Divorce Latest Landmark Judgements of Supreme Court of India
Here are some of the latest landmark judgments of the Supreme Court of India on divorce:
- Shayara Bano vs Union of India and Others (2017): The Supreme Court declared instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) as unconstitutional and void. This was a major victory for Muslim women’s rights in India.
- K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017): The Supreme Court held that privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. This judgment has far-reaching implications for a number of areas, including divorce.
- Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court decriminalised consensual same-sex relations in India. This was a historic judgment that has paved the way for greater equality and acceptance for LGBTQ+ people in India.
- Indu Malhotra vs Union of India (2020): The Supreme Court appointed Indu Malhotra as the first woman permanent judge in the Constitution Bench. This was a significant step towards gender equality in the Indian judiciary.
- Joseph Shine vs Union of India (2020): The Supreme Court held that marital rape is a form of cruelty and can be grounds for divorce. This judgment is a major victory for women’s rights in India.
These are just a few of the landmark judgments of the Supreme Court of India on divorce. These judgments have had a significant impact on the law and practice of divorce in India, and they continue to be cited in cases all over the country.
1
Judge : C.T. RAVIKUMAR,Rajesh Bindal
when the complainant alleges that the parties had physical relations, she was already married – She falsely claimed that divorce from her earlier marriage took place in 2018 – However, the fact remains that decree of divorce was passed two years later – Complainant was a grown up lady about The relations between the parties are shown to be consensual, if any. The mis-statement by the complainant is evident from the fact that she claimed to have got divorce from the earlier marriage on 10.12. 2018 and married with the appellant in a temple in January 2019 but it is belied from fact that decree of divorce from the earlier marriage of the complainant was passed only on 13.01.2021. There was no question of any marriage prior thereto. The initiation of proceedings against the appellant being an abuse of process of law deserve to be quashed. In support of the 164 Cr.P.C. There are discrepancies therein. 6.1 In the FIR, she stated that she was managing her own cloth shop. As there was a dispute with her husband, she was living separately. On 10.12.2018, she got divorce from her husband. She has a daughter aged 15 years. In 2017, Sadbhav Divorce , he will marry her. After the Divorce of the complainant, on 10.01.2019, at about 11.00 PM, the appellant came to her room and had physical relations. He did not stop even when she said that they were yet to be married. Further, on a promise to marry, he had relations with her on
Decision Date : 06-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/3431/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
2
Judge : SURYA KANT,K.V. Viswanathan
was that the main accused believed that his ex-mother-in-law was responsible for the divorce from his ex-wife, sabotaging his plan to settle abroad – Conviction and sentence of the main accused u/s. 302 and the co-accused u/ss. 302/34 by the trial court, on basis of the testimonies of and fled in the Innova car. The reason for enmity, according to the Complainant, was that the daughter of the Complainant, Kirandeep Kaur, had cleared the IELTS exam and had shifted to Australia. Gurpreet Singh also wanted to settle in Australia, but due to their Divorce , his dreams were and he blamed Amarjit Kaur, the wife of the Complainant to be responsible for the Divorce . 6. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to bring the guilt home, including Gursewak Singh, P.W.2 (the Complainant) and his daughter, Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3), both eyewitnesses. The
Decision Date : 06-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/664/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
3
Judge : VIKRAM NATH,Satish Chandra Sharma
discloses the specific role/allegations assigned to any of the husband and in-laws in the commission of the offences – Husband and in- laws approached the High Court on inter alia grounds that the proceedings were re-initiated on vexatious grounds and even highlighted the commencement of divorce implication; Statement of witnesses; Compromise; Lok Adalat; Divorce ; Vexatious grounds; Unjust prosecution. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.758 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2022 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in CRLP
Decision Date : 05-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/758/2024
4
Judge : VIKRAM NATH
decree of divorce was passed in favour of the Respondent whereafter he re-married – In the interregnum, the Appellant sought maintenance u/ss.18, 20, application was allowed by the Family Court – Later, ex-parte order decreeing the divorce in favour of the Respondent was set aside; and dated 09.09.2011, in the aforesaid application, the ex-parte order decreeing the divorce in favour of the Respondent came to be set aside; and accordingly, the application under Section 13 of the HMA preferred by the Respondent was restored. 8. The parties preferred cross-appeal(s) against
Decision Date : 29-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1318/2024
5
Judge : Prashant Kumar Mishra,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
1 S.C.R. 697 : 2024 INSC 55 Prakashchandra Joshi v. Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi @ Kuntal Visanji Shah (Civil Appeal No. 934 of 2024) 24 January 2024 [B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether a decree for divorce can be granted for matrimonial life – The respondent did not appear in the proceedings u/s. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, despite receiving summons – Similarly, in the present divorce proceedings also the respondent failed to enter appearance despite service of notice in the Trial Court, High Court and Supreme non-appearance of party; Dissolution of marriage; Decree for Divorce ; Article 142(1) of Constitution. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 934 of 2024. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.06.2021 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in FCA No.162 of Bombay in Family Court Appeal No. 162 of 2019 whereby the High Court, while affirming the order of the Family Court, dismissed the appeal seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of Divorce . 3. The facts in brief are that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized
Decision Date : 24-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/934/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
6
English
Judge : B.V. NAGARATHNA,Ujjal Bhuyan
living in Bengaluru. 3.2. On 09.11.2021, the accused-husband fi led a divorce petition M.C. No. 5786/2021 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, Karnataka. Notice was issued in the divorce petition on 15.11.2021. 3.3. On continued from 11.12.2020 until 06.07.2021. For less than a year of marriage that the couple spent together, the accused-husband perpetrated cruelty upon her by frequently threatening to divorce her and get married for the second time. 3.7. The accused-husband started threatening and abusing
Decision Date : 20-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/003549/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
7
English
Judge : Rajesh Bindal,VIKRAM NATH
divorce petition was fi led by the respondent-husband in January 2018 before the Family Court. In May 2018 the appellant and her mother- Shikha Sharma fi led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court. The divorce petition fi led by the respondent-husband was allowed by In Neha Tyagi v. Lieutenant Colonel Deepak Tyagi, (2022) 3 SCC 86, this court while upholding the decree of Divorce granted by the courts below, opined that even after the Divorce , the husband is not absolved of his liability and responsibility to maintain child/son till he attains the age
Decision Date : 06-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/3446/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
8
English
Judge : DIPANKAR DATTA,SURYA KANT
was born from the wedlock in the year 2009. It is alleged that Respondent No. 1 was having an extra-marital aff air. He and his family members allegedly started harassing Vinutha M. soon after the birth of their child and pressurised her to sign the divorce papers. She, therefore, ‘FIR’], the brief details of which are as follows: I. FIR No. 231/2015 was lodged under Section 498A of IPC at P.S. Vyalikaval, Bengaluru on 23.11.2015 alleging that Respondent No. 1 along with his family members assaulted and threatened the complainant to sign divorce papers. On her custody of the Complainant while Respondent No. 1 unabatedly kept on harassing the Complainant and pressurising her to agree to a mutual Divorce . 11. On the ill-fated day, i.e., 21.12.2019, the Complainant [Hereafter ‘Deceased’] was found dead in her apartment. She was found lying in a pool reiterating that Respondent No. 1 had been harassing the Deceased and was compelling her to concede for Divorce , with the intention to marry someone else. His family members and relatives also continued to humiliate the Deceased by demanding dowry and even attempted to kill her by pouring
Decision Date : 20-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/3297/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
9
English
Judge : S. RAVINDRA BHAT,Aravind Kumar
Petitioner got on the basis of Decree dated 29.5.1959. Further, Mr. Varun Gopal is settled in Australia where he obtained an ex-parte divorce decree dated 21.12.2017, by the family court of Australia. R2 has fi led a suit for cancellation of divorce on 8.11.20215 in the family court of alive. There is no law which can directly hold father-in-law to provide maintenance to the wife. 13. The petitioner further contended that the marriage between R2 and his son was dissolved by the divorce decree passed by the court in Australia and therefore, parents-in-law are not liable
