SC of INDIA
Transfer Petition in divorce petition is rejected based on no merits by SC of INDIA
Date:8-Jan-15
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0Lnc3pnbDF2czFYZWM&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
HC of MUMBAI
HMA-13 : Refusing to cohabit shows wife’s intention to desert husband: HC
Date:31-Jul-14
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnQ2dYclVOemFOWEk&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI
Refusing to cohabit shows wife’s intention to desert husband
Date:21/06/2015
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnTWo3NGc0a1RuQzQ&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HMA-13 : False allegation, false 498a ground for Divorce
Date:7-Feb-14
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnaXdGQ3FRWnF2RFk&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI
False allegation, false 498a ground for Divorce
Date:7-Feb-14
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnTl91M2twM2pwaWs&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Punjab & Harayana
Waived off cooling period
Description:six months period mentioned in the Section would apply only to fresh petitions. It was waived off when both parties are living seperately since long time and divorce pitition which was filed earlier is converted in MCD under 13-B afterward.
Date: 4-Feb-10 Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Parmodh Kumar Vs meena
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnM3Y0LXRjQll0ZW8&export=download” title=”1_6 month waived -Parmodh_Kumar_vs_Meena_appl 7432 of 2009 jud 4_February,_2010.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Bombay
False 498a by wife -mental cruality on husband , divorce granted.
Description:Filing 498a and arrest after that is the main circumstance which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that lodging of false case which resulted in arrest and detention of family members of the appellant is singularly sufficient enough to hold that the respondent is guilty of causing mental cruelty and agony to the appellant and thus pressed for grant of decree of divorce. According to the learned counsel for the appellant arrest and detention of the family members and near relations of the appellant in false case has caused him utmost mental torture. In our view,
embarrassment, humiliation and suffering that is caused on account of arrest and detention of appellant and his family members and relatives in a false case does constitute mental cruelty to enable the husband to seek decree of divorce on this sole ground.
Date: 12-Apr-10 A.P.DESHPANDE AND SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA
Ajay Khedkar Vs Laleeta Khedkar
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnLW5kSHlwT2pNZXM&export=download” title=”2_498a-Mental-Cruelty appeal 66 OF 2006.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
MADRAS
Good References of Cruelty from SC are given in this judgement.
Date: 20-Nov-06 JUSTICE R. BALASUBRAMANIAN MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
A. Viswanathan .. Appellant
Versus
G. Lakshmi @ Seetha .. Respondent
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnWVNZeEFfdlhHdlk&export=download” title=”7_appeal 1558 of 2000 A._Viswanathan_vs_G._Lakshmi_@_Seetha_on_20_November,_2006.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Delhi
Wife has withdrawn hudge amount from joint account @ Rs 54 Lakhs in 5 years. Wife should submit the affidivit for expinditure and hudgewithdrawl and savings
Description:An analysis of withdrawals made from the 2 accounts from time to time shall be done by the learned Matrimonial Judge and thereafter the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the wife would be re-decided. Needless to state, principles culled out by me in para 10 above would be kept in view by the learned Matrimonial Judge while re-deciding the application. Judge has directed that at the remanded proceedings, learned Matrimonial Judge would call upon the wife to file a detailed affidavit disclosing investments made by her as also render a true account of all withdrawals effected by the wife from the year 2001 till date. Further, the wife would be called upon to explain details
of the monthly household expenditure as also expenses incurred on the education and
medical treatment of the 2 daughters. Further, thewife would be called upon to explain withdrawals made in sum of Rs.41,78,000/- from 24.3.2003 to 28.1.2004. Further, in respect of withdrawals made prior and subsequent thereto, the wife would be called upon to explain that if she could maintain herself and the 2 daughters in approximately Rs.20,000/- per month preceding and succeeding the period 24.3.2003 to 28.1.2004, where has she spent the money withdrawn between 24.3.2003 to 28.1.2004.
Date: 17-Apr-07 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
Alok Kumar Jain ……. Petitioner VERSUS
Purnima Jain
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnVDBYR1RtR0VRemM&export=download” title=”8_appl 367 of 2007 Alok Kumar Jain Vs. Purnima Jain.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Bombay
Defination & explaination on cruality, Various case laws for cruality are referred in this judgement, Wife fail to prove 498a alligation amounts to cruality, dirvoce granted.
Description:Considering the evidence on record, the Matrimonial Court will have to decide whether the prosecution which
resulted into acquittal will amount to an act of cruelty. In a given case, depending upon the evidence on record, even if the acquittal is on the ground that the charge could not be substantiated and even if there is no finding recorded by the Criminal Court that the prosecution case was false, there can be a case of cruelty. It depends on the manner in which the complaint is filed and prosecuted. filing false case/ not proving the alligation amounts to cruality on husband. Divorce decree granted ho husband.
Date: 7-Feb-14 A.S. OKA & S.C. GUPTE, JJ
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnUWV3a1hIVkxHUm8&export=download” title=”22_Bombay_high_court_Defamatory_claims.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Wife can not prove 498a, amounts to cruelty, Decree granted
Description:The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Dharam Pal Vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi, AIR 2006 Punjab and Haryana 59 has been pleased to hold, that when wife makes a complaint and the allegations levelled by wife are found to
be false then the wife would be guilty of false prosecution against the husband, which amounts to cruelty. It is well settled law, that filing of false criminal case against the spouse is an act of cruelty, on the basis of which
the spouse suffering, is entitled to decree of divorce. It is also not in dispute and proved on record, that the respondent−wife is
Date: 27-Aug-09 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Rishi Pal ….Appellant
versus
Luxmi Devi and another ….Respondents
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LncXJmTlhGLUxvVDg&export=download” title=”23_False Cri case 498a 125crpc_Crulty husband gets Divorce.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Calcutta
Wife can’t enter into Husband’s House forcefully: HC
Description:we, in this
matrimonial proceeding for divorce, cannot approve the action of the wife of forcefully entering
the house of the husband when a suit for divorce had already been filed against her on the
ground of cruelty. She had her rented accommodation where she was staying and had also the
paternal house at Dum Dum. She is an employee of the Central Government and is not a
helpless lady in that sense of the term and not even dependant upon the husband in anyway.
In our view, once a matrimonial suit has been filed, the wife has no right to have a force entry in
the house of her husband against his will if she is provided with maintenance by the husband.
Date: 13-Nov-09 Mr. Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya & Mr. Justice Rudrendra Nath Banerjee
Sri Subhash Chandra Das Chowdhury
Versus
Smt. Sandhya Das Chowdhury
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LneUFIcTZGMGRlQTA&export=download” title=”25_wife-cant-enter-into-husbands-house-forcefully-appeal 96 of 2000 Subhash Chandra vs sandhya.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
BOMBAY
Locking out spouse from home is desertion:, Petty quarrels and troubles, caused by differences in the temperament of the parties cannot be cruelty
Description:Definition of Desertion-If one spouse by his or her words compels the other side to leave the matrimonial
home or stay away therefrom, without reasonable cause, the former would be guilty of
desertion, though it is the latter who is seemingly separated from the other The ejection of the other spouse from the home with the intention not to cohabit equally constitutes desertion. This
is the principle of ‘Constructive Desertion.’
Date: DECEMBER 02, 2009. | S. A. BOBDE & S. J. KATHAWALLA, JJ.
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnbG5SYW5pekZ1Z0k&export=download” title=”46_locking-out-spouse-from-home-is-desertion-appeal 204 OF 2007.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Delhi
Delhi HC On A False 498A Being The Basis For A Divorce
Description:In that case it was found on facts that wife made a false complaint to the police, which reflected adversely on the husband’s reputation in the society. Marriage of the parties had broken down. The apex court, therefore, allowed the appeal and granted divorce. In the present case, the situation is still worse. Not only the wife made a false complain and got the husband and other in-laws arrested, she also took money and then resiled from the agreement. Admittedly, the husband and wife are living separately since September
1993. Learned Additional District Judge took note of this conduct of the appellant and held that it clearly amounts to an act of cruelty.
Date: 31-Jan-05 HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE O.P.DWIVEDI
Smt. Pinki Jain … Appellant. Through: Mr. Gopal Narain Aggarwal, Advocate Vs. Sh. Sanjay Jain … Respondent. Through:Mr.Narinder Kaushik, Advocate
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnT1VIbC0tay1VYXc&export=download” title=”48_Delhi_Delhi HC On A False 498A Being The Basis For A Divorce_Smt. Pinki Jain … Appellant. Vs. Sh. Sanjay Jain … Respondent.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
BOMBAY
Filing 498a on Husband and acquittal of husband amounts to cruelty, divorce granted
Description:We may mention that there were certain proceedings under Section 498- A of the Indian Penal Code initiated by the wife which were prosecuted by her and which
Date: 4 th April, 2007 | CORAM : J.N. PATEL & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ.
Sou. Medha Gaurav Talekar .. .. Appellant
Versus
Shri Gaurav Kaluram Talekar .. ..Respondent
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnU3RfMC1WUmlsdjQ&export=download” title=”49_bombay_filing 498 on husband cruelty.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
BOMBAY
filing of a false complaint would amount to cruelty.
Description:The respondent has not shown any cause for leaving the matrimonial house on 24th December, 1993 as well as for not returning to reside with the appellant and the allegations regarding ill-treatment during the period she had stayed with the appellant as well as the alleged ground for leaving the matrimonial house from 24th December, 1993 have not been proved by the respondent. Indeed, the order of acquittal of the appellant though has been delivered subsequent to the decision by the trial Court, the same cannot be ignored, as already held above, as the same obviously relevant while dealing with the allegation of cruelty and defence sought to be raised in that regard by the respondent.
Date: 20TH JUNE, 2005 | R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.
“Monindarpalsinha N. Kochar, )
age 50 years, Occupation – Service, )
R/o.4/15, Anand Housing Society, )
Shankar Seth Road, Pune 37. ).. Appellant
Versus
Jyotindar Kaur Mohindarpal N.Kochar, )
age 42, Occ: Business, )
R/o.Kalyan Sing Sahani, )
RB 11/1 Salunkhe Vihar, )
Kondhwa, Pune 38. ).. Respondent
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnR2l0T1dlWFV6dGM&export=download” title=”50_bombay_filing 498a on husban.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
BOMBAY
Filing false 498a is cruelty, divorce granted, If wife canot prove 498a/or it was dismissed by court then its interference that filed complaint is false.
Description:The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, inter alia, submitted that this Court has
consistently held that in the event a criminal complaint is filed by the wife for the offence punishable under section 498A and the said complaint has been dismissed, then in that event, an inference can be drawn by the Court that the said complaint is a false complaint and that the fact itself of filing a false complaint constitutes cruelty within the meaning of section 13(i) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1956. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel for the Appellant has relied on the judgment of this Court in Family Court Appeal No. 158 of 2008 dated 6th May, 2010 decided by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: A.P. Deshpande & Smt. R.P. Sondurbaldota, J.J.] In our view, filing of a false criminal complaint itself amounts to cruelty within the meaning of section 13(i) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. A similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Family Court Appeal No. 158 of 2008. The Division Bench had taken into consideration the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court of acquitting the Appellant therein for the offence punishable under section 498A r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also the deposition of the Appellant in the Trial Court. Taking our over all view, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Family Court will have to be quashed and set aside and the appeal filed by the Appellant will have to be allowed.
Date: 16th August, 2012 | V.M. KANADE & P.D. KODE, JJ.
Nitin Ramesh Dhiwar )
Adult, Occupation Service, )
R/o. SHBA, Monika Housing Society, )
D-Building, Flat No. F-9, Near )
Pimple Kale Road, Pimpri, Pune-411 017 )…Appellant
(Org. Petitioner)
Versus
Sou. Roopali Nitin Dhiwar )
Adult, Occ: Service, R/o. Ratnakar )
Ghorpade, Near Ravi Complex, )
Pimpri, Pune- 411 017 )..Respondent
(Org. Respondent)
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0Lnc0p4bWlqRm5ULXM&export=download” title=”51_bombay_filing false 498a or complaint is cruelty.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
BOMBAY
Divorce Granted as wife deserted and cruelty proved
Description:As a counter move to the said petition, wife filed police complaint against the husband and his family members at Pune (Ramoshi Gate) Police Station and the husband and his family members were required to go to the police station at least thee times and due to the harassment caused to them and likelihood of
harassment they also applied for anticipatory bail which was granted to the husband and his family members by the court.Such an act on her part of staying at Pune alongwith her newly born son does amount to both cruelty as well as desertion and no fault can be found in the impugned judgment and order granting divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
Date: 4-Feb-05 | R.S. Mohite, J. Mrs.
Meena Dinesh Parmar vs Shri Dinesh Hastimal Parmar
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnSV9fNzIxUWFuWWc&export=download” title=”52_Bombay_Mrs. Meena Dinesh Parmar vs Shri Dinesh Hastimal Parmar.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]