Skip to main content

Wife’s cruel behaviour a ground for divorce: HC

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has ruled that a man can seek divorce if his wife puts pressure on him for abandoning his parents and demands a fixed sum every month for personal expenses. Terming such behaviour as 'cruelty upon the husband', the court also ruled that a woman who makes these demands while earning more than her husband will not be entitled for permanent alimony.

The court made these observations while upholding the judgment of a family court which granted divorce to a man on the above grounds and also declined permanent alimony to his wife under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Expressing concern over the case which dragged for over 23 years, a division bench of Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Mahendra Dayal said, "The worst sufferer of this long litigation is the child and the parties are still not ready to reconcile or settle their dispute amicably."

Radhika and Ashok (names changed) got married in Lucknow on February 5, 1991. Immediately after marriage, Radhika demanded eviction of her in-laws from the house and Rs 3,000 for her monthly expense on cosmetics and outings. When Ashok failed to meet her demands Radhika started harassing her in-laws and husband physically and mentally. Ashok then lodged a police complaint on June 14, 1991, and got his injuries examined in the government hospital. He also complained to Radhika's mother and two brothers but to no avail. A miffed Radhika then threatened to frame her husband and in-laws in a dowry harassment case.

He filed a divorce petition in the family court in October 1991. In retaliation, Radhika filed a dowry harassment case against her in-laws and husband (they were acquitted later).

The case dragged on for 13 years till Ashok obtained a high court order telling the family court to decide the matter within three months. On September 30, 2004, the family court granted divorce to Ashok and declined any permanent alimony to his wife.

Radhika had challenged the twin orders in the high court. The high court rejected her plea after a 10-year trial.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Wifes-cruel-behaviour-a-ground-for-divorce-HC/articleshow/44894094.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more