Sector-8 Faridabad, India 09717007044 ADVDPJINDAL@GMAIL.COM 9.30 A.M to 5.30 P.M. Weekdays 9.30 A.M. to 2.00 P.M. Weekends

Judgments: Divorce, DV, Maintenace

Supreme Court of India

Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & D.K. Jain Petitioner: M. Srinivasulu Respondent: State Of A.P. Date Of Judgment: 10/09/2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2002

Law Point Considered

In fact there is no allegation of any harassment due to dowry. What the trial court and the High Court appears to have done is to pick up one line from one place and another from another place and conclude that there was demand of dowry. Reading of the letters in the entirety show that there was, in fact, no mention of any demand for dowry. Therefore the conviction in terms of Section 498A and Section 304B cannot be maintained. The appeal is allowed.


Domestic Violence Act Can’t Be Invoked Simply For Claiming Maintenance, Says Bombay HC





Rajasthan High Court

Bench: Justice Vineet Kothari

SHEELU Vs. AMAR SINGH & ANR. On 27 January 2016

Law Point Considered

Cruelty — Desertion —Adultery — Grounds well established by Husband — Divorce decree sustained. Not fit case of making efforts through mediation for restoration of matrimonial home.


Delhi High Court

Bench: JUSTICE Pradeep Nandrajog & Yogesh Khanna MANOJ KUMAR Vs. PINKI RANI On 22 November 2016

Law Point Considered

Respondent-wife failed to establish charge of illegal relationship of appellant-husband with lady concerned. Marriage irretrievably broken, cruelty established.


Delhi High Court

Bench: JUSTICE Kailash Gambhir


Law Point Considered

Section 151 – Courts have unlimited and unrestricted inherent powers – Explained.


Delhi High Court

Bench: JUSTICE Shiv Narayan Dhingra


Law Point Considered

Foreign Divorce Decree — Not required to be confirmed by Court of this country — However, decree obtained from foreign country must satisfy requirements of Section 13, CPC.


Supreme Court of India

Bench: JUSTICE Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Tarun Chatterjee RISHIKESH SHARMA Vs. SAROJ SHARMA On 21 November 2006

Law Point Considered

Wife living separately and filing cases against Husband which cannot be substantiated. Divorce Decreed.


Andhra High Court

Bench: JUSTICES C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND G.SHYAM PRASAD Kalapatapu Lakshmi Bharati Vs. Kalapatapu Sai Kumar On 31 August 2016

Law Point Considered

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Husband and Wife living separately for a long period of time.


Kerala High Court Bench

JUSTICE R. Rajendra Babu GRACY Vs. CLEETUS On 4 December 2001

Law Point Considered

Dissolution of Marriage on Mutual Consent: Petitioner and Respondent Residing Separately for more than 2 Years : No Possibility of Reproachment: Waiting Period of 8 Months can be Waived.


Delhi High Court

Bench: JUSTICE Pradeep Nandrajog and Pratibha Rani

Aarti Manchanda Vs. Chander Shekhar Manchanda On 12 August 2016

Law Point Considered

Conduct of wife of leaving her matrimonial home and never returning back or even making enquiry of her children was enough to lead to irresistible conclusion that she left to bring co-habitation to an end. Husband granted decree of divorce.


High Court Of Orissa

Bench: JUSTICE Vinod Prasad and S.K. Sahoo

Ranjana Rani Panda and Ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar Panda On 22 December 2015

Law Point Considered

Husband and Wife not interested to live with each other – It would be in interest of parties to sever matrimonial ties since marriage has broken down irretrievably.


Andhra Pradesh High Court

Bench: JUSTICE Umesh Chandra Banerjee, CJ., B. Subhashan Reddy & Chelameswar KOLA EMMANUEL Vs. NALLIPOGU SUNANDA On 23 February 1998

Law Point Considered

The word Impotence’ is not related to a particular gender like male only. It relates to either gender. The criterion is the practical impossibility of consummation of marriage on account of impotency of either the husband or the wife. Incapability of copulation on the part of either of the spouses either due to structural defects in the organs of generation or due to some other cause resulting in non-consummation of marriage is impotence and the said word is equally applicable to both husband and wife.


Punjab & Ha Ryan A High Court

Bench: JUSTICE S.S. Saron & Navita Singh


Law Point Considered

Charge can be established by circumstantial evidence — It is not always possible that witnesses would see one of the spouses with paramour in objectionable posture to prove charge of adultery.


High Court Of Delhi

Bench: JUSTICE Ms. Veena Birbal


Law Point Considered

Divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty – Parties lived together for 7 months and litigating for 25 years – Husband employed as judicial officer and wife working under government – Wife making various complaints in respect of her husband – An article also published in the newspaper on the basis of interview of wife – Such conduct caused mental agony to the husband – Decree of divorce affirmed.


Supreme Court of India

Bench: JUSTICE V.N. Khare, CJI., S.B. Sinha & Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan

SHARDA Vs. DHARMPAL On 28 March 2003

Law Point Considered

Power of Court to direct medical examination of party to matrimonial litigation not violative of Article 21 of Constitution : Court should exercise such power if applicant has strong prima facie case and there is sufficient material before If despite order of Court, respondent refuses to submit himself to medical examination, Court will be entitled to draw adverse inference against him.


