the entire materials on record.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "9. With the above observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [V.M.V., J.] [S.M., J.] 11.11.2022 Index : Yes/ No mka To: The III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32826119/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2022, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "32826119", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32826119/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "J. Jenifa Arul Mary vs R. Sathish Kumar on 9 March, 2018", "Case Number": "I.D.O.P.No.1984 of 2017", "Judgment Date": "2018-03-09", "Judges": "Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 24", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "The petitioner/wife in the matrimonial proceedings has filed this transfer petition seeking to withdraw I.D.O.P.No.1984 of 2017 filed by the respondent/husband under Section 10(1)(x) of Indian Divorce Act for divorce on the ground of cruelty, pending on the file of I Additional Family Court, Chennai and transfer the same to the file of Family Court, Tirunelveli. 2. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit it is stated that the petitioner is staying with her aged parents and her father is also suffering with various physical ailments and he will not be able to accompany her to go to Chennai. Besides, it is stated that the distance is around 600 kms from Tirunelveli to Chennai and it would be difficult for her to travel alone and get back for each hearing. Hence, the petitioner/wife sought for the above transfer.", "Fact/ Respondent": "The petitioner/wife in the matrimonial proceedings has filed this transfer petition seeking to withdraw I.D.O.P.No.1984 of 2017 filed by the respondent/husband under Section 10(1)(x) of Indian Divorce Act for divorce on the ground of cruelty, pending on the file of I Additional Family Court, Chennai and transfer the same to the file of Family Court, Tirunelveli.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Considering the convenience of the wife, this Court finds it appropriate to transfer the I.D.O.P.No.1984 of 2017 from I Additional Family Court, Chennai to Family Court, Tirunelveli. Before the Family Court, Tirunelveli, the appearance of the parties is mandatory. However, the fact that the respondent/husband is living out side India and he is being represented through his mother, who is the power of attorney, the appearance of the respondent/husband is dispensed with till the commencement of the trial. The respondent/husband is also directed to be personally present from the date it is posted for trial.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "5. With the above directions, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition is allowed and I.D.O.P.No.1984 of 2017, pending on the file of I Additional Family Court, Chennai is transferred to the file of Family Court, Tirunelveli. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09.03.2018 rsi To 1. The I Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai. 2. The Family Judge, Tirunelveli. PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. rsi Tr.C.M.P. No.526 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.10792 of 2017 09.03.2018", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145584492/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2018, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "145584492", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145584492/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "Philip Thomas Palamoottil vs Sherry Susan Koshy on 17 June, 2009", "Case Number": "Mat.Appeal.No. 7 of 2008", "Judgment Date": "2009-06-17", "Judges": "Basant, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Desertion; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "This appeal is preferred by the appellant/petitioner/husband against an order of the Family Court rejecting his prayers under the Indian Divorce Act for declaration of nullity of marriage and for dissolution on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 2. Admittedly, the parties are Christians. Admittedly the marriage took place in accordance with the Christian Religious rites on 13-1-1990. The appellant was a Lecturer in English at St.Thomas College, Kozhencherry whereas the respondent is and continues to be a Bank official in the State Bank of Travancore. Two children, both daughters aged 17 and 10 years now, have been born in the wedlock. Admittedly, the parties continue to reside together till June 2002. It is alleged that from June 2002, Mat.Appeal No.7 of 2008 2 the spouses, though they were sharing a common roof, were virtually leading independent and separate life. It is conceded that they started separate residence with effect from 11-11-2002. The petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and for dissolution on the ground of cruelty and desertion was filed on 9-11-2005.", "Fact/ Respondent": "This appeal is preferred by the appellant/petitioner/husband against an order of the Family Court rejecting his prayers under the Indian Divorce Act for declaration of nullity of marriage and for dissolution on the ground of cruelty and desertion.", "Issues": "11. The first question is whether there has been any cruelty. Except the oral evidence of PW1, there is absolutely not a semblance of material to conclude that there was any cruelty on the part of the wife. The boot appears to be on the other foot as can be seen eminently from the fact that 15 years after marriage and after birth of 2 children, the husband comes up with the claim for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that her masculine nature and peculiar conduct and character were suppressed from him fraudulently at the time of marriage. The wife on the other hand has stated very clearly that till separate residence started on 11.11.2002 consequent to the conduct of the appellant absconding with his young colleague, there was never allegations of cruelty, misbehaviour or any contumacious conduct on her part. 12. The circumstance looms large, and...", "Petitioner Argument": "2. Admittedly, the parties are Christians. Admittedly the marriage took place in accordance with the Christian Religious rites on 13-1-1990. The appellant was a Lecturer in English at St.Thomas College, Kozhencherry whereas the respondent is and continues to be a Bank official in the State Bank of Travancore. Two children, both daughters aged 17 and 10 years now, have been born in the wedlock. Admittedly, the parties continue to reside together till June 2002. It is alleged that from June 2002, Mat.Appeal No.7 of 2008 2 the spouses, though they were sharing a common roof, were virtually leading independent and separate life. It is conceded that they started separate residence with effect from 11-11-2002. The petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and for dissolution on the ground of cruelty and desertion was filed on 9-11-2005. 3. The husband alleged that the wife was masculine in nature and had peculiar behaviour and habits. These were suppressed from him. According to him the marriage which was solemnized on 13-1-90 was hence liable to be declared to be null and void. This...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent.", "Decision": "13. The convenient assertions made about cruelty on the part of RW1 do not impress us at all. We concur with the conclusion of the court below that those are all lame excuses invented conveniently by the husband after separate residence started on account of his own indiscretion on 11.11.2002. The self serving evidence of PW1 cannot in these circumstances be swallowed by any prudent mind to found a decree for divorce on such evidence. The claim for divorce on the ground of cruelty must in these circumstances fail and we concur with the court below on that aspect.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1327323/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Desertion", "All Grounds": "desertion; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2009, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1327323", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1327323/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati", "Case Title": "Talluri Nagamani Mary Mani vs Talluri Krishna 3 Others on 1 July, 2022", "Case Number": "C.M.A.No.563 of 2008", "Judgment Date": "2022-07-01", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 3, Section 498", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. The Appellant is the wife and Respondent No.1 is her husband in the present Appeal. Respondent No.1-husband filed a petition seeking divorce under Section 10(i) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 against the Appellant-wife on the ground of Mental Cruelty. 3. After trial, the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Ongole passed a decree of divorce in favour of the Respondent No.1-husband by Order dated 26.06.2007 in Divorce Original Petition No.6 of 2004 as he successfully established Mental Cruelty against his wife. Wife filed the present Appeal challenging this Order. On the death of Respondent No.1/husband during the pendency of this Appeal, Respondent Nos.2 to 4 (wife and two daughters respectively of the Respondent No.1/husband) were brought on record as legal representatives vide Order dated 10.03.2017 in CMAMP No.2026 of 2016 and 292 of 2017.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The Appellant is the wife and Respondent No.1 is her husband in the present Appeal. Respondent No.1-husband filed a petition seeking divorce under Section 10(i) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 against the Appellant-wife on the ground of Mental Cruelty.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (cruelty) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "4. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the order impugned herein is erroneous inasmuch as the learned Trial Judge 2 rendered a finding of Mental Cruelty against the Appellant-wife, for the reason of filing criminal cases against the husband and his family members. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, filing of criminal cases by Appellant-wife against the Respondent No.1- husband, does not constitute Mental Cruelty.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear.", "Decision": "10. In this view of the matter, this Court confirms the findings of the 1st Additional District Judge, Ongole in Divorce Original Petition No.6 of 2004 dated 26.06.2007 to the effect that the actions and conduct of the Appellant-wife towards her husband-Respondent No.1 herein constitutes Mental Cruelty. This Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere in the present Appeal. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150047074/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2022, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "150047074", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150047074/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Telangana High Court", "Case Title": "K P B V Kumar , Junia Kumar, Karimnagar ... vs M Sabitha, Ranga Reddy Dist on 19 January, 2026", "Case Number": "FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.136 OF 2015", "Judgment Date": "2026-01-19", "Judges": "Vakiti, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 12, Section 125, Section 3, Section 428, Section 498", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty; Desertion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 20.03.2014 passed in FCOP No.311 of 2012 by the Judge, Family Court, at Secunderabad, the appellant - husband preferred the present 2 appeal. Vide the said order, the Judge, Family Court, dismissed the said FCOP.", "Fact/ Respondent": "(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Sri Telugu Amarnath, learned counsel representing Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.", "Issues": "1. Whether the appellant - husband is entitled for divorce? 2. To what relief? 9. On consideration of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, vide impugned order dated 20.03.2014, the learned Judge, Family Court, on elaborate discussion, gave a specific finding 4 that the appellant - husband failed to prove cruelty and desertion and dismissed the petition filed by him seeking dissolution of marriage. 10. It is the specific contention of the appellant that the respondent - wife subjected him to cruelty by filing series of cases against him and also deserted him for no fault of him. 11. It is the specific contention of the respondent - wife that she never subjected the appellant to cruelty. She was constrained to file cases against him as he subjected her to cruelty and neglected her and her children to maintain. 17. Cruelty is not defined in any statute. It...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "12. In view of the above rival contentions, perusal of the record would reveal that the marriage of the appellant with the respondent took place on 20.06.2003 as per Christian rites and customs. They were blessed with two daughters. Both of them became majors. The appellant was correspondent in Arora College of Education. The respondent was a private employee. The respondent has filed an application vide M.C.No.72 of 2005 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, against the appellant - husband seeking maintenance and the same was allowed. She has also lodged a complaint against the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and the Police Jagtial, registered a crime and on completion of investigation, laid charge 5 sheet against the appellant - husband. He was convicted by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant preferred Crl.A.No.558 of 2012. She has also filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act, vide DVC No.13 of 2009 and the same was also allowed. Filing a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act, petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, and a complaint for the offence under Section 428- A of IPC, does not constitute cruelty. 13. The...", "Decision": "Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29448943/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty; desertion", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "29448943", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29448943/", "Chunks Indexed": 6 }, { "Court": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Filomina Mavi vs Petric on 12 May, 1991", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1991-05-12", "Judges": "K.M. Pande, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Family Courts Act, 1984", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 2, Section 20, Section 23, Section 3, Section 7, Section 8", "Legal Topics": "Procedural", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The point that has arisen for consideration is as to whether after coming into force the Family Courts Act 1984, the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 23 of the Indian Divorce Act of 1869. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petition Philomina Bhavi has presented this petition under Section 23 of the Indian Divorce Act of 1869 for judicial separation and maintenance. The opposite party inspite of notice has not filed any written statement and absented himself on the date of hearing. It is the applicant's counsel himself who raised the point of jurisdiction and wanted to make some submissions about this Court's jurisdiction after the Constitution of the Family Court. He was heard and the records have been perused.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The brief facts of the case are that the petition Philomina Bhavi has presented this petition under Section 23 of the Indian Divorce Act of 1869 for judicial separation and maintenance. The opposite party inspite of notice has not filed any written statement and absented himself on the date of hearing. It is the applicant's counsel himself who raised the point of jurisdiction and wanted to make some submissions about this Court's jurisdiction after the Constitution of the Family Court. He was heard and the records have been perused.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (procedural) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "\"7(1)(a)-a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage.\"", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1127535/ | II(1991)DMC534, 1991(0)MPLJ860", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Procedural", "All Grounds": "procedural", "Judgment Year": 1991, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: II(1991)DMC534, 1991(0)MPLJ860", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1127535", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1127535/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Punjab-Haryana High Court", "Case Title": "Sonia Kumar vs Dr. Harshit Kumar on 9 October, 2000", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2000-10-09", "Judges": "R.L. Anand, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13", "Legal Topics": "Nullity Sec19; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Sonia Kumar w/o Dr. Harshit Kumar has filed the present petition u/ss 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 , and has sought a decree of nullity of marriage between the parties on the allegations that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 20.11.1998 at Ludhiana, as per Christian rites. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent at the time of the marriage and presentation of the petition was impotent and, therefore, he was incapacitated to consummate the marriage. The respondent is also guilty of cruelty towards Ihe petitioner as his behaviour was indifferent right from the very day of the marriage, as he used to get irritated over small issues. Moreover, the respondent had no healthy physical contact with the petitioner which amounts to mental torture and is an act of cruelty. The parents of the petitioner; namely Parvez Wilson and Sheela Wilson, came to know about the maltreatment and misbehaviour of the respondent towards the petitioner from her after about a week of the solemnisation of the marriage. Thereafter, the petitioner came to her parents' house along with her father on 30.11.1998 and she told everything about the respondent to her parents. Respondent also called the petitioner on telephone about two days thereafter and said that he did not want to keep the petitioner...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. Sonia Kumar w/o Dr. Harshit Kumar has filed the present petition u/ss 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 , and has sought a decree of nullity of marriage between the parties on the allegations that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 20.11.1998 at Ludhiana, as per Christian rites. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent at the time of the marriage and presentation of the petition was impotent and, therefore, he was incapacitated to consummate the marriage. The respondent is also guilty of cruelty towards Ihe petitioner as his behaviour was indifferent right from the very day of the marriage, as he used to get irritated over small issues. Moreover, the respondent had no healthy physical contact with the petitioner which amounts to mental torture and is an act of cruelty. The parents of the petitioner; namely Parvez Wilson and Sheela Wilson, came to know about the maltreatment and misbehaviour of the respondent towards the petitioner from her after about a week of the solemnisation of the marriage. Thereafter, the petitioner came to her parents' house along with her father on 30.11.1998 and she told everything about the respondent to her parents. Respondent also...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (nullity sec19) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "1. Sonia Kumar w/o Dr. Harshit Kumar has filed the present petition u/ss 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 , and has sought a decree of nullity of marriage between the parties on the allegations that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 20.11.1998 at Ludhiana, as per Christian rites. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent at the time of the marriage and presentation of the petition was impotent and, therefore, he was incapacitated to consummate the marriage. The respondent is also guilty of cruelty towards Ihe petitioner as his behaviour was indifferent right from the very day of the marriage, as he used to get irritated over small issues. Moreover, the respondent had no healthy physical contact with the petitioner which amounts to mental torture and is an act of cruelty. The parents of the petitioner; namely Parvez Wilson and Sheela Wilson, came to know about the maltreatment and misbehaviour of the respondent towards the petitioner from her after about a week of the solemnisation of the marriage. Thereafter, the petitioner came to her...", "Respondent Argument": "4. The respondent has denied the allegations of the petitioner. Rather, he made the allegations against the petitioner that she had intercourse with another person before the marriage and that she was a lady of loose character. 5. It may also be mentioned here that in compliance to the directions dated 19.7.1998 of the High Court, the parties and appeared before the Medical Board, and vide the report dated 25.8.1999, the Board gave the following opinion vis-a-vis the petitioner :- \"The Medical Board constituted by the Medical Superintendent comprising of: 1. Dr. Kala Vasishta 2. Dr. Savita Malhotra 3. Dr. Sarita Mahajan is of the opinion that Smt. Sonia Kumar d/o Sh. Parvez Wilson, r/o H.No. 1479, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh has no psychiatric or medical illness and on gynaecological examination she is found to have normally developed secondary sex characters and the hymen is torn posteriorly. This finding suggests that penetration could have occurred.