Decision Date : 20-10-2023 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION/858/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
10
English
Judge : J.B. PARDIWALA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,Manoj Misra
be allowed in the following cases or for the following persons: a. Survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest; b. Minors; c. Change of marital status during the ongoing pregnancy (widowhood and Divorce ); d. Women with physical disabilities with a major disability in terms of deny the termination of a pregnancy the length of which is beyond twenty-four weeks.16 It may do so only after ensuring that the procedure would be safe for the woman at (c) change of marital status during the ongoing pregnancy (widowhood and Divorce ); (d) women with physical
Decision Date : 16-10-2023 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION/2157/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Direction Issue : Petition and application disposed of
11
English
Judge : ANIRUDDHA BOSE,BELA M. TRIVEDI
breakdown of marriage necessarily result in the dissolution of marriage in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, when such is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13(1)(ia) and s.13(1)(ib) – District Court the decree of Divorce , as prayed for by the appellant- husband, however, the Single Bench of the High Court reversed the same and the Division Bench of the High Court confi rmed the judgment – Propriety: Held: Appellant-husband had failed to prove that the respondent- wife had treated appellant to fi le Divorce proceedings in the District Court. 5. As stated hereinabove, the District Court granted the decree of Divorce , as prayed for by the appellant however the Single Bench of the High Court reversed the same and the Division Bench of the High Court confi rmed
Decision Date : 10-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2045/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
12
English
Judge : SUDHANSHU DHULIA,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
ences; (ii) matrimonial disputes relating to Divorce , judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, child custody; (iii) guardianship matters; (iv) insolvency and winding-up matters; (v) testamentary matters (grant of probate, letters of administration and succession certifi certain examples of non- arbitrable disputes such as : (SCC pp. 546-47, para 36) 283 (i) disputes relating to rights and liabilities which give rise to or arise out of criminal off ences; (ii) matrimonial disputes relating to Divorce , judicial separation, restitution of conjugal
Decision Date : 05-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6500/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
13
English
Judge : S. RAVINDRA BHAT,DIPANKAR DATTA
status, the Food Corporation of India rejected the appellant on medical grounds. Additionally, his medical condition led to divorce and the loss of family support. 29. The appellant relied on Chapter 3 of the National Guidelines for HIV testing to assert that antibody detection tests are that the appellant is wrong in blaming the organization for his divorce as the Family Court passed the divorce decree with the mutual consent of both the parties under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same cannot be attributed to the respondent authorities. 41. Learned
Decision Date : 26-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7175/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
14
English
Judge : M.M. SUNDRESH,SANJIV KHANNA
hyper-technical and pedantic approach in declining the decree of Divorce , when both the parties had made serious allegations against each other and were living separately for decade and half. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – The appellant-wife registered a complaint u/s. 498A of IPC and ss.3 and of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – The respondent-Husband had questioned the character of the appellant-wife – Petition for Divorce – Trial Court and the High Court declined decree of Divorce – Propriety: Held: For a decade and half, the parties have been living separately – The
Decision Date : 06-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5700/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
15
English
Judge : Sarasa Venkatanarayana Bhatti,ANIRUDDHA BOSE,Sanjay Kumar
matrimonial home did not choose to make a complaint against her in-laws in relation to dowry harassment for four year till the husband instituted divorce proceedings – Her allegations are mostly general and omnibus in nature, without any specifi c details as to how and when her in-laws, who lived Advs. for the Respondent. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT SANJAY KUMAR, J. 1. Bhawna, the second respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 1456 of 2015, married Nimish Gour in the year 2007. He, however, secured a decree of divorce on 05.09.2019 dissolving their marriage. preferred First Appeal No. 1876 of 2019 against the said divorce decree and the same is stated to be pending consideration before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The appellants in the present appeals were Bhawna’s in-laws. Kusum Lata was her mother-in-law while Abhishek and Sourabh were residing with her parents at Narsinghpur. At that time, Kusum Lata had submitted representation dated 24.02.2009 to Police Station Heera Nagar at Indore, apprehending that Bhawna may make allegations against them about harassing her for dowry. 3. Prior to the fi ling of the divorce lakhs in cash, a car and jewellery in dowry from her parents and due to this, her parents fell ill and were being treated. She alleged that all her in-laws wanted a divorce from her forcibly and nobody wanted to talk to her after she came away from her matrimonial home. She alleged that directed against Abhishek. 10. Notably, the examination-in-chief of Bhawna on 27.10.2018 in Nimish’s divorce petition in Civil Suit No. 153A of 2015 on the fi le of the Family Court, Narsinghpur, is made available. Therein, she asserted that her entire stridhan jewellery was with Nimish and case is the fact that she did nothing whatsoever after leaving her matrimonial home in February, 2009, and fi led a complaint in the year 2013 alleging dowry harassment, just before her husband instituted divorce proceedings. 22. Given the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are
Decision Date : 31-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1457/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
16
English
Judge : Rajesh Bindal,HIMA KOHLI
military personnel contracted a marriage with the appellant and two children born from their relationship, during subsistence of his marriage with the legally wedded wife but, subsequently a decree of divorce was passed, dissolving the said marriage and meanwhile, the military personnel only) per month. On 15th November, 1990, the deceased and Anusuya were granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent9 and he paid a lumpsum amount of ̀ 15,000/- (Rupees fi fteen thousand only) to her. Thereafter, the deceased approached the respondent No. 2 for deleting the name of of the appellant No. 1 in his Service Book. 5. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellants that even if the status of the appellant No. 1 could not be treated as that of a legally wedded wife of the deceased till the date a decree of divorce was granted, dissolving his the respondents ought not to have turned down the legitimate claim of the appellants, more so, when the appellant no. 1 had spent a large part of her life living with the deceased as man and woman and any shadow cast on their relationship stood dispelled once the decree of divorce was appellant No.1 during the subsistence of his marriage with Anusuya, but, subsequently a decree of divorce was passed, dissolving the said marriage. 9. As has been noticed above, the fi rst wife of Subedar Bhave had passed away in the year 197524. On 17th March, 1975, he had got married Anusuya. It appears that there was no issue from the said marriage. The deceased contracted a marriage with the appellant No. 1 herein during the subsistence of his marriage with Anusuya25.Three years down the line, he was discharged from service and granted service pension. The divorce by consent between the deceased and Anusuya materialized only in November, 1990. The said decree of divorce is not in question. It is also not in dispute that the deceased had approached the respondents for seeking deletion of the name of Anusuya and for endorsing the name of the appellant Sonwar Peth, CHIKODI Distt. Belgaum (Karnataka) 591201 ENDORSEMENT OF FAMILY JOINT NOTIFICATION 1. Refer to your letter No. N Ex CO/CED dated 22 May 99 2. Personal Occurrence regarding divorce of 1st wife Smt. Anusuya has been pub vide this Offi ce Pt II Order No. NE /021/0002/89
Decision Date : 18-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5262/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
17
English
Judge : B.V. NAGARATHNA,Prashant Kumar Mishra
while passing an Order on an application for grant of bail. However, the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved details cannot be recorded so as to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an Order on an application for grant of bail. However, the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision
Decision Date : 24-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/2078/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
18
English
Judge : BELA M. TRIVEDI,AJAY RASTOGI
candidate, she will have to furnish proof of Divorce . 7 to 9. …… 10. AGE: – A candidate must have attained the age of 21 years on 01st January 2022 however must not have attained the age of 40 years. Provided that – (i) the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by 5 years in case
Decision Date : 18-05-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/16428/2022 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Direction Issue : Matter be placed before Hon’ble CJI for Constitution of appropriate Bench.
19
English
Judge : Ahsanuddin Amanullah,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
finally moved to London and then Sweden – Subsequently, upon returning to India, she filed the criminal case in question – While living with her husband in Sweden, respondent no. 2 had filed a divorce petition, hence, there was no occasion per se for her after coming from Sweden to prompted the Appellants to move before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh through Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 6054 of 2019 for quashing the same under Section 482 of the Code. SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS: 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that already a divorce case has personal lives of the couple. 11. Learned counsel submitted that Respondent No.2 and her husband had, in fact, filed an application seeking divorce in Stockholm, Sweden on 09.07.2018. Respondent No.2, upon her return to India from Sweden, started threatening her husband and the Appellants withdraw the divorce case afore-noted, else a criminal case would be lodged against PRIYANKA MISHRA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.] A B C D E F G H 1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 5 S.C.R. all the family members. It was submitted that the same criminal case in question. We think the same is a retaliatory tactic, inasmuch as the Appellants herein are concerned. 22. At this juncture, it would be relevant to note that once in Sweden, where the Respondent No.2 was living with her husband, a divorce petition had been filed, there was
Decision Date : 08-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1545/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
20
English
Judge : SANJIV KHANNA,J.K. MAHESHWARI,VIKRAM NATH,ABHAY S. OKA,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
of India – Art. 142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13-B – Grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent – Whether Supreme Court while hearing a transfer petition, or in any other proceedings, can exercise power u/Art.142(1) to grant a decree of divorce by mutual Supreme Court has the discretion to dissolve the marriage by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent, without being bound by the procedural requirement to move the second motion – This power should be exercised with care and caution, keeping in mind the factors stated in Amardeep Singh case – Grant of divorce in case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Whether Supreme Court can grant divorce in exercise of power under Article 142(1), when there is complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage in spite of the other spouses opposing the prayer – Held: The Court in exercise any other proceedings, can exercise power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, in view of the settlement between the parties, and grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent dispensing with the period and the procedure prescribed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, given case. Existence of power is generally a matter of law, whereas exercise of power is a mixed question of law and facts. Even when the power to pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent exists and can be exercised by this Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, when criteria and factors, without ignoring the objective of the statutory provisions. [Para 20][196-C-D] 4. Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act does not impose any fetters on the powers of this Court to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent on a joint application, when the of the Section are fulfilled and the Court, after referring to the factors mentioned above, is convinced and of the opinion that the decree of divorce should be granted. [Para 21][197-A- B] 5. The legislature and the Courts treat matrimonial litigations as a special, if not a unique compromised. In view of the above legal position and discussion, Supreme Court, on the basis of settlement between the parties, while passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent, can set aside and quash other proceedings and orders, including criminal cases and First provided the conditions, as specified in the various judgments, are satisfied. [Para 22][197-B-D; 198-A, D] 6. This Court, in view of settlement between the parties, has the discretion to dissolve the marriage by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent, without being bound by and orders, including criminal proceedings. [Para 42][213-C-D] A B C D E F G H 171 Whether this Court can grant divorce in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India when there is complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage in spite of the other form of formal Divorce , to a dead marriage, otherwise the litigation(s), resultant sufferance, misery and torment shall continue. Therefore, apportioning blame and greater fault may not be the rule to resolve and adjudicate the dispute in rare and exceptional matrimonial cases, as the rules dispensing with the period of notice under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is concerned. 2. The stand of the Government with regard to statutory incorporation of irretrievable break-down of marriage as one of the conditions for grant of Divorce . 3. Any other incidental
Decision Date : 01-05-2023 | Case No : TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL)/1118/2014 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered
21
English
Judge : J.B. PARDIWALA,SUDHANSHU DHULIA
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.[2023] 3 S.C.R. 552 552 SH. RAKESH RAMAN v. SMT. KAVITA (Civil Appeal No. 2012 of 2013) APRIL 26, 2023 [SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: s. 13(1)(ia) and (ib) – Divorce – Grounds may not be a ground for dissolution of marriage, under the Hindu Marriage Act, but cruelty is. A marriage can be dissolved by a decree of Divorce , inter alia, on the ground when the other party “has, after the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty”. A
Decision Date : 26-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2012/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
22
English
Judge : Aravind Kumar,Rajesh Bindal
LUBNA COELHO v. EDMOND CLINT FERNANDES (Transfer Petition (C) No. 1475 of 2021) APRIL 18, 2023 [RAJESH BINDAL AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.] Transfer Petition – Divorce petition was filed by husband before Family Judge, Mangaluru, Karnataka – Present filed by wife, a permanent resident of Canada, presently based at Mumbai, Maharashtra seeking transfer of divorce petition from Mangaluru, Karnataka to Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, Maharashtra – Held: Petitioner is a permanent resident of Canada – She had shifted there in the year 2014 and issued a divorce notice and his petition seeking divorce is in the process of filing. Despite repeated requests made by the petitioner, the respondent did not mend his ways. 5. On 06.08.2021, she replied to the legal notice stating that she is ready and willing to come to her matrimonial and wanted to live a happy married life. On 10.08.2021, she received summons of the Court along with copy of the divorce petition filed in the Family Court at Mangaluru. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she is living with her old aged parents at Mumbai. There is no one at also kept in dark about location of new flat worth ` 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores only) purchased by her and her family. The respondent came to know about the address when she filed a complaint at the Women’s Police Station, on 06.07.2021. As a counterblast to the Divorce Petition filed by respondent, the petitioner has filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights. He further submitted that it is a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as even during repeated mediations, the parties could not reconcile. This Court can grant divorce under Article 142 of the living at Mangaluru, Karnataka. Divorce Petition has been filed by the husband at Mangaluru where he resides with his aged parents. Thereafter, the wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights at Mumbai, Maharashtra. 20. Considering the status of the parties and the fact that it is It takes time to settle down in marriage. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent are distinguishable as in those cases proceedings had travelled up to this Court after decision by the Courts below in divorce proceedings, where the parties had led evidence in
Decision Date : 18-04-2023 | Case No : TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL)/1475/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
23
English
Judge : A.S. BOPANNA,HIMA KOHLI
appellant. In the remarks column, the respondents stated that necessary information in respect of the said court proceedings between the parties was sought by the department. The appellant clarified that a decree of divorce was granted to the parties by the concerned Court and a copy of purchased by the appellant but by his brother, which fact is amply borne out from the documents placed on record. The matrimonial dispute between the parties stood closed on a decree of divorce being granted on the basis of mutual consent. That the respondents were also cognizant of the the respondents have stated that necessary information in respect of the said court proceedings between the parties was sought by the department. The appellant has clarified that a decree of divorce was granted to the parties by the concerned Court and a copy of the said order was that a sum of ` 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) was paid by the appellant’s brother to the seller towards the sale price of the flat. 30. Once the parties had arrived at a settlement and a decree of divorce by mutual consent was passed by the concerned Court, the allegations of bigamy and the flat that was agreed to be given to the wife, was not purchased by the appellant but by his brother, which fact is amply borne out from the documents placed on record. The matrimonial dispute between the parties stood closed on a decree of divorce being granted on the basis of
Decision Date : 03-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6161/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
24
English
Judge : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,B.V. NAGARATHNA
– This is an essential attribute of the right to privacy. Evidence Act, 1872 – s.112 – Presumption u/s.112 – Absence of plea of “non-access” to dislodge such presumption – Effect of – Respondent-husband filed petition for divorce on the ground of adultery against appellant-wife – that he found out the alleged adulterous conduct of the appellant-wife 3 years after the birth of the second son, filed petition for divorce on the ground of adultery – Sought direction to subject the second son to DNA testing, granted – Challenged by appellant – Relying on testing, particularly when they are not parties to the divorce proceeding. [Para 17][718-H; 719-A] 4. The concept of privacy for a child may not be equivalent to that of an adult. However, the evolving capacity of children has been recognised and the Convention acknowledges the control Rayden and Jackson on Divorce and Family Matters (1983) Vol. I, at Pg. 1054 – referred to. A B C D E F G H 690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R. Per V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. (Concurring) 1.1 While dealing with a situation where a presumption in terms of Illustration (h) sealed. [Paras 17, 21 and 22][732-E; 735-A-D] 1.2 In the case on hand, the very pleading of the respondent in his petition for divorce before the Family Court is that the second child-Master ‘X’ was born on 17.7.2013 and that the respondent came to know about the alleged adulterous behavior of view to ascertain his paternity. The said application was filed by the respondent-husband in a petition for divorce filed by him under Sections 13(1)(i) and (ia) of the Hindu A B C D E F G H 694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R. Marriage Act, 1955, being Petition No. P.A. 639 of July, 2013. 4.2. On 1st June, 2017, the respondent-husband, filed a petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(i) and (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 being Petition No.P.A. 639 of 2017 and a petition seeking custody of their two children, being P.D. No. 17 of 2017 against the before the Family Court, Pune. In the petition for Divorce , the respondent, inter-alia, alleged that the appellant-wife was in an adulterous relationship with one Kshitij Bafna, and the respondent discovered the same on 14th September, 2016 when he found that certain intimate messages had paternity is 0%”. iv. That the respondent was certain that Master “X” was born as a result of the adulterous relationship of the appellant. However, in order to substantiate his contention as to the appellant’s infidelity as a ground for Divorce , it was necessary to conduct a DNA test
Decision Date : 20-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1308/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
25
English
Judge : AJAY RASTOGI,BELA M. TRIVEDI
that he was married and had children also – She even obtained divorce from her husband by mutual consent in 2014, leaving her three children with her husband – It was only in the year 2015 when some disputes must have taken place between them, that she filed the complaint – On facts, it a shelter home along with the minor child Naman. He also A B C D E F G H 1065 forced her to take divorce from her husband. The prosecutrix had further alleged in the complaint that the accused had lied to her that he had gone to his native place, but in fact he had not gone, which prosecutrix went to the native place of the accused in 2012 and came to know that he was a married man having children. (vi) The prosecutrix still continued to live with the accused in separate premises. (vii) The prosecutrix and her husband took divorce by mutual consent in 2014 and married man having children also, still she continued to live with the accused at another premises without any grievance. She even obtained divorce from her husband by mutual consent in 2014, leaving her three children with her husband. It was only in the year 2015 when some disputes must
Decision Date : 30-01-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/257/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
26
English
Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,BELA M. TRIVEDI
marriage, I intend initiating divorce proceedings in the civ court, based on charges of infidelity. However, I would request you to initiate suitable inquiry into the incident and take up case for disep action against the offr, as deemed fit. May I also request you to initiate the process
Decision Date : 07-11-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8968/2019 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
27
English
Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HIMA KOHLI
were given to the appellant for security. It was agreed that the appellant would return both the cheques when the sum lent was paid in full; (iii) The appellant’s son-initiated divorce proceedings against the respondent’s sister. However, the dowry that was given at the time of marriage is
Decision Date : 11-10-2022 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1497/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
28
English
Judge : KRISHNA MURARI,M.R. SHAH
and disputes relating to status, such as Divorce , which cannot be referred to arbitration. It has, however, been held that if in respect of facts relating to a criminal matter, say, physical injury, if there is a right to damages for personal injury, then such a dispute can be referred
Decision Date : 30-09-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6774/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
29
English
Judge : J.B. PARDIWALA,A.S. BOPANNA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
Divorce ); (d) women with physical disabilities [major disability as per criteria laid down under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016)]; (e) mentally ill women including mental retardation; (f) the foetal malformation that has substantial risk of being incompatible with may be a single parent household for any number of reasons, including the death of a spouse, separation, or Divorce . Similarly, the guardians and caretakers (who traditionally occupy the roles of the “mother” and the “father”) of children may change with remarriage, adoption,
Decision Date : 29-09-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/58023/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
30
English
Judge : VIKRAM NATH,HEMANT GUPTA
to say, right in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization. List III – Concurrent List Entry 5: Marriage and Divorce ; infants
Decision Date : 20-09-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/22957/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
31
English
Judge : A.S. BOPANNA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
reasons, including the death of a spouse, separation, or Divorce . Similarly, the guardians and caretakers (who traditionally occupy the roles of the “mother” and the “father”) of children may change with remarriage, adoption, or fostering. These manifestations of love and of families may
Decision Date : 16-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5308/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
32
English
Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.S. BOPANNA
marriage and after the second respondent was granted a divorce by mutual consent – Thus, the essential ingredients of an offence u/s. 376 not made out – Order passed by the High Court set aside and the application u/s. 482 CrPC allowed. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 In the instant admittedly, the appellant and the second respondent were in a consensual relationship from 2013 until December 2017. They are both educated adults. The second respondent, during the course of this period, got married on 12 June 2014 to someone else. The marriage ended in a decree of divorce marriage and after the second respondent was granted a divorce by mutual consent. [Paras 12, 13][163-C- D, F-G] 1.2 The High Court merely observed that the dispute raises a question of fact which cannot be considered in an application under Section 482 CrPC. The facts would indicate that break off his engagement, he failed to abide by his assurance. 6. Apart from the above narration, it is of significance to note that the second respondent was granted a divorce by mutual consent by an order dated 17 September 2017 of the Principal Judge of the Family Court at decree of divorce by mutual consent on 17 September 2017. The allegations of the second respondent indicate that her relationship with the appellant continued prior to her marriage, during the subsistence of the marriage and after the grant of divorce by mutual consent. 13. In this absent. The relationship between the parties was purely of a consensual nature. The relationship, as noted above, was in existence prior to the marriage of the second respondent and continued to subsist during the term of the marriage and after the second respondent was granted a divorce by
Decision Date : 12-08-2022 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1231/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
33
English
Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,SURYA KANT,A.S. BOPANNA
ongoing pregnancy (widowhood and Divorce ); (d) women with physical disabilities [major disability as per criteria laid down under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016)]; (e) mentally ill women including mental retardation; (f) the foetal malformation that the High Court, it appears that the High Court has taken an unduly restrictive view of the provisions of clause (c) of Rule 3B. Clause (c) speaks of a change of marital status during an ongoing pregnancy and is followed in parenthesis by the words “widowhood and Divorce ”. The expression
Decision Date : 21-07-2022 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/12612/2022 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
34
English
Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA
agreements and disputes relating to status, such as Divorce , which cannot be referred to arbitration. It has, however, been held that if in respect of facts relating to a criminal matter, say, physical injury, if there is a right to damages for personal injury, then such a dispute can be referred
Decision Date : 20-07-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/341/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
35
English
Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,J.B. PARDIWALA
complaint for divorce before the Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The court concerned, vide order dated 17th June 2019, granted temporary custody of the minor children to the petitioner. 17. It is alleged that despite such order being passed by the of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce in the Family Court, Coimbatore. Subsequently, the husband filed a petition in the High Court of Justice in the UK for making the children wards of the Court. The High Court made the children wards of the Court during their minority,
Decision Date : 14-07-2022 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)/402/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
36
English
Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,HIMA KOHLI
with Pushpabai and he told her that he would not leave Kusum Gaikwad. On Pushpabai demanding a Divorce , the appellant lost his temper and assaulted her. Thereafter, he poured kerosene on his wife and set her on fire by lighting a match stick. At this, the appellant’s brother rushed
Decision Date : 02-06-2022 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/485/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
37
English
Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA
Relationships noted in the DV Act are as under: (i) Any relationship by consanguinity is a lifelong relationship. (ii) Marriage is also a lifelong relationship unless a separation by a decree of divorce is ordered by a competent authority of law. (a) If there is separation ordered by a court of law, that does not put an end to marriage and hence the domestic relationship continues between the spouses even though they may not be actually living together. (b) In the event of a Divorce , marriage would be no longer be subsisting, but if a woman (wife) complete severance of relationship as in the case of a Divorce . Moreover, an application filed under section 12 of the D.V. Act by the wife is not barred by any limitation. In the said case, this Court referred to Saraswathy vs. Babu – [(2014) 3 SCC 712]. Further, Dipak Misra J. (as His
Decision Date : 12-05-2022 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/511/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
38
English
Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,L. NAGESWARA RAO
different clan, the contest was between Thansangi Huha (appellant No.4), the youngest daughter of deceased P.S. Dahrawka and Kaithuami, who after divorce came back to her house and was looking after her mother on one hand and Lalmuanpuii (respondent No.3), the other daughter of deceased separate households and one daughter of Thanhnuna, i.e., Laldinpuii, who was also married into a different clan, the contest was between Thansangi Huha (appellant No.4 herein), the youngest daughter of deceased P.S. Dahrawka and Kaithuami, who after divorce came back to her house and was
Decision Date : 26-04-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7159/2008 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
39
English
Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
judgment and decree dated 20.03.2008. Thereafter, the wife preferred an application under the provisions of the Act on 4.5.2009 alleging that the decree of divorce was sham and that even after the divorce the parties were living together as husband and wife; and that she was thereafter forced judgment and decree of divorce as a nullity was still pending consideration before the competent court. The effect of the proceedings culminating in decree for divorce was considered by this Court as under:- “16. The question does arise as to whether the reliefs sought in the complaint can Mohanty 10 and NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn. v. NOIDA25. 33. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that permitting the Magistrate to proceed further with the complaint under the provisions of the 2005 Act is not compatible and in consonance with the decree of divorce weighed with this Court in Inderjit Singh Grewal21 was the fact that the domestic violence was alleged after the decree for Divorce , when any relationship between the parties had ceased to exist. It is true that the plea based on Section 468 of the Code was noted in paragraph 32 of
Decision Date : 13-04-2022 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/627/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
40
English
Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,S. RAVINDRA BHAT
Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful, is void. (emphasis supplied) 32. Before us, Apex has continually stressed on the need to divorce interpretation of tax provisions from a perceived immorality / violation of public policy. Apex repeatedly relied on T.A.
Decision Date : 22-02-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1554/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
41
English
Judge : HEMANT GUPTA,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
In so far as questions of succession, legitimacy, divorce or other questions of personal law are concerned, the final decision of a Civil Court shall be given effect to by the Atiyat Court established under this Act on the decision being brought to its notice by the party concerned irrespective of whether the decision of the Atiyat Court was given before or after the decision of the Civil Court. [(2) If in the course of any Enquiry as to claims to succession, any dispute arises involving questions of succession, legitimacy, divorce or other questions of
Decision Date : 07-02-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/10770/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
42
English
Judge : K.M. JOSEPH,HRISHIKESH ROY
29 – Cruelty – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Dissolution of Marriage – Case of appellant that respondent left appellant and returned to her parental home – Divorce petition by appellant on ground of cruelty – Family Court allowed divorce petition – Respondent filed appeal other, which led to the appellant’s sister returning to her parental house. Further, the case of the appellant is that the respondent left the appellant on 18.01.2000 and returned to her parental home. She did not return home. She stood accused of cruelty and accordingly, the divorce appellant is not entitled to exclude any period with the aid of the Limitation Act. He would contend that the High Court has wrongly relied upon Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. This being a law relating to marriage and Divorce , it fell squarely within the four walls of Section 29(3). In petition seeking Divorce . We cannot be oblivious to the death of the father of the respondent on 03.02.2001. Keeping in view these facts, we do not see any ground being made out by the appellant for interfering with the findings that there is no cruelty made out by the appellant on the part of
Decision Date : 03-02-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3293/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
43
English
Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,BELA M. TRIVEDI
seeking a declaration that the divorce which was pronounced by the second respondent was null and void under Muslim law. In his written statement, the second respondent specifically supported the purported talaq and the divorce certificate issued by the Sadar Kazi under the Muslim personal Family Court. The Principal Judge of the Family Court at Guwahati, by a judgment dated 20 July 2017, issued a declaration that the divorce which was purportedly granted by the second respondent to her is null and void. The said judgment clearly shows that whether (i) the appellant had subsisting marriage with another person; and (ii) the second respondent had obtained a valid divorce was in issue before the Family Court. The finding of fact as between the appellant and the second respondent is that the appellant did not have a subsisting prior marriage when she married him. forwarded a purported divorce certificate dated 18 August 2011 through the Sadar Kazi, Kamrup, Guwahati to a neighbour of the appellant. On 17 September 2011, the appellant instituted proceedings before the Principal Judge of Family Court – I, Kamrup, which was numbered as FC (Civil) Case No of 2011 to challenge the purported Divorce . By a judgment dated 20 July 2017, the Principal Judge of Family Court – I declared the Divorce purportedly given by the second respondent to the appellant as null and void. In the meantime, on 11 September 2015, Complaint Case No 149/2015 was Court has held that “it is highly disputed” whether the appellant had entered into a marital tie with another person prior to the marriage with the complainant and whether the earlier marriage had ended in a valid Divorce . Moreover, the High Court held that the appellant had not come up with
Decision Date : 21-01-2022 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/118/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
44
English
Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,B.V. NAGARATHNA
divorce but since defendants’ brother died on 03rd June, 1989, the said petition for dissolution of marriage became infructuous. The defendants contended that the first plaintiff never cared for their brother. It was further contended that their brother, S. Damodaran had lived for eleven the testator was not aware of the execution of the will and he did not take any step for probate of the same. (viii) After the death of testator’s son, S. Damodaran, his wife- plaintiff No.1, came forward to seek Letters of Administration. (ix) There were proceedings for divorce between PW1 her husband, S. Damodaran and she had also consented for Divorce . (x) Though the person who wrote the will was known to the father-in-law of PW1, his name is not mentioned in the will nor does the will have any date mentioned in it. (xi) The will (Ex-P1) had not seen the light of the day
Decision Date : 10-12-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4270/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
45
English
Judge : A.S. BOPANNA,M.R. SHAH
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R. [2021] 9 S.C.R. 622 622 NEHA TYAGI v. LIEUTENANT COLONEL DEEPAK TYAGI (Civil Appeal No. 6374 of 2021) DECEMBER 01, 2021 [M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.] Matrimonial disputes: Divorce and maintenance – filed complaints against respondent-husband before his employer Army Authorities including allegations of extra-marital affairs – Respondent was exonerated after enquiry by Army Authorities – Thereafter, he filed divorce petition on the ground of cruelty and desertion by appellant – Meanwhile, Army Authorities started deducting 27.5% of the salary per month from the pay and allowances of the respondent in terms of s. 90(1) of the Army Act, 1950 – Family Court passed decree of Divorce – High Court confirmed decree of Divorce – Hence appeal by wife – Respondent did not respondent-husband since December, 2019. The decree of Divorce /dissolution of the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband is confirmed. However, the respondent-husband is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- per month with effect from December, 2019 to the appellant-wife towards
Decision Date : 01-12-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6374/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
46
English
Judge : M.R. SHAH,A.S. BOPANNA
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R.[2021] 8 S.C.R. 618 618 NITABEN DINESH PATEL v. DINESH DAHYABHAI PATEL (Civil Appeal Nos. 5901-5902 of 2021) OCTOBER 07, 2021 [M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.23A – Proceedings for divorce judicial separation or restitution of conjugal rights – Counter- claim for relief – Scope – Held: By way of counter claim, the respondent in any proceedings for divorce or judicial separation or restitution of conjugal rights can pray for relief by way of counter claim only those reliefs of Divorce , judicial separation etc. can be between the husband and the wife only and cannot extend to the third party – On facts, by virtue of s.23A of the Hindu Marriage Act, it was not open for the wife (original defendant) to seek declaration to the effect that the marriage respondent void) and Section 13 ( Divorce ). Therefore, the respondent to the proceedings in question can pray for the aforesaid reliefs only by way of counter claim and that too between the petitioner and the respondent. No relief can be prayed qua the third party. Under the provisions of the
Decision Date : 07-10-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5901/2021 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
47
English
Judge : M.M. SUNDRESH,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
petition for divorce in MC No. 879 of 1987 before the Family Court of Principal Judge, Bangalore and obtained a divorce decree on 26.03.1988. It is the further case of the Appellant that Respondent No. 1 was permitted to reside in the Suit Property. Respondent No. 2 is the son of Respondent No. 1. basis of the alleged mortgage. There was also a denial of the averment of the Appellant regarding permissive occupation. While accepting the decree for divorce it is contended by the 1st Respondent that it has not been given effect to. 5. The Trial Court framed the following issues disbelieving Exhibit D1 that it is forged and fabricated should have kept in mind the conduct and attitude of the Respondent No.1. The factors such as the fabrication and severance of relationship between himself and his wife in pursuance of the decree for Divorce , coupled with the status
Decision Date : 07-10-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1376/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
48
English
Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,HRISHIKESH ROY
Appeal Nos. 4984-4985 of 2021) SEPTEMBER 13, 2021 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.] Hindu Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Subsequent conduct – Continued allegations and litigative proceedings – Irretrievable breakdown Act, 1955 – s.13(1)(i-a) – Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 142. Hindu Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Mental cruelty – Wife filing multiple cases in courts against the husband – Held: Such repeated filing of cases itself amounts to mental cruelty. Hindu Law – Divorce – Irretrievable
Decision Date : 13-09-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4984/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
49
English
Judge : M.R. SHAH,ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Grounds) Rules 1996 – rr. 2 and 3 – Mother of the original writ petitoner was employed with the Government of Karnataka as Second Division Assistant – She died on 25.03.2012 – After her death, her daughter- original writ petitioner initiated a divorce proceeding for divorce by mutual consent of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – On 20.03.2013, she obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent – On 21.03.2013, the original writ petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground – Her application was rejected – Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal ‘dependent’ – Further, the chronology of dates and events i.e. on 20.03.2013 decree of divorce by mutual [2021] 7 S.C.R. 649 649 A B C D E F G H 650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R. consent was obtained and on 21.03.2013 an application was submitted for appointment, the same suggest that only for the purpose of getting appointment on compassionate ground the decree of divorce by mutual consent was obtained – Also, at the time when the deceased employee died she was a married daughter and therefore, also cannot be said to be ‘dependent’ as defined under Rule 2 of divorce by mutual consent. By Judgment dated 20.03.2013, the Principal Civil Judge, Mandya granted the decree of divorce by mutual consent. That immediately on the very next day i.e. on 21.03.2013, the respondent herein on the basis of the decree of divorce by mutual consent applied for on compassionate ground. The aforesaid chronology of dates and events would suggest that only for the purpose of getting appointment on compassionate ground the decree of divorce by mutual consent has been obtained. Otherwise, as a married daughter she was not entitled to the appointment the divorce by mutual consent subsequent to the death of the deceased employee. Therefore, also the respondent shall not be eligible for the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her mother and deceased employee. [Para 8.3][659- B-D] N. C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka Treasury. She died on 25.03.2012. A B C D E F G H 653 That original writ petitioner, who at the relevant time was a married daughter at the time when the deceased (Smt. P. Bhagyamma) died, initiated a divorce proceedings for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Marriage Act, 1955 on 12.09.2012. By its judgment and decree dated 20.03.2013 a decree of divorce by mutual consent was passed by the Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, CJM, Mandya. On the very next day i.e. on 21.03.2013, the original writ petitioner submitted an application to appoint her that thereafter immediately the respondent initiated a divorced proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 12.09.2012 and obtained a decree for divorce by mutual consent dated 20.03.2013 and immediately on the very next day submitted that application for appointment compassionate ground on 21.03.2013. It is submitted that the aforesaid facts would A B C D E F G H 655 clearly demonstrate that only for the purpose of getting the appointment on compassionate ground she obtained the divorce by mutual consent. It is submitted that the High Court has not proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 12.09.2012 for decree of divorce by mutual consent. By Judgment dated 20.03.2013, the Learned Principal Civil Judge, Mandya granted the decree of divorce by mutual consent. That immediately on the very next day i.e. on the respondent herein on the basis of the decree of divorce by mutual consent applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The aforesaid chronology of dates and events would suggest that only for the purpose of getting appointment on compassionate ground the decree of divorce by Therefore, even if it is assumed that the ‘divorced daughter’ may fall in the same class of ‘unmarried daughter’ and ‘widowed daughter’ in that case also the date on which the deceased employee died she – respondent herein was not the ‘divorced daughter’ as she obtained the divorce by
Decision Date : 13-09-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5122/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
50
English
Judge : S.A. BOBDE,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,A.S. BOPANNA
relating to status, such as Divorce , which cannot be referred to arbitration. It has, however, been held that if in respect of facts relating to a criminal matter, say, physical injury, if there is a right to damages for personal injury, then such a dispute can be referred to arbitration (Keir
Decision Date : 26-03-2021 | Case No : WRIT TO PETITION (CIVIL)…/48/2019 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
51
English
Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,KRISHNA MURARI
Hospital on 4th October, 2020. 4. As per the case of the Prosecution, the victim met the Respondent Accused after her divorce from her erstwhile husband. The victim and the Respondent Accused became close and started living together from 2018 onwards. The victim became pregnant, but
Decision Date : 19-03-2021 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/343/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
52
English
Judge : KRISHNA MURARI,A.M. KHANWILKAR,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
Appeal (F.C.) No. 85/ 2020] pending before the High Court against the orders of the Family Court, dated 21.9.2019, which essentially involves issue regarding guardianship. Besides, a divorce petition is also pending between the parties. 1 husband of the respondent 2 for short, “the High
Decision Date : 17-03-2021 | Case No : TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL)/25/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
53
English
Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,DINESH MAHESHWARI,HRISHIKESH ROY
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 117 JOYDEEP MAJUMDAR v. BHARTI JAISWAL MAJUMDAR (Civil Appeal Nos. 3786-3787 of 2020) FEBRUARY 26, 2021 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, DINESH MAHESHWARI AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce on the ground of mental cruelty – of husband – High Court refused to grant relief to husband on the ground that there was no definite finding that the wife’s allegations were false – This was not the correct way to deal with the issue – Husband entitled to Divorce . Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce – Allegation of
Decision Date : 26-02-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3786/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
54
English
Judge : R. SUBHASH REDDY,ASHOK BHUSHAN,M.R. SHAH
of the petitioner solemnised with Basant Yadav. After one year of the marriage, one son was born, named Manish Yadav. Petitioner filed a complaint as well as case for maintenance against her husband, Basant Yadav. 5. The petitioner obtained divorce from Basant Yadav and the custody of her children’s life. The petitioner after divorce from her first husband got married to one Rajesh Kujur with whom a son was also born. The petitioner has also lodged criminal case being No.56/ 2004 against her husband Rajesh Kujur which resulted in acquittal. 9. The petitioner has also filed
Decision Date : 20-01-2021 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/1352/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
55
English
Judge : INDU MALHOTRA,INDIRA BANERJEE,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
989-A] 11. Traditionally, disputes relating to rights in rem are required to be adjudicated by courts and / or statutory tribunals. A right in rem is a right exercisable against the world at large. Actions in rem refer to actions which create a legal status such as citizenship, divorce to be non arbitrable are penal offences which are visited with criminal sanction; offences pertaining to bribery / corruption; matrimonial disputes relating to Divorce , judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, child custody and guardianship matters, which pertain to
Decision Date : 11-01-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3802/2020 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Direction Issue : Issue referred to Constitution Bench.
56
English
Judge : A.S. BOPANNA,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,S.A. BOBDE
arbitration as the forum for settlement of such disputes. 36. The well-recognised examples of non- arbitrable disputes are: (i) disputes relating to rights and liabilities which give rise to or arise out of criminal offences; (ii) matrimonial disputes relating to Divorce , judicial
Decision Date : 18-12-2020 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION/08/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
57
English
Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,INDU MALHOTRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
of this court in *Shayara Bano and to ‘liberate’ Muslim women from the customary practice of talaq-e-biddat ( divorce by triple talaq) by Muslim men. [Para 8][627-D-E] *Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1:[2017] 9 SCR 797 – relied on. 2. The provisions of Section 7(c) apply to introduced in the Parliament. The reasons for the introduction of the bill specifically stated that the bill was to give effect to the ruling of this court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India [(2017) 9 SCC 1], and to „liberate Muslim women from the customary practice of talaq-e-biddat ( divorce
Decision Date : 17-12-2020 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/883/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
58
English
Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,INDU MALHOTRA,INDIRA BANERJEE
respondent instituted a suit against the appellant7 before the JMFC, Nelamangala seeking a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the possession of the suit property. The suit is pending. On 5 December 2013, the petition for divorce was allowed by the Trial divorce and maintenance are also pending. 3 The Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division at Bengaluru and the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District 4 OS 211 of 2003 5 MC 22 of 2009 6 “Trial Judge” 7 OS 312 of 2010 8 Criminal Miscellaneous 114 of 2014 before the Civil Judge (Jr. proceedings to the jurisdictional Family Court, for passing fresh orders after hearing the parties. During the pendency of the appeal, the Fourth respondent entered into a marriage with another woman. On remand, the proceedings for divorce and the application for maintenance are pending to his father (the father-in-law of the appellant), who in turn gifted it to his spouse i.e. the mother-in-law of the appellant after divorce proceedings were instituted by the Fourth respondent. Parallel to this, the appellant had instituted proceedings of dowry harassment against her and her estranged spouse; and her spouse had instituted divorce proceedings. The appellant had also filed proceedings for maintenance against the Fourth respondent and the divorce proceedings are pending. It is subsequent to these events, that the Second and Third respondents instituted
Decision Date : 15-12-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3822/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
59
English
Judge : INDU MALHOTRA,R. SUBHASH REDDY
pending between the parties. Once there is a Divorce , the wife has to seek relief under Section 25 of HMA.3 Under HMA, either the wife, or the husband, may move for judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, dissolution of marriage, payment of interim maintenance under Section 24, has been strained or affected by passing a decree for restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation in favour or against her, or her marriage stands dissolved by a decree of nullity or Divorce , with or without her consent. Thus when her marital status is to be affected or disrupted
Decision Date : 04-11-2020 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/730/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
60
English
Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,INDU MALHOTRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
since 2016 – Divorce proceedings pending before Family Court, Bengaluru – Appellant posted in Singapore in September 2017 – Child staying in Bengaluru with maternal grandparents – Appellant restrained from taking the child out of Bengaluru – Family Court vide order dated 01 March 2018 decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The divorce proceedings are pending before the Family Court, Bengaluru (MC No. 4484 of 2016). The appellant also instituted an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, which is pending in the Court Court has had the opportunity to interact with the appellant and the respondent as well as their child, Sattik, who is now about 7 years old. 12. The narration of facts and the record before this Court indicate that after lodging a petition for divorce before the Family Court, the appellant
Decision Date : 28-10-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3544/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
61
English
Judge : ASHOK BHUSHAN,M.R. SHAH,R. SUBHASH REDDY
of the respondent filed a Divorce Petition on 28.11.2014 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty against the respondent, Sneha Ahuja which proceeding is said to be still pending. The respondent, Sneha Ahuja, on i.e., after filing of the Divorce Petition, filed an application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 impleading Raveen Ahuja as respondent No.1, Shri Satish Ahuja, respondent No.2 and Dr. Prem Kanta Ahuja(mother-in-law of the respondent), respondent No.3. In the complaint it was alleged that Sneha 04.03.1995. The plaintiff further pleaded that wife of the plaintiff has been subjected to various threats and violence in the hands of the defendant on several occasions. The mention of the Divorce Petition filed by Raveen was made in the plaint and it was pleaded that the defendant as family of which the husband is a member. 20. It is submitted that the complaint under the Act, 2005 filed by the respondent was only a counter blast to the Divorce Petition dated 28.11.2014 filed by the husband of the respondent. It is submitted that Sections 17 and 19 of the Act, 2005 do REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R. 31. Till the year 2005, the remedies available to a victim of domestic violence were limited. The women either had to go to the civil court for a decree of divorce or initiate prosecution in the criminal court for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC.
Decision Date : 15-10-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3483/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
62
English
Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
High Court directed that if the appellant was willing to treat his wife with dignity and care but she refuses to live with him or both parties prefer to obtain a divorce by mutual consent, the court below would release the appellant on provisional bail. The trial court was permitted to confirm
Decision Date : 01-10-2020 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/648/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
63
English
Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,INDU MALHOTRA,K.M. JOSEPH
granted legal and temporary custody of the child to the appellant. The appellant has also filed for divorce on 6 June 2019 before the court in New Jersey. 5. On 10 July 2019, the appellant filed a petition before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking writ of a habeas
Decision Date : 23-09-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3284/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
64
English
Judge : M.R. SHAH,ASHOK BHUSHAN,R. SUBHASH REDDY
proceeding under Section 125 of the Code should be completely excluded from consideration. The relationship of husband and wife comes to an end on Divorce , but a divorcee has been held to be entitled to the benefits of the section, it was urged, and therefore applying this approach a woman in court allowed the maintenance to the wife and children from her husband. The husband after divorcing the wife filed application in the trial court seeking modification of the order in view of the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce ) Act, 1986. The trial court
Decision Date : 15-09-2020 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/615/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
65
English
Judge : NAVIN SINHA,R.F. NARIMAN
The well-recognised examples of non-arbitrable disputes are: (i) disputes relating to rights and liabilities which give rise to or arise out of criminal offences; (ii) matrimonial disputes relating to Divorce , judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, child custody;
Decision Date : 19-08-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5145/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
66
English
Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,R. BANUMATHI
1986 Act for Muslim Women and to decide the same –Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce ) Act, 1986 – ss.2-5, 7 – Family Courts Act, 1984 – ss.3, 5-10, 12-14, 16, 18, 20 – Constitution of India – Arts.14, 15 – Interpretation of Statutes – Purposive Interpretation; Casus Omissus – of India for referring the matter to the Larger Bench, the Court Referring the matter to larger Bench, the Court HELD: PER R. BANUMATHI, J. 1.1 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce ) Act, 1986 does not deviate itself from the purpose, object and scope of the provisions of
Decision Date : 18-06-2020 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/192/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
67
English
Judge : DEEPAK GUPTA,ANIRUDDHA BOSE
parties – In parallel developments pertaining thereto, the decree of judicial separation granted to respondent no.8 was set aside – Plea for Divorce , dismissed – Appellant filed writ petition inter alia for directions to MHADA to rehouse her in the two flats allocated to respondent no.8 and
Decision Date : 27-04-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7231/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
68
English
Judge : ASHOK BHUSHAN,A.S. BOPANNA,R. BANUMATHI
divorce petition A B C D E F G H 549 and the same is pending consideration. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the death warrants scheduled for 20.03.2020 is executed what will be the fate of the wife who has filed the divorce petition who has averred Sudhakar (supra) and other judgments. The divorce petition said to have been filed by the wife of the petitioner and the petitions filed by the petitioner before the Lieutenant Governor and Chief Minister of Delhi under Sections 432 and 433 Cr.P.C. cannot a ground for exercise of judicial
Decision Date : 19-03-2020 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)/121/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
69
English
Judge : ASHOK BHUSHAN,NAVIN SINHA
looking after one ‘B’, the sole defendant (owner of the suit property) who was divorced long back and was staying with them – His daughters (respondents) had left with their mother after the divorce and never met him – Sole defendant had executed registered will in favour of appellants and also was admittedly alive till 24.04.1998 and in his lifetime, he never objected the decree or mutation in favour of the defendants. It has been accepted by the Courts below that ‘B’ and ‘G’ were divorced and which divorce was recorded in writing on 15.09.1973 as proved before the Courts below. after 15.09.1973 along with daughters started living with brother of ‘B’ and thereafter never returned to ‘B’. The Courts have found that ‘B’ lived with the defendants after the Divorce , who were taking care of him. The execution of registered Will by ‘B’ on 02.09.1986 in favour of Bhajan Singh lived with the defendants after the Divorce , who were taking care of Bhajan Singh. The execution of registered Will by Bhajan Singh on 02.09.1986 in favour of the defendants and further his admission that all the claim of the defendants in Suit No. 556 are correct and accepting
Decision Date : 19-03-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6835/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
70
English
Judge : S. ABDUL NAZEER,A.S. BOPANNA,R. BANUMATHI
criminal case is filed by one of the parties to the marriage and the acquittal therein would have to be automatically treated as a ground for granting divorce which will be against the statutory provision. Though a criminal complaint was lodged by the wife and husband has been acquitted in manner in which the marriage between the parties had taken place and also taking note that a female child was born from the wedlock on 03.01.2007 had formed the opinion that the petition seeking divorce had been filed at the instigation of the parents of the husband and there was no real for granting the Divorce . 8. The First Appellate Court while considering the appeals filed by the husband had taken note of the evidence which had been referred to before the Trial Court and in that light having reappreciated the matter had upheld the judgment of the Trial
Decision Date : 03-03-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1912/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
71
English
Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,M.R. SHAH
respondent-husband that appellant was not entitled to maintenance since their marriage was a nullity having taken place while an appeal by appellant against decree of divorce against her first husband was still pending – The said appeal by wife against first husband was filed almost one year after expiry of limitation period – Whether second marriage performed during the pendency of an appeal from a decree of Divorce a nullity, even though there were no stay of operation of the decree – Held: s.15 specifies that when a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of Divorce , and there is clarifies that when a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of Divorce , and there is no right of appeal against the decree, or if there is such a right of appeal, the time for appealing has expired without an appeal having been preferred, or an appeal has been presented but the same has
Decision Date : 19-02-2020 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/321/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
72
English
Judge : ASHOK BHUSHAN,R. SUBHASH REDDY
petition under s.125 CrPC filed by respondent-wife directing appellant-husband to pay monthly maintenance and the parties to the dispute to file petition for divorce by mutual consent – Husband paid the maintenance for four months only – Respondent- wife filed execution petition filed a petition for divorce against respondent No.1. On the reconciliation efforts made by the Family Court parties settled the matter amicably on the terms and conditions recorded separately in the Court. As per the settlement the appellant was to pay Rs.25,000/- per month towards further contemplated that the appellant and respondent No.1 shall file petition for divorce by mutual consent by incorporating the terms and conditions. A B C D E F G H 667 The maintenance petition was, thus, disposed of by the Family Court by order dated 06.05.2017. 3. “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875(9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority; (b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. 125(5). On proof should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be, vary the same accordingly. (3) Where any order has been made under Section 125 in favour of a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband, the Magistrate shall, if he is – (a) the woman has, after the date of such Divorce , remarried, cancel such order as from the date of her remarriage. (b) the woman has been divorced by her husband and that she has received, whether before or after the date of the said order, the whole of the sum which, under any or personal law applicable to the parties, was payable on such Divorce , cancel such order – i) in the case where such sum was paid before such order, from the date on which such order was made, SANJEEV KAPOOR v. CHANDANA KAPOOR & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] A B C D E F G H 678
Decision Date : 19-02-2020 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/286/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
73
English
Judge : DEEPAK GUPTA,ANIRUDDHA BOSE
with a case where the wife was an American citizen whereas the husband was a citizen of India. They got married in America and a child was born to them in the year 1978. In 1980, differences arose between the couple and the wife filed a petition for Divorce . The jurisdictional court in
Decision Date : 20-01-2020 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/127/2020
74
English
Judge : K.M. JOSEPH,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
KAKKAR v. NIDHI KAKKAR (Civil Appeal No. 9318 of 2014) DECEMBER 17, 2019 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: s. 13(1)(ia) – Petition seeking Divorce – By husband – Trial Court passed decree of Divorce – High against which an A B C D E F G H 173 appeal was filed before the High Court. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 10.2.2011, however, set aside the decree of Divorce . 8. We may note here that the trial court’s view was predicated on inter alia the continued
Decision Date : 17-12-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9318/2019
75
English
Judge : INDU MALHOTRA,UDAY UMESH LALIT
expenses towards the education and upbringing of the children. ix. The Petitioner – wife has instituted Divorce proceedings against the Respondent – husband before the Family Court in India. The Petitioner – wife has agreed to withdraw the said divorce proceedings. [Para 7][1154-H; 1155-A-H; both parties will share equally the expenses towards the education and upbringing of the children. ix. We were informed that the Petitioner – wife has instituted Divorce proceedings against the Respondent – husband before the Family Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi. – wife has agreed to withdraw the divorce proceedings within a period of two weeks from this Order. The Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of in the above- mentioned terms. Ankit Gyan SLPs disposed of. JASMEET KAUR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. [INDU MALHOTRA,
Decision Date : 12-12-2019 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL)/4858/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
76
English
Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,M.R. SHAH
SRINIVAS KUMAR v. R. SHAMETHA (Civil Appeal No. 4696 of 2013) OCTOBER 04, 2019 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: s. 13(1) – Petition under – On the grounds mentioned in s. 13(1)(ia) and (ib) – Also sought divorce on ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Refused by courts below – In appeal to Supreme Court sought divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in exercise of powers under Art. 142 of the Constitution – Held: Supreme Court in exercise of its inherent powers u/Art. 142 dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even if the facts of the case do not provide a ground in law on which divorce could be granted – In the facts of the case, the marriage is dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. If both the parties to the marriage agree for separation permanently and/or consent for Divorce , in that case, certainly both the parties can move the competent court for a decree of Divorce by mutual consent. Only in a case where one of Constitution of India the marriage cannot be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. If both the parties to the marriage agree for separation permanently and/or consent for Divorce , in that case, certainly both the parties can move
Decision Date : 04-10-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4696/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
77
English
Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR,N.V. RAMANA
and the Petitioner, who offered to maintain both women, but Anita was not amenable to the offer. The Petitioner then wrote PW-6 a Divorce , and Anita agreed to pay Rs. 15,000/- to PW-6. 14.We are of the considered opinion that there is no ground for interference with any finding of the
Decision Date : 01-10-2019 | Case No : REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL)/401/2012 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
78
English
Judge : DEEPAK GUPTA,ANIRUDDHA BOSE
all the assets owned before marriage or acquired after marriage by each spouse. Therefore, in case of Divorce , each spouse is entitled to half share of the assets. The law, however, permits pre-nuptial agreements which may have a different system of division of assets. Another whose marriages are registered in Goa cannot practice polygamy. Further, even for followers of Islam there is no provision for verbal Divorce . 22. It is in this context that we shall have to decide whether the property of late JMP situated in Bombay i.e. outside the territory of Goa would
Decision Date : 13-09-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7378/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
79
English
Judge : M.R. SHAH,A.S. BOPANNA
plaintiff, included the land inherited by his wife from her mother – Suit by plaintiff against the State challenging order of Competent Authority and also against his wife seeking declaration that the marriage between them was already dissolved by way of customary divorce and hence land of her civil court challenging the decision of Competent Authority– However, the suit qua his wife seeking declaration for Divorce was maintainable – The trial as well as first appellate court in their concurrent finding disbelieved the customary Divorce – Therefore, High Court, in exercise of u/s. 100 CPC, was not justified in interfering with the concurrent finding of facts and thus exceeded its jurisdiction – Even on merits, the plaintiff failed to prove the customary Divorce – Plaintiff had come out with the case of customary Divorce only with a view to get out of the
Decision Date : 16-07-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/11326/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
80
English
Judge : ASHOK BHUSHAN,NAVIN SINHA
of minor girl-child – Alleging that mother (appellant) was obstructing his visiting rights granted by the Court, pursuant to divorce between the parties – Later the respondent gave up the claim of custody and sought direction to admit the child in any reputed boarding school in India at appellant lodged FIR against the respondent under Section 498A of the IPC being Case No.204 of 2008. In the year 2008, the respondent filed an application for seeking a decree of divorce before the Family Court, Bengaluru which was registered as Matrimonial Case No.3358 of 2008. SHEOLI HATI conciliation to amicably resolve their issues. On 11.09.2009, the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru granted ex parte decree of divorce dated 11.09.2009. During the pendency of the Anticipatory Bail Application being No.518 of 2009, the parties amicably settled all their disputes before in the name of Aditi for her all time maintenance. The appellant further agreed not to challenge ex parte divorce decree. The appellant also agreed to allow the respondent to meet their child once in every two months starting from January, 2010. The High Court disposed of the matter in (2019) 4 SCC 734, which was a case where appeal was filed by mother of a child against the order of the High Court passed in First Appeal. While decreeing the divorce petition of the husband ex parte the trial court had directed the son, the minor boy, to be admitted in a boarding school at New
Decision Date : 11-07-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5388/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
81
English
Judge : INDU MALHOTRA,UDAY UMESH LALIT