Himachal Pradesh High Court

Bench: JUSTICE Rajesh Sharma

Pushpa Devi vs. Om Parkash

Law Point Considered

Filing of false complaints and threatening the Husband amount to acts of cruelty. Wife used to leave the matrimonial home at her own will, which amounts to desertion. Decree of divorce granted to Husband.


Allahabad High Court

Bench: JUSTICE Pramod Kumar Srivastava Smt. Sulekha vs Ashok Kumar On 14 March 2016

Law Point Considered

Annulment of marriage on the grounds of impotency of wife and fraud.


Madras High Court

Bench: JUSTICE R.S. Ramanathan

  1. VEMBADURAI Vs. PADMAVATHY On 1 March 2011

Law Point Considered

Divorce can be granted where marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead beyond salvage and broken down irretrievably, even if facts of case do not provide ground in law. Both Husband and Wife living separately for more than thirty years. Marriage has become dead and no useful purpose would be achieved in keeping marriage alive Husband entitled to divorce on ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.


Himachal Pradesh High Court

Bench: JUSTICE Deepak Gupta

KEWAL KUMAR Vs. PAWN A DEVI On 30 December 2010

Law Point Considered

Dissolution of marriage by mutual consent according to customary law — Under Section 29(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, divorce by custom is saved — Under ancient Hindu Law there was no right of divorce but dissolution of marriage was recognized under various customary laws — Trial Court held that custom does exist and is valid and saved by Section 29(2) of Act — It was held that there was no marriage subsisting between parties.


Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench



Law Point Considered

Wife taken away marriage gifts. Proved by husband that respondent deserted him for continuous period of more than two years. Decree of divorce granted.


Punjab & Haryana High Court

Bench: JUSTICE Dr. Sarojnei Saksena


Law Point Considered

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sec. 13(1)(ia) — Cruelty — Meaning of Cruelty — Conduct of appellant in matrimonial home — Her threats and attempts to commit suicide — Act of lodging false complaint against her husband — Relations u/Secs. 498-A/34,1.P.C., resulting in acquittal — Are incidents of appellant’s cruel behaviour towards respondent — Making it impossible for respondent to live peacefully with her in conjugal home — Trial Court not fallen into error in holding appellant guilty of offence of cruelty & granting decree of divorce in favour of respondent — Whether correct ? — (Yes).


Uttarakhand High Court

Bench: JUSTICE Rajesh Tandon

PRAMOD BIJALWAN Vs. SATENDRA DUTT On 6 July 2007 Law Point Considered

Cruelty, Desertion — Both grounds proved by respondent — False allegation of adultery against husband or wife is mental cruelty and is ground for divorce — Vague allegations made to defame by petitioner amounts to cruelty — Respondent wife failed to implead as party and prove her allegation of adultery against petitioner— Non-compliance of Rule 13 of Divorce Rules — From statement of appellant it is clear there was no relationship between parties as husband and wife even when they were not resided under single roof since April 2001 — Appellant deserted respondent and did not cohabit with him — Respondent proved both grounds for divorce, i.e., cruelty and desertion — Petition rightly allowed by Trial Court for decree of divorce.


Delhi High Court

Bench: JUSTICE Kailash Gambhir

Smt. Kavita vs Shri Rakesh Raman on 8 April 2011

Law Point Considered

While adjudicating matrimonial cases, courts to be cautious and conscious of fact that the holy bond of matrimony involves delicate human emotions and complex situations and often there gets created a chasm which if fortified by court can lead to irredeemable destruction.


Gauhati High Court

Bench: JUSTICE Amitava Roy


Law Point Considered

No logic or rationale in permitting parallel proceedings before Court. Illogical to continue proceedings.


Supreme Court Of India

Bench: JUSTICES D.P. Mohapatra & U.C. Banerjee R. LAKSHMI NARAYAN Vs. SANTHI On 1 May 2001 Law Point Considered

One of the parties incapable of giving consent. Marriage null and void.


Delhi High Court

Bench: JUSTICE O.P. Dwivedi

PINKI JAIN Vs. SANJAY JAIN On 31 January 2005

Law Point Considered

Act of Wife in filing false complaint case and getting her Husband and other in-laws arrested clearly amounts to cruelty. Decree of divorce passed.


Supreme Court of India

Bench: JUSTICES D.P. Mohapatra, Brijesh Kumar Vikas Aggarwal vs Anubha on 12 April 2002

Law Point Considered

Divorce petition in H.C. on original side. Direction to appear- Non Appearance-Defence rightly struck off.


TripIe Talaq Unconstitutional

In a landmark decision, Supreme Court of India declared the practice of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional by a 3:2 majority.

While Justices Nariman and Lalit held that instant Triple Talaq is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 (Right to Equality), Justice Joseph struck down the practice on the ground that it goes against Shariat and the basic tenets of the Quran.



%d bloggers like this: