Legislative Corner
Crime Police & Law
Legal Insider
Speak Legal
Celebstreet
Placement Records
Event & Opportunity
Conference & Seminar
Tip Off Subscribe
Urgent Meeting of Executive Committee Of SCBA; Know What Happened
Fine to be levied on the builder when he is unable to deliver the possession of house/flat on time: Supreme Court
Accused Has To Be Subjected To Breath Analyser or Blood Test to Attract Drunk Driving under S.185 of MV Act, 1988 : Kerala HC [READ ORDER]
11 Benches of the Delhi High Court to Conduct Physical Hearings from 18th to 20th February, 2021 [READ ORDER]
Plastic pens covered under the definition of 'plastic' under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016: NGT [READ ORDER]
Resumption of Normal Supreme Court Functioning [Read Letter]
BS Mann Recuses Himself From SC-Appointed Committee on Farm Laws; says wants to stay Impartial
Know The Real Reason Why Dushyant Dave Resigned From SCBA; Faces Backlash From Legal Fraternity
Karnataka HC hears PIL Challenging Cattle Slaughter Prevention Ordinance brought in by the Government of Karnataka [READ PETITION]
"Khalistanis have infiltrated into farmers protests": Attorney General K.K.Venugopal in SC hearing on ongoing Farmer's protests
SC puts a hold on the three controversial farm laws; Will the farmers cooperate now?
Bharti Airtel Moves Supreme Court Seeking Modification of AGR Dues
Legalising MSP May Incur Heavy Losses Exclusively To Farmers Of Punjab and Haryana
10 Bizarre laws from around the world!
Delhi Govt. openly defies orders of Supreme Court to distribute ration to sex workers; states that "no sex workers found in GB Road Red Light Area" [Read RTI]
65 Important Judgements of the Supreme Court in 2020
Decoding Prashant Bhushan's Controversial Tweets
SOP Issued by Ministry of Health in Wake of New Variant of SARS- CoV-2
'One Nation, One Election': Gaurav Bhatia, Justice Sikri, Bhupender Yadav, and Parag P. Tripathi Offer Insight on Simultaneous Polls
Devanahalli court in Karnatka comes to the rescue of Pilot-YouTuber cum Whistleblower Gaurav Taneja in his fight against AirAsia
Family Court Judges Should Find Out If Marriage Has Irretrievably Broken Down & Emotionally Dead: Allahabad HC [READ ORDER]
Judiciary Jun 01, 2020 Parth Thummar ( Editor: Ekta Joshi ) 204 Shares
On April 29, 2020, a Division Bench of Justices Anil Kumar and Saurabh Lavania of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) held in the case at hand that the marriage was irretrievably broken down and the trial court had appreciated the evidence in a proper manner.
Also Read - No Bar of Limitation in a Suit for Divorced Wife to Claim Property Entrusted with Husband: Kerala High Court
Background of the case:
Also Read - Bombay High Court Waives Statutory Period in Case of Divorce by Mutual Consent
The marriage between the appellant/Puneet Kumar Trivedi and respondent/Smt. Nitika Pathak was solemnized on November 22, 2004, as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. From the very beginning, Nitika used to abuse the family members of Puneet by using unparliamentary language and incorrectly blame that family members of Puneet had humiliated her family members.
Time and again, Nitika used to quarrel with the family members of Puneet and he always tried to stop the violence but no fruitful result was achieved. In the meantime, he got a job of Medical Representative, at Meerut and she was living with her father-in-law and mother-in-law at Delhi and she always used to scold them.
On one occasion she had also tried to commit suicide. When his grandmother had shown with to see her granddaughter-in-law i.e. Nikita, she had refused and humiliated her. The grandmother could not bear the humiliation and due to heart attack, she died, but Nikita didn't even appear in the last rituals of the grandmother of Puneet.
After repeated attempts by his family members to save the marriage and failed mediation, he filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The suit was dismissed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardoi, and aggrieved by that order, he had filed an appeal before the HC.
The contention of the parties before the HC:
The Counsel for the appellant had contended that before the Family Court, through the evidence including the documentary evidence, it was categorically established and proved that there was no possibility of a reunion of the relationship between the appellant and respondent, long separation and no possibility of reunion amounted to cruelty and despite the facts, the trial Court had dismissed the divorce suit.
He also had contended that since February 17, 2006, till the delivery of the judgment of the trial court on July 18, 2020, the couple was living separately and there was no possibility of a reunion of the relationship between them, so in view of the long separation it was an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage between the parties and accordingly on that ground alone the decree of divorce ought to have been passed but the trial court had not considered the above said facts and dismissed the divorce suit filed by the appellant.
The holding of the Court:
The Court considered the position of law on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage laid down in several Apex Court judgments and also noted that the parties in the present case were living separately for more than fourteen years and litigation between the parties was initiated by filing divorce suit by the appellant in the year 2008.
The Court also took into account the observations made by the trial court to the effect that the efforts to continue with the marriage had failed and there was no possibility of a reunion between the parties.
The Court also took into consideration the submission of the appellant that no fruitful purpose would be served in maintaining the matrimonial relations between the parties as the matrimonial bond is beyond repair and the relations between the parties were sufficiently spoiled and for all practical purpose, there was an irretrievable break down of marriage.
The Court also found fault in the findings of the trial Court that the appellant was not entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of long separation/irretrievable breakdown of marriage was liable to be interfered with and the judgment passed by the trial court was liable to be set aside.
Hence, the Court proceeded to grant a divorce to the appellant-husband on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
No Bar of Limitation in a Suit for Divorced Wife to Claim Property Entrusted with Husband: Kerala High Court
Judiciary Nov 30, 2020 Dev Kumar Patel ( Editor: Ekta Joshi ) 4 Shares
An appeal was recently filed in the High Court of Kerala, against the Order of Family Court, Thrissur involving the question that whether trust created by a wife entrusting her property to her husband gets extinguished after the dissolution of marriage and whether she can initiate proceedings invoking section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1963, without any limitation of time.The full bench discussed the appeal at length and thereby the bench agreed with the law laid down in Chacko v. Annamma (1993...
Bombay High Court Waives Statutory Period in Case of Divorce by Mutual Consent
Judiciary Nov 19, 2020 M V Manasa ( Editor: Ekta Joshi ) 21 Shares
The Bombay High Court approved a joint plea for waiver of the statutory period before the divorce by mutual consent and gave the order while considering the circumstances of the present case, where the woman was pregnant with another man's child. In 2014, the divorcing parties registered their marriage and initiated divorce proceedings in the Family Court earlier in the year 2020 under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But however, the Family Court denied waiving off the statutory...
Guidelines Issued By Supreme Court On Payment Of...
Nov 06 2020 Bhavuk Narula
Husband's Appeal Against the Order of Patna High...
Oct 20 2020 Atharwa Gauraha
Couple Signs Contract for Sharing Custody oftheir...
Oct 15 2020 Parul Singhal
Wife Seeks Divorce from Husband Because He Loves...
Aug 24 2020 Saransh Awasthi
Plea Filed in Apex Court Seeking Uniform Grounds...
Bollywood Actress Konkona Sen Sharma and Actor...
Refusal To Wear 'Sakha And Sindoor' By Wife Will...
Jul 01 2020 Harshil Jain
Gauhati High Court Allows Divorce on the grounds...
Jun 22 2020 Tanurag Ghosh
Section 138 NI Act: Divorced Wife Tried to...
Jun 05 2020 Parth Thummar
Wife Makes False Allegations Against Husband for...
Allahabad HC Grants Ex-Parte Divorce to Husband...
May 28 2020 Parth Thummar.
Divorce Granted Over Letter Stating...
May 16 2020 Ishita Joshi
65 Important Judgements of the Supreme Court in...
Jan 06, 2021 Mriganc Mishra Intern Aquilas Legal Solutio
Legalising MSP May Incur Heavy Losses Exclusively...
Jan 07, 2021 Adv. Vijay Sardana
The Farmers Acts – A Bird's Eye View
Dec 18, 2020 Sr. Adv. Mahalakshmi Pavani
Filing Fabricated Evidence to Gain Undue...
Dec 28, 2020 Dev Kumar Patel
Get Latest Updates Right To Your Inbox!
Legal Insiders
Crime, Police, and Law
Events & Opportunity
Copyright © 2019 by LawStreet Journal