\" 6. Similarly, vide the report dated 22.9.1999, the Medical Board gave the following opinion, vis-a-vis the respondent :- \"Dr. Harshit Kumar denied suffering from impo-tency. On...", "Factors to be Considered": "8. It has been stated by the petitioner in her statement that Parvez Wilson is her father. She and her father are Christians and they believe in Christianity. She was married with the respondent-Dr. Harshit Kumar, on 20.11.1998, at Ludhiana as per Christian rites. Her father gave an advertisement in the newspaper and the same appeared in the Times of India dated 28.6.1998. In response to that advertisement, Shri H.S. Lall, father of the respondent, wrote a letter on 29.6.1998 and gave the particulars of the respondent. Thereafter, he again wrote a letter on 18.8.1998. Exs.A-1 andA-2 are the original letters, which were received by her father. She is in a position to identify the handwriting and signatures of Shri H.S. Lal, father of the respondent, as she had been seeing him writing and signing. After the marriage, she went to the house of the respondent and stayed with him up to 30.11.1998. During her stay in the house of the respondent, she noticed that the respondent was impotent and he was not in a position to consummate the marriage in spite of the fact that she gave full access to him for the consumation of Ihe marriage and when...", "Decision": "12. In these circumstances, I allow this petition under Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act and pass a decree of nisi for the dissolution of the marriage between the parties, which shall be made absolute after a period of six months on the making of an application by the petitioner in this regard.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/352814/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Nullity Sec19", "All Grounds": "nullity_sec19; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2000, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "352814", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/352814/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Gujarat High Court", "Case Title": "Nileshbhai Jonbhai Mekwan vs Pritiben D/O Arneshtbhai Christian on 11 February, 2026", "Case Number": "FIRST APPEAL NO. 2908 of 2019", "Judgment Date": "2026-02-11", "Judges": "Sangeeta K. Vishen, J., Nisha M. Thakore, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Indian Evidence Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14, Section 15, Section 20, Section 65B", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. Captioned appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.04.2019 passed by the Family Court in Family Suit No. 42 of 2018 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 82 of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the \"impugned judgment\"), whereby the Family Suit No. 42 of 2018 is allowed and the marriage solemnized on 08.11.2007 is dissolved. So far as the Criminal Misc. Application No. 82 of 2018 filed by the respondent is concerned, the same is rejected, against which no appeal is preferred. 2. Mr A. S. Asthavadi, learned advocate, while inviting the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of the respondent- wife, submitted that a reference is made of interaction which took place before marriage, when both the parties were trying to know about their nature. In the question posed, it is categorically stated by the respondent that she is short tempered and gets emotional. It is submitted that considering the sensitive nature of the respondent, it is difficult to believe the allegations levelled by her against the appellant-husband. Therefore, the respondent herself is responsible for the separation. While inviting the attention of this Court to the plaint, it is submitted that in paragraph 3, allegations are made against the appellant about the demands, which is not supported by any evidence. On the other hand, the evidence produced would...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. Captioned appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.04.2019 passed by the Family Court in Family Suit No. 42 of 2018 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 82 of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the \"impugned judgment\"), whereby the Family Suit No. 42 of 2018 is allowed and the marriage solemnized on 08.11.2007 is dissolved. So far as the Criminal Misc. Application No. 82 of 2018 filed by the respondent is concerned, the same is rejected, against which no appeal is preferred.", "Issues": "i. Whether the original applicant-respondent proves that her marriage was solemnized with the original opponent -appellant. ii. Whether the original applicant-respondent proves that she was subjected to cruelty by the original opponent- appellant and his family members. iii. Whether the original opponent-appellant proves that the original applicant-respondent, is short tempered and hence, was not fulfilling her matrimonial obligations as a wife and has deserted the original opponent- appellant. 8. As regards issue no.1 there is no dispute considering the fact that the marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2007. Centre to the issue is respondent-wife being subjected to cruelty. The learned Judge, while accepting the request of the respondent-wife seeking dissolution of the marriage, dissolved the marriage solemnized on 08.11.2007 of the appellant Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:35:39...", "Petitioner Argument": "2. Mr A. S. Asthavadi, learned advocate, while inviting the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of the respondent- wife, submitted that a reference is made of interaction which took place before marriage, when both the parties were trying to know about their nature. In the question posed, it is categorically stated by the respondent that she is short tempered and gets emotional. It is submitted that considering the sensitive nature of the respondent, it is difficult to believe the allegations levelled by her against the appellant-husband. Therefore, the respondent herself is responsible for the separation. While inviting the attention of this Court to the plaint, it is submitted that in paragraph 3, allegations are made against the appellant about the demands, which is not supported by any evidence. On the other hand, the evidence produced would suggest that the respondent, instead of staying with the husband, was determined to stay separately. 2.1 It is further submitted that initially the respondent was serving at Nadiad; however, she secured a job in Vadilal Sarabhai Hospital, Ahmedabad where, initially, she was...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear.", "Decision": "(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) RAVI P. PATEL Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:35:39 IST 2026", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55229237/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "55229237", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55229237/", "Chunks Indexed": 10 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Ambujam G. Ammal vs M.R. Arumugham on 6 September, 1965", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1965-09-06", "Judges": "M. Anantanarayanan, J., Offg., C.J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 22", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Cruelty", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "(1) In this reference by the learned District Judge of Tirunelveli under Ss. 10, 17 and 22 of the Indian Divorce Act , (IV of 1869), the moot question is whether the plaintiff-petitioner (Ambujam G. Ammal) has established, on the facts, her claim for divorce. The plaint shows that the plaintiff-petitioner prayed for divorce, upon one of the grounds specified in the second part of S. 10 , viz., \"of adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce a mensa et thoro\". (2) In the plaint, there is a long account given of the conduct of the respondent (defendant) subsequent to this marriage, particularly in the form of dissolute living, physical violence towards the petitioner and her children, seizure of her earnings, and imputations of unchastity. Broadly stated, the situation is that the plaintiff was a student in the S.S.L.C. class when the defendant then employed in Military service, married her by a registered form on 12-2-1951, the defendant subsequently being converted to Christianity, the religion of the plaintiff. The plaint does contain averments, in some detail of what would certainly amount to legal cruelty on the part of the husband (defendant). There is also Ex. A-2, a copy of the petition submitted by the plaintiff to the Sub Inspector of Police, Tenkasi,...", "Fact/ Respondent": "(2) In the plaint, there is a long account given of the conduct of the respondent (defendant) subsequent to this marriage, particularly in the form of dissolute living, physical violence towards the petitioner and her children, seizure of her earnings, and imputations of unchastity. Broadly stated, the situation is that the plaintiff was a student in the S.S.L.C. class when the defendant then employed in Military service, married her by a registered form on 12-2-1951, the defendant subsequently being converted to Christianity, the religion of the plaintiff. The plaint does contain averments, in some detail of what would certainly amount to legal cruelty on the part of the husband (defendant). There is also Ex. A-2, a copy of the petition submitted by the plaintiff to the Sub Inspector of Police, Tenkasi, which again contains many particulars of physical violence and cruelty. As the learned District Judge points out, the defendant did not appear and contest the proceeding. Of the three witnesses examined by plaintiff-petitioner herself has given evidence as P.W. 1, and Kuthalingam, (P.W. 2) corroborates her with regard to the physical violence employed by defendant towards plaintiff on more than one occasion. These allegations are not controverted; and we...", "Issues": "(1) In this reference by the learned District Judge of Tirunelveli under Ss. 10, 17 and 22 of the Indian Divorce Act , (IV of 1869), the moot question is whether the plaintiff-petitioner (Ambujam G. Ammal) has established, on the facts, her claim for divorce. The plaint shows that the plaintiff-petitioner prayed for divorce, upon one of the grounds specified in the second part of S. 10 , viz., \"of adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce a mensa et thoro\". (2) In the plaint, there is a long account given of the conduct of the respondent (defendant) subsequent to this marriage, particularly in the form of dissolute living, physical violence towards the petitioner and her children, seizure of her earnings, and imputations of unchastity. Broadly stated, the situation is that the plaintiff was a student in the S.S.L.C. class when the...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "(3) But, unfortunately for the petitioner, such cruelty, by itself, is not an adequate ground for divorce. The scheme of S. 10 is that if the wife is to succeed in a decree for divorce against the husband, she must show not merely cruelty, but adultery coupled with cruelty. It is true that the petitioner in her plaint did allege that the defendant (respondent) was guilty of loose living, and unfaithfulness to her. She refers to illicit intimacy between the defendant and other parties at Chikka Narasayyanna Village. But, obviously, a vague averment of loose conduct will not be sufficient as proof of adultery. Adultery is a specific matrimonial offence, and this court had occasion to point out in the Full Bench decision in Siluvaimani Ammal v. Thangiah Nadar , 1956-2 Mad LJ 69: (AIR 1956 Mad 421 FB) that vague allegations of adultery, or evidence confined to a mere statement that the respondent was keeping a woman, will not be adequate to sustain a finding of adultery.