dissolution of marriage for cruelty, divorce on ground of adultery by alleging illicit relationship

It is apparent from the divorce petition that the same has been filed under Section 13(1) (i a), i.e., the ground of cruelty. Prior to the amendment in 1976, Section 13 (1) (i) provided a ground for divorce if the respondent was “living in adultery”. The expression “living in adultery” 4 has been substituted by the words, “had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse.”

Husband has challenged the quantum of permanent alimony of Rs.16 lakhs awarded to wife by the Family Court

The appellant-husband in MATA No.14 of 2013 namely Dipak Bash (hereafter for short “the husband”) has challenged the 3 quantum of permanent alimony of Rs.16 lakhs (Rupees sixteen lakhs) awarded in favour of the respondent-wife Smitarani Bash (hereafter for short “the wife”) by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar vide impugned judgment and order dated 21.1.2013 in Civil Proceeding No.436 of 2010 while passing the decree of divorce and dissolving the marriage between the parties with effect from the date of decree

marriage between the parties has been broken down irretrievably and there is remote chance of their reunion

It is the case of the husband that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 1.6.2006 as per Hindu rites and 5 customs at Magurugadia in the district of Keonjhar in presence of the parents, relatives and well-wishers. It is the further case of the husband that he is a handicapped person working in private Software Company at Gurgaon and managing his entire family. It is his further case that at the time of marriage there was no demand of dowry and from the next day of the marriage the wife displayed cruel attitude towards him and his family members and criticized her in-laws. She did not perform the household works and used abusive language against her in-laws causing mental agony and torture to them. She also threatened to commit suicide and in spite of advice of her in-laws, she did not change her attitude. After two weeks of marriage, she accompanied her husband to his service place at Gurgaon but there also she repeated similar behavior with her husband. She fell ill while staying at Gurgaon and taken to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi where during treatment it was found that she was suffering from Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS). She insisted her husband not to keep any kind of contact with his parents rather demanded rich gifts for her sister for which there was serious misunderstanding between the couple. When the husband visited USA, he left the wife in the company of his parents but the wife only stayed for three to four days and then went away to her parents’ house where she stayed about five months till the husband returned from 6 USA. After returning from USA, the husband took the wife to his service place in the mid of December 2006 and they stayed together till April 2009. During her stay with her husband, most of the time she used to spend her time with the neighbours and blaming her husband and her in-laws before them. Most of the time the husband even cooked food for the wife. Being misguided by her parents and brother, she was exhibiting cruel behaviour to her husband and made his life miserable. In spite of treatment provided to her by the husband, there was no improvement and she lost all hope of having a child and sometimes contemplating to commit suicide. Due to suffering from such disease, she was avoiding sexual cohabitation with her husband. Due to abnormal and cruel behavior of the wife towards the husband, on frequent occasions there used to be meeting between the family members of both the parties to sort out the dispute and she used to promise not to repeat such behavior in future but in vain.

the demand of articles, papers of house property of Jabalpur and Noida and the contents of Exhibits Ka2 and Ka3 amounted to harassment, cruelty and mental torture

This Court noted that since both the parties had sought divorce, the marriage had broken down and the parties had agreed to a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly, this Court directed the Family Court, Jabalpur, to take up the matter on 4th April, 2005 without entertaining any prayer for adjournment and pass a decree of divorce. Accordingly, the Family Court, Jabalpur passed the decree of divorce on 4th April, 2005 after recording the statement of the parties that they mutually agreed to decree of divorce. The wife did not press her counter claim for maintenance. She also did not reserve liberty for any other action against the husband

the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is dissolved by mutual consent

taking into consideration that the relationship between
the parties are strained for quite a long time, judgments of
both the courts below are set aside and this appeal is
allowed. In order to render justice between the parties, in
exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India, the marriage between the appellant and the
respondent is dissolved by mutual consent

The memorandum of divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband and the cause title, the High Court doubted the filing of the Vakalatnama signed by the wife

Taking into consideration the memorandum of divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband and the cause title, the High Court doubted the filing of the Vakalatnama signed by the wife with her affidavit and made the following observation:

“If these papers were to be seen in juxtaposition with page No.21 (the memorandum of divorce petition) particularly the cause title, it reveals that the space, punctuation marks (like comma and colon) and underlining used while typing the name of the Court in the cause title are identical

Section 23 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 (said Act) confers a discretion upon the Court to determine whether any, and if so what, maintenance shall be awarded under the provisions of the said Act

Bombay High Court skc WP-2921-14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2921 OF 2014 Om Prakash Puri ..Petitioner versus Nandita Puri ..Respondent Mr. I. A. Sayyed with Ms Pooja Kulkarni for Petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kamath with Mr. Vishal Kanade and Ms Maya …