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/52764/ | AIR1966MAD153, AIR 1966 MADRAS 153, 1978 MADLW 731 (1966) 1 MADLJ1, (1966) 1 MADLJ1", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; cruelty", "Judgment Year": 1965, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1966MAD153, AIR 1966 MADRAS 153, 1978 MADLW 731 (1966) 1 MADLJ1, (1966) 1 MADLJ1", "Kanoon Doc ID": "52764", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/52764/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Kerala High Court", "Case Title": "State Of Kerala vs Santhosh on 13 November, 2008", "Case Number": "No. 363 of 2005", "Judgment Date": "2008-11-13", "Judges": "Balakrishnan Nair, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 113B, Section 125, Section 16, Section 302, Section 304B, Section 428, Section 494, Section 498A, Section 5, Section 50", "Legal Topics": "Cruelty", "Outcome": "Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: The accused and the deceased were husband and wife. Apparently for the reason that she was the sister of the brother's wife of the accused, the family members of the accused were against their marriage. So, they got married in the Sub Registrar's Office and thereafter they were residing together as husband and wife in a thatched house. The accused was harbouring doubts regarding his wife's chastity. He used to take liquor and CRL.A.363/05 - 2 - 3. PW1, the brother of the deceased Shyamala, who was residing in the neighbourhood of her, saw the house of Shyamala engulfed by fire and he rushed to that house. One of the doors of that house was seen tied using coir. He broke open the door and entered the room. He found that the body of Shyamala was burning. He also saw the accused going out of that room through another door. Soon what remained was only the charred body of Shyamala. He filed Ext.P1 F.I. Statement on the night of 4-3-2002 itself at Irinjalakuda Police Station. PW18 recorded the F.I.Statement and registered Ext.P9 F.I.R.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: The accused and the deceased were husband and wife. Apparently for the reason that she was the sister of the brother's wife of the accused, the family members of the accused were against their marriage. So, they got married in the Sub Registrar's Office and thereafter they were residing together as husband and wife in a thatched house. The accused was harbouring doubts regarding his wife's chastity. He used to take liquor and CRL.A.363/05 - 2 -", "Issues": "17. The postmortem report, Ext.P8 would show that there was smell of kerosene on the dead body. Ext.P4 would show that kerosene was detected on three items recovered from the scene of occurrence. They were (1) charred hairs, (2)burnt mat and (3) burnt cloth. Going by the evidence of the witnesses, the body of Shyamala did not catch fire from the burning house. In fact, her body was completely burnt before the building burnt and collapsed. So, the death of Shyamala can be homicidal, that is somebody poured kerosene on her and set fire. It can be suicidal also. She might have poured kerosene on her body and set fire. But there is no clinching evidence as to whether it is a case of homicide or suicide. Evidence pointed out against the accused by the prosecution is the presence of the accused in the scene of occurrence. PW1 has stated...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Cruelty Ratio: Application of Samar Ghosh / Dastane principles; assessment whether sustained conduct caused reasonable apprehension of danger or mental torment rendering cohabitation impossible, beyond normal marital wear and tear.", "Decision": "The Criminal Appeal is disposed of as above.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1424442/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Cruelty", "All Grounds": "cruelty", "Judgment Year": 2008, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1424442", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1424442/", "Chunks Indexed": 12 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Revision vs V.Sobhana Kumar on 18 July, 2023", "Case Number": "I.D.O.P.No.30 of 2015", "Judgment Date": "2023-07-18", "Judges": "C.Kumarappan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Constitution of India; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 114, Section 5, Section 96", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "The present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the return order passed in Unnumbered I.A.Nos.Nil of 2016 in I.D.O.P.No.30 of 2015, dated 22.06.2017, on the file of the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. 4. It appears that the petitioner/husband has filed an application for the relief to dissolve the marriage solemnized on 26.08.1993. While the application was pending, the learned trial Judge has passed an order on 08.08.2016, after set the respondent/wife exparte and ultimately, granted the relief of divorce to the petitioner/husband. Against the said order, the respondent/wife has filed an application to set aside the exparte decree along with the delay condonation application. However, both the applications have not been numbered and have been returned as per the following endorsements:", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The revision petitioner is the petitioner/respondent before the trial Court. She filed this Civil Revision Petition against the unnumbered Section 5 of Limitation Act application and an unnumbered Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C . application.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/wife would submit that the very order passed by the learned trial Judge is contrary to the provisions of Order 17 Rule 2 of C.P.C , and also would submit that the revision petitioner/wife has not filed a counter statement and that she has not cross 6. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2010 (1) MWN (Civil) 612 ( Muneeswari vs. Vanmathi ) and Paragraph Nos.20, 21 and 22 are extracted as follows: 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2014 (4) L.W. 193 ( Vijaya and others Vs. Ranganathan and others ) and Paragraph No.17 is extracted as follows: 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2013 (1) L.W 737 ( Arunachalam Vs. Valliyappan ) and Paragraph Nos.3 and 12 are extracted as follows: “3. The epitome and the long and short of the germane facts...", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "19. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114037796/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2023, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "114037796", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114037796/", "Chunks Indexed": 15 }, { "Court": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Prem Masih vs Mst. Kumudani Bai And Anr. on 30 November, 1973", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1973-11-30", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 14, Section 16, Section 17, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree of Dissolution Granted / Confirmed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act made by the District Judge, Bilaspur, for confirmation of a decree nisi Passed by him under Section 16 of the Act on the ground of adultery of the wife. 2. The petitioner Prem Masih was married to Smt. Kumudanibai, the first respondent on 6th July 1964 and they lived as husband and wife at Jyotipur, Pendra Road, where they were married for about two months. The petitioner wanted the wife to shift to his village home in Chakapendra, District Durg but she refused to so there. At that time, Rajendra Kumar, the second respondent, used to visit the wife and the petitioner suspected intimacy between them. The petitioner joined military service in October 1965. When he came on leave, he found the first respondent residing with the second respondent as wife and husband. The first respondent has also given birth to two children while she was living with the second respondent. These facts have been fully established from the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses namely. Asisdan (P.W. 2) and B. Masih (P. W. 3). The respondent did not appear to contest the proceedings and the evidence was recorded ex parte. The learned District Judge has accepted the evidence of these witnesses and we do not...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act made by the District Judge, Bilaspur, for confirmation of a decree nisi Passed by him under Section 16 of the Act on the ground of adultery of the wife.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "5. For the reasons given above, we confirm the decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur. As the parties have not appeared in this Court, there will be", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/484949/ | AIR1974MP88, AIR 1974 MADHYA PRADESH 88, 1974 JABLJ 247, 1974 MPLJ 188, ILR (1975) MP 565", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1973, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "Yes", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1974MP88, AIR 1974 MADHYA PRADESH 88, 1974 JABLJ 247, 1974 MPLJ 188, ILR (1975) MP 565", "Kanoon Doc ID": "484949", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/484949/", "Chunks Indexed": 2 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "M. Mallika vs M. Raju And Anr. on 11 February, 2005", "Case Number": "No. 30 of 2002", "Judgment Date": "2005-02-11", "Judges": "Prabha Sridevan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This revision has been filed against the interlocutory order passed in HMOP.No. 30 of 2002, impleading the second respondent herein as correspondent. 2. The first respondent herein filed the above OP for divorce on the grounds of adultery, cruelty and desertion. The petitioner herein filed her counter denying all the allegations. Subsequently, the first respondent filed this application in I.A.No. 31 of 2003 to implead the second respondent alleging that he is the paramour and that his wife (the petitioner herein) is living with him in adultery. According to the first respondent, the presence of the second respondent was necessary for effective adjudication for the main controversy.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This revision has been filed against the interlocutory order passed in HMOP.No. 30 of 2002, impleading the second respondent herein as correspondent.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "4. The Court below came to the conclusion that the first respondent had stated in the main petition, that the petitioner has developed illicit intimacy with her sister's husband (the 2nd respondent herein) and was continuously living in adultery with her sister's husband and that in Ex.R-2, reply notice the name of the alleged paramour is specifically mentioned, but in the petition, as well as in the box, the first respondent had only stated that the petitioner was living an adulterous life with her sister's husband without naming the second respondent. The Court below came to the conclusion that without impleading the second respondent, the issue cannot, be fully decided. The Court below referred to the decision in Easwaran v. Mani , 2001 (1) MLJ 318, in support of its conclusion. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that while the impleadment of the co-respondent is made mandatory in the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act , the legislature thought it fit not to introduce a similar Section in the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore, it is...", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "13. The CRP is therefore dismissed accordingly. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140596/ | 2005(2)CTC28, II(2005)DMC143", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 2005, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 2005(2)CTC28, II(2005)DMC143", "Kanoon Doc ID": "140596", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140596/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "Joseph Anthony Sweenney vs Mercy Beatrice Catherine Sweenney And ... on 18 March, 1935", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1935-03-18", "Judges": "Costello, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Indian Evidence Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 112, Section 118, Section 17", "Legal Topics": "Adultery; Desertion", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act for confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage made by the District Judge of Midnapore. 2. The petitioner is Joseph Anthony Sweenney and the respondent is Mercy Beatrice Catherine Sweenney. The husband petitioner was seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground of latter's adultery with a man named Lazarus Thaddeus who was made the co-respondent in the proceedings and against whom the learned Judge made an order for payment of costs.", "Fact/ Respondent": "2. The petitioner is Joseph Anthony Sweenney and the respondent is Mercy Beatrice Catherine Sweenney. The husband petitioner was seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground of latter's adultery with a man named Lazarus Thaddeus who was made the co-respondent in the proceedings and against whom the learned Judge made an order for payment of costs.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Desertion Test: Proof of two years continuous separation (factum of separation) coupled with animus deserendi (intention to permanently terminate cohabitation) without reasonable cause and without petitioner consent. | Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "19. I, therefore, agree that the case should be remanded.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/870023/ | 163IND. CAS.749", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery; desertion", "Judgment Year": 1935, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: 163IND. CAS.749", "Kanoon Doc ID": "870023", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/870023/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Madras High Court", "Case Title": "Subbarama Reddiar vs Saraswathi Ammal on 16 March, 1966", "Case Number": "C.M.A. No. 64 of 1962", "Judgment Date": "1966-03-16", "Judges": "M. Anantanarayanan, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 100, Section 13, Section 25, Section 56", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Decree for Judicial Separation Granted", "Fact/ Petitioner": "8. Before proceeding into this aspect, which necessarily involves a discussion of the facts of evidence, and the scope of the record we may refer to the several decisions discussed by the learned Judge (Venkataari, J.) in his judgment, as laying down the true principles of law applicable to proof of the factum of adultery, where this is alleged by one spouse against another as a matrimonial offence. In Varadarajulu Naidu v. Baby Ammal (1964) 2 M.L.J. 187 Venkatadri, J., himself held that, in divorce cases on the ground of adultery, Courts can act even upon uncorroborated testimony and grant relief, taking the surrounding circumstances into consideration. In that juagment as in the present judgment, the learned Judge referred to the dicta of Sir William, Scott in Lovedon v. Lovedon (1810) 2 Hag. Rep. 1. He also referred to the observation of Coleridge, J., in Riches v. Riches 35 T.L.R. 141 and the dicta of Denning, L.J., in Miller v. Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All E.R. 372. In the judgment under appeal, the learned Judge referred to certain other decisions and they include Rose v. Rose 10. L.R. (1930) A.C. 1 Gower v. Gower (1950) 1 All E.R. 804 Preston Jones v. Preston Jones (1951) 1 All E.R. 124 and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Earnest John...", "Fact/ Respondent": "10. Having said all this, we may now proceed to a very brief conspectus of the evidence in the case. As we stated earlier, there is quite a volume of testimony about the particular incident upon which the husband relied for proof of adultery-According to him, there was a ceremony (karumadi) at Chekamjeri village that evening and he proceeded there at 6 P.M. and came back to his house at midnight, or sometime thereafter. We have been referred to discrepancies in the times furnished by various witnesses, but in our view, they are eminently natural to testimonies of persons in rural areas, and of little consequence. The husband (P.W. 1) came and found an old lady Sayamma (P.W. 2) in front of his house, outside. When he pushed the door and went into the bedroom, he saw his wife, the respondent and one Ramanathan \" lying one over the other \". He raised cries of distress and alarm, and caught hold of tne intruder Ramanathan. Hearing the shouts, Sayammal (P.W. 2) came there, and also raised cries and caught hold of the husband the petitioner probably being afraid that he would stab the other man. In this disturbance, Ramanathan succeeded...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "12. Regarded in this light, there are only two arguments that would appear to merit further discussion at our hands. The first is an argument put forward by the learned Counsel for the respondent, but not referred to by the learned Judge. It is that the conclusion of the trial Court, and even the conclusion of the first appellate Court are not couched in such explicit terms as to lead to an inference that those Courts thought that the fact of adultery had been established beyond reasonable doubt. In particular, reference is made to one observation of the trial Court, that the evidence about adulterous intercourse was very flimsy, and depended entirely on the interested testimony of P.W. 1 and the corroborative testimony of P.W. 2 etc. We do not think that we would be justified in taking a stray observation from the judgment of the trial Court, and basing any power of interference upon that as involving a principle of law. The judgments of the two Courts are clear and explicit that on the evidence, they found the fact...", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "15. In the light of the above analysis, we allow the Letters Patent Appeal, set aside the decree of Venkatadri, J. and restore the decree for judicial separation, granted by the trial Court. We also direct, Under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (XXV of 1955), that the husband do pay the wife alimony of Rs. 35 per mensem awarded by the Courts originally till such time as she becomes-disentitled to it by any second marriage. The parties will bear their own costs.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/450349/ | (1966)2MLJ263, AIR 1967 MADRAS 85, (1966) 79 MADLW 382, (1966) 2 MADLJ263, ILR (1968) 1 MAD 205", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1966, "Relief Status": "judicial_separation", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: (1966)2MLJ263, AIR 1967 MADRAS 85, (1966) 79 MADLW 382, (1966) 2 MADLJ263, ILR (1968) 1 MAD 205", "Kanoon Doc ID": "450349", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/450349/", "Chunks Indexed": 4 }, { "Court": "Calcutta High Court", "Case Title": "A.J. Tulloch vs M.P. Tulloch And Anr. on 30 July, 1974", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1974-07-30", "Judges": "Sudhamay Basu, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Indian Evidence Act, 1872", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 115, Section 188, Section 3, Section 488, Section 50, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Adultery", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The petitioner has come up before this Court for a decree dissolving his marriage with the respondent, Maxine Patrica Tulloch. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner was married with the respondent on the 2nd of July, 1970, according to the Roman Catholic rites. A certificate extract from the register of marriages is annexed to the petition. It is alleged further that the petitioner and tho respondent last resided together at 83, Park Street, Calcutta at the home of the petitioner's sister between 1st of February and the 8th of February, 1971. The petitioner acknowledges the paternity of a child born to tha respondent on the 7th of June, 1972. It is stated that in a previous suit filed by the petitioner in this Court a decree was passed ex parte on 21st of April, 1971 but the same was later on set aside. It transpires that an appeal from the same has since been disposed of against the petitioner. The petitioners case is that the respondent was living in adultery with the co-respondent at Santragachi. The petitioner engaged a firm of private investigator from whose report he learnt that the respondent was living in open concubinage with the co-respondent. The petitioner accompanied by two operatives of the said firm on the 22nd of May, 1972 also found the...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The petitioner has come up before this Court for a decree dissolving his marriage with the respondent, Maxine Patrica Tulloch. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner was married with the respondent on the 2nd of July, 1970, according to the Roman Catholic rites. A certificate extract from the register of marriages is annexed to the petition. It is alleged further that the petitioner and tho respondent last resided together at 83, Park Street, Calcutta at the home of the petitioner's sister between 1st of February and the 8th of February, 1971. The petitioner acknowledges the paternity of a child born to tha respondent on the 7th of June, 1972. It is stated that in a previous suit filed by the petitioner in this Court a decree was passed ex parte on 21st of April, 1971 but the same was later on set aside. It transpires that an appeal from the same has since been disposed of against the petitioner. The petitioners case is that the respondent was living in adultery with the co-respondent at Santragachi. The petitioner engaged a firm of private investigator from whose report he learnt that the respondent was living in open concubinage with the...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (adultery) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "27. It maybe mentioned that Rao did not impress the Court. Mr. D'Rose fairly conceded that perhaps too much of confidence in himself induced him to make statements which were not always correct. Prosad's state-merits also involved contradiction but as Mr. D'Rose pleaded, his evidence in entirety need not be discarded. The Court assumes from his statement as corroborated by others such as Mr. Macmarquis, Mr. Tulloch, Rodney and Mrs. Charlesworth that Maxine was seen at the house of Mr. Macmarquis on the 24th, 30th April, 1st May and 22nd of May, 1973 and that some ladies' clothes were found in the bed room of Mr. Macmarquis which Mrs. Charlesworth sought to explain to be hers. The demeanour of Mr. Macmarquis was good. Rodney Everson, however, did not make a good impression. Many of his answers failed to be forthright. Mr. D'Rose. however, made comments that he did not want his past to be investigated. His letter and his prolonged stay at Santragachi were also subject of some legitimate comments by Mr. D'Rose. It is not necessary for the purpose...", "Respondent Argument": "2. In an answer the respondent denied that she resided with the petitioner at 83, Park Street within the jurisdiction of this Court or that she resides or ever resided with the corespondent at Santragachi as alleged or at all. She has, inter alia, denied the allegations that she had met or was living with the co-respondent at Santragachi as alleged or at all. She had denied that the petitioner or the private investigator did or could find her sharing the same bed room with the co-respondent as alleged or at all. She further denies that she confessed or that there can be any reason or occasion for the confession that she was a concubine of the co-respondent. She has also dealt with other allegations in the petition which will not be material to take note of. 3. The co-respondent has also filed an answer denying that the respondent was residing with him or ever resided with him as alleged or at all. The co-respondent has also denied the allegations of adultery or living in concubinage with him by the...", "Factors to be Considered": "Adultery Standard: High degree of probability required for matrimonial offence; circumstantial evidence establishing inclination and opportunity beyond mere suspicion.", "Decision": "1. The petitioner has come up before this Court for a decree dissolving his marriage with the respondent, Maxine Patrica Tulloch. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner was married with the respondent on the 2nd of July, 1970, according to the Roman Catholic rites. A certificate extract from the register of marriages is annexed to the petition. It is alleged further that the petitioner and tho respondent last resided together at 83, Park Street, Calcutta at the home of the petitioner's sister between 1st of February and the 8th of February, 1971. The petitioner acknowledges the paternity of a child born to tha respondent on the 7th of June, 1972. It is stated that in a previous suit filed by the petitioner in this Court a decree was passed ex parte on 21st of April, 1971 but the same was later on set aside. It transpires that an appeal from the same has since been disposed of against the petitioner. The petitioners case is that the respondent was living in adultery with the co-respondent at Santragachi. The petitioner engaged...", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/332380/ | AIR1975CAL243, 79CWN157, AIR 1975 CALCUTTA 243", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Adultery", "All Grounds": "adultery", "Judgment Year": 1974, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1975CAL243, 79CWN157, AIR 1975 CALCUTTA 243", "Kanoon Doc ID": "332380", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/332380/", "Chunks Indexed": 9 }, { "Court": "Delhi High Court - Orders", "Case Title": "Sh Abhinav David Singh & Anr vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 18 May, 2026", "Case Number": "M.A. 15762/2026", "Judgment Date": "2026-05-18", "Judges": "Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 528", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Unclear", "Fact/ Petitioner": "By way of the present petition filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioners, who are the former husband and sister-in-law of the complainant/respondent No. 2, seek quashing of case FIR No. 0499/2018 dated 07.06.2018 registered under sections 498-A / 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (' IPC ') at P.S.: Uttam Nagar, Delhi. 2. The petition is premised on Settlement Agreement dated 05.06.2023 arrived at through mediation before the Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi; and Divorce Decree dated 19.09.2024, which is the culmination of petitions under sections 10A(1) and 10A(2) of the Divorce Act, 1869, whereby the parties had sought dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.", "Fact/ Respondent": "By way of the present petition filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioners, who are the former husband and sister-in-law of the complainant/respondent No. 2, seek quashing of case FIR No. 0499/2018 dated 07.06.2018 registered under sections 498-A / 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (' IPC ') at P.S.: Uttam Nagar, Delhi.", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/05/2026 at 21:12:53", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51134356/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2026, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "51134356", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51134356/", "Chunks Indexed": 3 }, { "Court": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", "Case Title": "Pritish Nandi vs Not Mention on 22 November, 2022", "Case Number": "WRIT PETITION No. 21344 of 2022", "Judgment Date": "2022-11-22", "Judges": "Sushrut, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Family Courts Act, 1984", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 10A, Section 13, Section 13B, Section 23, Section 28, Section 9", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "The husband and wife have jointly filed an application under section 10-A of the Divorce Act, 1869, before the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, in Case No.CCB/16/2009.RCSA.91/2022 for waiving off the cooling Signature Not Verified SAN period, which has been rejected. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep singh Vs. Harveen Kaur , reported in AIR 2017 SC 4417 , has considered the question whether the minimum period of six months stipulated under section 13(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') for a motion for a passing decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent is mandatory or directory and whether such period can be relaxed in exceptional situation. The object of the provisions contained in section 13B of the Act of 1955 was considered by the Apex court and it was held as follows :-", "Fact/ Respondent": "The husband and wife have jointly filed an application under section 10-A of the Divorce Act, 1869, before the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, in Case No.CCB/16/2009.RCSA.91/2022 for waiving off the cooling Signature Not Verified SAN period, which has been rejected.", "Issues": "\"13B Divorce by mutual consent.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the District Court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage wa s solemnised before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 , on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. \"10A. Dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, a petition for dissolution of marriage may be presented to the District Court by both t h e parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of...", "Petitioner Argument": "It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband and Date: 2022.11.23 18:45:00 IST 2 wife are of Indian domicile and are Christians by faith and religion. On 23.7.2018 both of them were lawfully married. Marriage certificate dated 29.8.2018 was issued. Since their marriage was not successful, therefore, they have decided to obtain the decree of divorce by mutual consent. Both of them have decided to seek divorce and to live separately, therefore, it was prayed that pendency of divorce petition may be waived off. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no possibility of compromise between the parties in future.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep singh Vs. Harveen Kaur , reported in AIR 2017 SC 4417 , has considered the question whether the minimum period of six months stipulated under section 13(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') for a motion for a passing decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent is mandatory or directory and whether such period can be relaxed in exceptional situation. The object of the provisions contained in section 13B of the Act of 1955 was considered by the Apex court and it was held as follows :- \"7. In Amardeep Singh (supra), after analysing the provision contained in Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held as follows:", "Decision": "Resultantly, writ petition stands allowed. Learned Family Court is directed to proceed further in accordance with law.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10164126/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; unclear", "Judgment Year": 2022, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "10164126", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10164126/", "Chunks Indexed": 12 }, { "Court": "Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati", "Case Title": "Smt. Ganta Kathimanda Sharmila, vs Ganta Prashant Kumar, on 27 July, 2022", "Case Number": "No.46 of 2022", "Judgment Date": "2022-07-27", "Judges": "Kongara, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Appeal / Petition Allowed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "This transfer CMP is filed seeking to transfer FC OP No.91 of 2021 on the file of the Judge, Family Court (III Additional District Judge), Vizianagaram to be tried by the Judge, Family Court (V Additional District Judge), Visakhapatnam. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent is the husband of the petitioner and their marriage was performed on 14.02.2018 at Pentecoastal Church, Vizianagaram as per Christian customs and religious rites; out of the wedlock, they were blessed with a female child on 16.04.2019; after the marriage, as the respondent used to harass the petitioner in all forms, she filed MC No.4 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chodavaram seeking maintenance to herself and for her minor child; after receipt of the notice in the above case, respondent filed FC OP No.91 of 2021 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vizianagaram for dissolution of the marriage under Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869; at the time of filing of the MC No.4 of 2021, petitioner was staying along with her mother at Chodavaram, where her mother used to work as a Teacher and she retired from service on 30.11.2021 and later they came down to Visakhapatnam; as the petitioner being a house wife, dependent on her mother, with a minor child...", "Fact/ Respondent": "Brief facts of the case are that, respondent is the husband of the petitioner and their marriage was performed on 14.02.2018 at Pentecoastal Church, Vizianagaram as per Christian customs and religious rites; out of the wedlock, they were blessed with a female child on 16.04.2019; after the marriage, as the respondent used to harass the petitioner in all forms, she filed MC No.4 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chodavaram seeking maintenance to herself and for her minor child; after receipt of the notice in the above case, respondent filed FC OP No.91 of 2021 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vizianagaram for dissolution of the marriage under Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869; at the time of filing of the MC No.4 of 2021, petitioner was staying along with her mother at Chodavaram, where her mother used to work as a Teacher and she retired from service on 30.11.2021 and later they came down to Visakhapatnam; as the petitioner being a house wife, dependent on her mother, with a minor child and does not have financial support, it is very difficult for her to travel to Vizianagaram from Visakhapatnam and...", "Issues": "Whether grounds for dissolution under Section 10 (unclear) are established by substantive evidence.", "Petitioner Argument": "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. The number of divorce and related matters are increasing day by day for various reasons and in such matters both the spouses may face genuine difficulties. The spouse against whom the transfer proceeding is instituted would face hardship and inconvenience by being required to commute to a distant court, while the spouse who has instituted the original proceeding may genuinely suffer grave inconvenience if the proceeding is transferred to a distant court within whose jurisdiction the other spouse resides. Hence, the transfer matters have to be decided basing on the facts of each case. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena 1 , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court referred to the decision in „K.A. Abdul Jaleel vs. T.A.Shahida 2 and laid stress on securing speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the said case held as follows: \"It has come to the notice of the Court that on certain occasions the Family Courts have been granting adjournments...", "Respondent Argument": "Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is at present working at Chennai and that it will be difficult for him to travel to Visakahpatnam. As the respondent is not residing at Vizianagaram, where HM OP No.91 of 2021 was instituted by him, it makesno difference for him, even if the case is transferred from Vizianagaram to Viskhapatnam. In view of the facts and circumstances and in the light of the above referred judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, FC OP No.91 of 2021 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vizianagaram is withdrawn and 6 KVL, J Trcmp No.46 of 2022 transferred to the file of the Judge, Family court, Visakhapatnam, to be tried in accordance with law. As the respondent is working in a private institution at Chennai, his appearance may be dispensed with except on the dates when his appearance is necessary for the disposal of the case. The transfer CMP is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition, shall stand closed.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "The transfer CMP is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition, shall stand closed.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68470164/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2022, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "68470164", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68470164/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Kashavva W/O. Lagmanna Hanamannavar vs Devaki Alleging To Be W/O. Lagamanna ... on 13 July, 2023", "Case Number": "APPEAL NO. 5446 OF 2012", "Judgment Date": "2023-07-13", "Judges": "Rajendra, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 100, Section 50", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "This appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC, by defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Fast Track court and Adhoc District Judge, Hukkeri, in RA No.364/2011 dated 07.03.2012 and sought for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of Lagamanna Appanna Hammannavar and sought injunction against the defendant from causing obstruction and interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of -3- RSA No. 5446 of 2012 the suit schedule ABC properties. Plaintiff asserted that she is the legally wedded wife of Lagamanna and their marriage was solmanised as per the customs and traditions of their caste in Ingali village. It is also alleged that after the marriage, she joined Lagamanna for leading marital life and the society has recognized them as husband and wife and the name of the plaintiff is appearing in voters list, ration card, voters ID card as wife of Lagamanna and after the death of Lagamanna, she inherited the properties. She asserted that Lagamanna has never married with the defendant and they never resided as husband and wife. She also asserts that the Society has not recognised Lagamanna and defendant as husband and wife and after the death of Lagamanna, only with...", "Fact/ Respondent": "This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of Lagamanna Appanna Hammannavar and sought injunction against the defendant from causing obstruction and interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of -3- RSA No. 5446 of 2012 the suit schedule ABC properties. Plaintiff asserted that she is the legally wedded wife of Lagamanna and their marriage was solmanised as per the customs and traditions of their caste in Ingali village. It is also alleged that after the marriage, she joined Lagamanna for leading marital life and the society has recognized them as husband and wife and the name of the plaintiff is appearing in voters list, ration card, voters ID card as wife of Lagamanna and after the death of Lagamanna, she inherited the properties. She asserted that Lagamanna has never married with the defendant and they never resided as husband and wife. She also asserts that the Society has not recognised Lagamanna and defendant as husband and wife and after the death of Lagamanna, only with an intention to grab his properties, she is asserting that she is the wife of Lagamanna. She has also contended that after the...", "Issues": "5. The Trial Court on the basis of the rival pleadings has framed the following issues:- Issues \"1. Whether the plaintiff proves she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Lagamanna Appanna Hammannavar? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves she was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as on the date of suit? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves alleged interference? 4. Whether the defendant proves she is the legally wedded wife of Lagamanna Appanna Hammannavar? 5. Whether defendant proves she is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit property? 6. Whether the suit defendant proves there is no cause of action for this suit? 7. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff has paid proper court fee has not properly valued the suit? 8. Whether the defendant is entitled for compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/-? 9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaratory relief as sought...", "Petitioner Argument": "9. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent. Perused records. 10. This Court while admitting the appeal on 23.08.2013 has framed the following substantial question of law:- 11. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that admittedly, the defendant is the daughter of elder sister of Lagamanna and he would contend that her marriage was solmanised about 35 years aback along with the marriage of other brothers of Lagamanna. He would contend that plaintiff in her entire pleading, nowhere pleaded as to when her marriage was solmanised, where it was solmanised and who have attended the marriage. It is further asserted that she has also not examined any of the witnesses to show that Society has treated them as -9- RSA No. 5446 of 2012 husband and wife and even her brothers and sisters were not examined in this regard. He would also contend that no doubt certain records show her as wife of Lagamanna, but, she had illicit relationship with Lagamanna and the documents produced by the defendant would disclose...", "Respondent Argument": "26. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the long standing relationship between Lagamanna and plaintiff establish the legal status. But, the same rule is also applicable to defendant. As - 22 -", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court is set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is restored.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190393115/", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 2023, "Relief Status": "none", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "", "Kanoon Doc ID": "190393115", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190393115/", "Chunks Indexed": 12 }, { "Court": "Karnataka High Court", "Case Title": "Deva Prasad Reddy vs Kamini Reddy And Anr. on 19 April, 2002", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "2002-04-19", "Judges": "Not specified", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 13, Section 2D, Section 44", "Legal Topics": "Mutual Consent 10A; Conversion", "Outcome": "Petition / Appeal Dismissed", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration and consequential relief. The Court Below has while decreeing the suit held that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in this appeal is the legally wedded wife of the defendant-appellant and their daughter Ms. Mrinalini Reddy their only legal heir. The Court has also declared the marriage between the appellant and defendant-respondent No. 2 to be a nullity and restrained the said respondent from claiming herself to be the wife of the appellant. 2. The appellant and plaintiff-respondent No. 1 are Christians by faith. They were married on 21st of January 1992 at Madras as per Roman Catholic rites. After the marriage they lived for sometime in Koramangala from where they later shifted to a house in Coxtown, Bangalore. In May 1992, the plaintiff-wife is alleged to have discovered an extra marital affair between her husband and respondent No. 2 Smt. Nagina. The plaintiffs case is that when confronted the appellant could not explain the illicit liaison and walked out of the house leaving the plaintiff in a helpless state and forcing her to shift residence with her parents in Madras. At Madras she gave birth to a female child on 16th of October 1992 named Mrinalini Reddy. Efforts made by the plaintiff-wife to go back to the appellant-husband...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration and consequential relief. The Court Below has while decreeing the suit held that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in this appeal is the legally wedded wife of the defendant-appellant and their daughter Ms. Mrinalini Reddy their only legal heir. The Court has also declared the marriage between the appellant and defendant-respondent No. 2 to be a nullity and restrained the said respondent from claiming herself to be the wife of the appellant.", "Issues": "9. What then remains to be examined is whether the decree of divorce granted by the American Court is valid for if it is a nullity as argued by the appellant, the marriage contracted by the appellant with respondent No. 1 shall also be non-est in the eye of law. On the contrary, if the decree is held to be valid as between the parties and even qua the appellant, the marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 1 shall have to be treated as validly contracted and a declaration to that effect granted. As a necessary consequence, the marriage contracted by the appellant and respondent No. 2 shall have to be declared to be illegal and void ab initio. 23. It is in the light of what we have said in the foregoing paragraphs unnecessary to examine the question whether the judgment and decree passed by the Court in...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "26. In the result, there is no merit in this Appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1539845/ | AIR2002KANT356, II(2002)DMC482, AIR 2002 KARNATAKA 356, 2002 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1722, (2002) ILR (KANT) (3) 2835, (2002) 2 DMC 482, (2003) 3 KANT LJ 38, (2003) 1 MARRILJ 252, (2002) 4 RECCIVR 758, (2002) 3 ICC 657, (2002) 4 CIVLJ 295", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Mutual Consent 10A", "All Grounds": "mutual_consent_10A; conversion", "Judgment Year": 2002, "Relief Status": "dissolution", "Marriage Dissolved": "No", "Legal Era": "Post-2001 Amendment", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR2002KANT356, II(2002)DMC482, AIR 2002 KARNATAKA 356, 2002 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1722, (2002) ILR (KANT) (3) 2835, (2002) 2 DMC 482, (2003) 3 KANT LJ 38, (2003) 1 MARRILJ 252, (2002) 4 RECCIVR 758, (2002) 3 ICC 657, (2002) 4 CIVLJ 295", "Kanoon Doc ID": "1539845", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1539845/", "Chunks Indexed": 11 }, { "Court": "Orissa High Court", "Case Title": "Smt. Jayanti Munjet vs Asit Kumar Mohanty on 8 January, 1988", "Case Number": "", "Judgment Date": "1988-01-08", "Judges": "S.C. Mohapatra, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 115, Section 36", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. The defendant in a suit by the husband under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short 'the Act') is the petitioner against an order under Section 36 thereof relating to alimony pendente lite. \"36. Alimony pendente lite -- In any suit under this Act, whether it be instituted by a husband or a wife, and whether or not she has obtained an order of protection, the wife may present a petition for alimony pending the suit.", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. The defendant in a suit by the husband under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short 'the Act') is the petitioner against an order under Section 36 thereof relating to alimony pendente lite.", "Issues": "\"36. Alimony pendente lite -- In any suit under this Act, whether it be instituted by a husband or a wife, and whether or not she has obtained an order of protection, the wife may present a petition for alimony pending the suit. Such petition shall be served on the husband, and the Court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements therein contained, may make such order on the husband for payment to the wife of alimony pending the suit as it may deem just : Provided that alimony pending the suit shall, in no case exceed one-fifth of the husband's average net income for the three years next preceding the date of the order, and shall continue, in case of a decree for dissolution of marriage or of nullity of marriage, until the decree is made absolute or is confirmed, as the case may be.\"", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "Respondent denied allegations of desertion/cruelty, contending no cause of action under Section 10.", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "Provided that alimony pending the suit shall, in no case exceed one-fifth of the husband's average net income for the three years next preceding the date of the order, and shall continue, in case of a decree for dissolution of marriage or of nullity of marriage, until the decree is made absolute or is confirmed, as the case may be.\"", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/739007/ | AIR1988ORI195, AIR 1988 ORISSA 195, (1988) MATLR 301, (1988) 1 ORISSA LR 277, (1988) 1 CURCC 702", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 1988, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1988ORI195, AIR 1988 ORISSA 195, (1988) MATLR 301, (1988) 1 ORISSA LR 277, (1988) 1 CURCC 702", "Kanoon Doc ID": "739007", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/739007/", "Chunks Indexed": 5 }, { "Court": "Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur", "Case Title": "Mrs. Priti Parihar vs Flt. Lt. Kailash Singh Parihar on 4 October, 1974", "Case Number": "Appeal No. 49/72", "Judgment Date": "1974-10-04", "Judges": "B.P. Beri, J.", "Acts Cited": "Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955", "Sections Cited": "Section 10, Section 24, Section 7", "Legal Topics": "Unclear", "Outcome": "Remanded", "Fact/ Petitioner": "1. This is an appeal by a wife, who is defending a suit for judicial separation under the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called \"the Act\") in the Court of the District Judge. Jodhpur, directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated July 4, 1973, who summarily dismissed her appeal, wherein she had claimed additional expenses from her husband under Section 24 of the Act. 2. In S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 49/72 this Court had allowed a sum of Rs. 500/- to the wife for meeting her expenses of the litigation by its order dated 6-4-1972. The wife urged before the trial Court by an application dated 4-4-1973 that in order to defend herself she had to go up to the High Court twice. Apart from this expenditure, several applications were moved by her before the trial Court, besides the petitioner having amended his petition she had to amend her written statement and she had thus incurred expenditure to the extent of Rs. 765/-. which sum did not include the professional fees of the lawyers for the trial Court, The learned District Judge observed, reading the order dated 6-4-1972 passed by this Court, that it \"conclusively determined the right of the non-petitioner to claim expenses to contest and defend this matrimonial case ..... and the expenses now...", "Fact/ Respondent": "1. This is an appeal by a wife, who is defending a suit for judicial separation under the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called \"the Act\") in the Court of the District Judge. Jodhpur, directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated July 4, 1973, who summarily dismissed her appeal, wherein she had claimed additional expenses from her husband under Section 24 of the Act.", "Issues": "4. The first question is, whether this Court had conclusively fixed the expenses by its order dated 6-4-1972 ? The order says.-- \"Out of this amount of Rs. 500/- a sum of Rs. 400/- will be adjusted towards the expenses of litigation in the trial Court and Rs. 100/- towards the expenses of this appeal. It is however, further made clear that this amount of Rs. 400/-will not include the expenses which the present appellant may have to incur in paying reasonable witness expenses in the lower Court.\" 5. Would it be right to say that this conclusively determined expenses regardless of the course of litigation ? The answer is in the negative. It is not always possible for any Court to anticipate the situations in the course of a litigation and it should be read to mean that if the litigation proceeded normally this amount was assessed to be...", "Petitioner Argument": "Petitioner submitted that matrimonial offences of cruelty/desertion/adultery render continuation of marriage impossible.", "Respondent Argument": "9. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that it was a peculiar case where the cross-examination of the petitioner is continuing for the last 27 days and meaningless applications are being endlessly moved. We would not like to express any opinion on the length of the cross-examination in this appeal. The learned District Judge will be at liberty to assess each item of the costs claimed and if he comes to the conclusion that it was unnecessary, he will be well justified in refusing such an expense. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent also urged that the wife is possessed of sufficient means. We are not inclined to open this question in this appeal because the question whether the wife was entitled to expense or not stood settled on 6-4-1972. 11. There are no rules framed for regulating the expenses in matrimonial disputes. The learned District Judge may adopt the standard of costs fixed by the High Court Rules in analogous matters in assessing the quantum of costs. 12. The result is that the wife has made out a...", "Factors to be Considered": "Matrimonial Proof Standard: Burden of proof on petitioner under Section 10 Indian Divorce Act by preponderance of probabilities; requirement of corroboration and non-condonation.", "Decision": "13. We allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remand the case to the learned District Judge, Jodhpur and fix a sum of Rs. 100/-for costs in this Court as well as before the learned single Judge by way of an additional expense. This enquiry shall not paralyse the progress of the parent petition.", "Citation link/citation number/Drive link": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/974415/ | AIR1975RAJ52, 1974(7)WLN639", "Review": "Pending Advocate Review", "Review Issues": "Relief Status requires advocate confirmation from record", "Reviewed By": "Gemini QC & Verified", "Ground (Primary)": "Unclear", "All Grounds": "unclear", "Judgment Year": 1974, "Relief Status": "unclear", "Marriage Dissolved": "Unclear", "Legal Era": "Pre-2001 Act", "Substantive Adjudication": "Yes", "Equivalent Citations": "Equivalent citations: AIR1975RAJ52, 1974(7)WLN639", "Kanoon Doc ID": "974415", "Canonical Source URL": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/974415/", "Chunks Indexed": 8 } ]