that the Civil Suit was filed by the Appellant in collusion with his father Dharam Singh (Defendant No. 1), as Dharam Singh’s marriage with Respondent No. 1 had fallen apart, and had subsequently been dissolved through a decree of divorce on 15.12.2010. It was contended that the Civil Suit
Decision Date : 01-07-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5124/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
82
English
Judge : R. SUBHASH REDDY,R. BANUMATHI
In Sarita Sharma2, the tussle over the custody of two minor children was between their separated mother and father. The Family Court of USA while passing the decree of divorce gave custody rights to the father. When the mother flew to India with the children, the father approached
Decision Date : 06-05-2019 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/838/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
83
English
Judge : ASHOK BHUSHAN,K.M. JOSEPH
and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. (3) Save as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force with respect to marriage and Divorce , nothing in this Act shall apply to any suit or other proceeding under any such law. (4) with respect to marriage and Divorce , nothing in this Act shall apply to any suit or other proceeding under any such law.” When it comes to the law of marriage and Divorce , the section speaks not only of suits but other proceedings as well. Such proceedings may be proceedings which are
Decision Date : 03-05-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4582/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
84
English
Judge : R. BANUMATHI,S. ABDUL NAZEER
instant case, divorce petition was pending between the parties and they were living separately – Parties resolved to amicably settle the matter and filed separate application agreeing for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent – In the facts and circumstances of the case, by invoking under Art. 142, the marriage of the appellant and respondent is dissolved – Appeal disposed of – Family law – Divorce – Compromise/Settlement. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4541 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2013 of the High Court of Allahabad in Divorce [2019] 7 S.C.R. 150 150 A B C D E F G H 151 petition filed by the appellant by judgment dated 09.11.2009. The appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed by the District Court by the judgment dated 29.11.2012. The High Court also dismissed the second appeal
Decision Date : 01-05-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4541/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
85
English
Judge : ASHOK BHUSHAN,K.M. JOSEPH
SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 – relied on. 2.2 So far as the allegations made in the complaint under Section 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned, the complaint was filed by respondent No.2 on 10.05.2015, before which date, the petition for divorce had filed in the Court. It is on the record that at the time of filing of the complaint ‘V’ (wife) was living in Canada whereas appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 599 of 2019 (husband) was living in U.S.A. Both were separately living. It was pleaded in the application for divorce that The complaint is not by ‘V’ (wife) but it was filed by her father. In the divorce application filed in the State of Michigan, ‘V’ (wife) was represented by her attorney. The divorce was granted with orders relating to alimony, pension benefits and retirement benefits, life insurance, settlement and provision in lieu of dower, mutual release of claims and other aspects on 24.02.2016. [Para 22][1150-B-F] A B C D E F G H 1135 2.3 There is nothing on the record to indicate that orders of divorce between the parties was brought into the notice of the Magistrate he issued process against the appellants. Decree of divorce shall not wipe out any criminal offence, which has been committed within the meaning of I.P.C. or Dowry Prohibition Act and the criminal offence committed in jurisdictional court has to be examined despite the divorce decree having the complaint. The complaint having been filed after proceeding for divorce was initiated in the State of Michigan, where ‘V’ (wife) participated and divorce was ultimately granted. A few months after filing of the divorce petition, the complaint has been filed in the Court of C.J.M. sequence of the events and facts and circumstances of the case leads the Court to conclude that the complaint under Section 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been filed as counter blast to divorce petition proceeding in the State of Michigan. [Para 24][1150-H; 1151-AC] 2.5 by the girl or her father making allegation of demand of any dowry by any one of the applicants. [Para 25] [1151-C-E] 2.6 The judgment in divorce proceedings indicates that the parties to the divorce petition had settled all issues between them including division of properties at the time divorce RASHMI CHOPRA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. A B C D E F G H 1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 6 S.C.R. proceedings were in progress at Michigan and both the parties were not in India, the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had been filed making allegation under of Kalamazoo Family Division, Michigan,USA, seeking Divorce . 2.3 On 10.11.2014, a complaint was sent by respondent No.2 through registered post to the Superintendent of Police, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Noida making allegations against Rajesh Chopra and two other unknown persons. Divorce . If either party has failed, either intentionally or unintentionally, to disclose any of his or her assets, the issue of property division may be reopened on the motion of either party to determine and resolve the distribution of any previously undisclosed assets. 2. It appears to
Decision Date : 30-04-2019 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/594/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
86
English
Judge : R. BANUMATHI,R. SUBHASH REDDY
GAUTAM v. PRAKASH GAUTAM (Civil Appeal Nos. 3409-3410 of 2019) APRIL 05, 2019 [R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.] Child and family welfare: Child custody – Interest and welfare of the child – Divorce between the parties – Direction/order by solemnized in the year 2006. In the year 2009 a son was born to them who is named Krish alias Master Krishav Gautam. In the year 2012, respondent-husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The said divorce petition is It is clear from the materials placed on record, in view of the differences cropped up between the parties, respondent-husband has filed petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the year 2012 which is decreed ex-parte and appeal
Decision Date : 05-04-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3409/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
87
English
Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,AJAY RASTOGI
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R. LAHARI SAKHAMURI v. SOBHAN KODALI (Civil Appeal Nos. 3135-3136 of 2019) MARCH 15, 2019 [A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.] Family Law: Child custody – Petition for divorce and for custody of minor children (US preferable from child’s perspective. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The appellant had filed application for divorce and custody of minor children in the US Court and order came to be passed by the US Court. Despite that interim order, the appellant came to India and within 20 admitted by the appellant also in the guardianship petition filed before the Family Court in India and also in the divorce and custody petition filed by her in US and only after hearing counsel for the parties, order was passed by the US Court on 22nd May, 2017 on the emergency custody SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R. 6. This fact cannot be ruled out that something certainly has gone wrong in their marital relations and it went to an extent where the appellant (Lahari Sakhamuri) took a decision to file petition for divorce and custody of the minor children in US on December, 2016 on the premise that there was a complete irretrievable breakdown of marriage under the Divorce Code, 1980 prevalent in US. It may be relevant to note that along with the application filed for divorce and custody of minor children, there is a prescribed format which has to be and effective in India as well. 8. It reveals from the record that on the date of filing of the petition for divorce and custody of minor children by the appellant (Lahari Sakhamuri), i.e. 21st December, 2016 in US, the order came to be passed on the petition directing respondent (Sobhan offence under Section 498A IPC i.e. on 21st April, 2017 but after investigation, the police filed closure report on 1st November, 2017. The fact to be noticed here at this stage is that the very appellant (Lahari Sakhamuri) filed a petition for divorce and custody of minor children in US on the oral information, on 26th April, 2017, emergency petition for interim orders in petition for divorce and custody filed at the instance of the appellant (Lahari Sakhamuri) was A B C D E F G H 253 filed by respondent (Sobhan Kodali). The said application was contested by Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that though she has been completely silent in her proceedings instituted in the US Court in a divorce and custody petition of the children as there is a provision in US that one can seek divorce if there is a irretrievable break down of marriage jurisdiction, the same may not be in their best interest and welfare of the children. Learned counsel submits that Indian Courts have jurisdiction because the parties had married here and the Hindu Marriage Act applies to Divorce and Section 26 deals with custody. What is to domestic violence at any given point of time and she had invoked the jurisdiction of US Court for divorce and custody of minor children based on their residence and, therefore, it may not be open for her to disregard the orders of US Court, more specially the order dated 22nd May, 2008. Both the children were born in US on 14th March, 2012 and 13th October, 2014 and are US citizens with US passports. Notably, the appellant (Lahari Sakhamuri) filed application for divorce and custody of minor children in the US Court on 21st December, 2016 and order came to be two daughters in UK. The wife also became a British citizen and had a British passport. After matrimonial dispute arose between them, the wife returned to India with her daughters and filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce in the Family child was born in US in 2014. The mother along with the child came to India in December, 2016 with their return ticket to Chicago in January 2017. She filed a divorce petition after coming to India in Delhi and husband filed emergency custody petition in US Court. Wife obtained an new house in January, 2016. Something must have been gone wrong between them which compelled the appellant (Lahari Sakhamuri) in filing a divorce and custody petition of the minor children in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania Civil Division on 21st December, Divorce , equitable distribution of marital property, primary physical and shared legal custody of the minor children. In the Divorce petition, the appellant (Lahari Sakhamuri) made a specific averment about the permanent residence in US for both the parties and securing children’s custody
Decision Date : 15-03-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3135/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
88
English
Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,M.R. SHAH
agricultural income. 43. Duties in respect of succession to agricultural land. 47. Duties in respect of succession to agricultural land. 43A. Estate duty in respect of agricultural land. 48. Estate duty in respect of agricultural land. LIST III 6. Marriage and Divorce ; infants and adoption. 7. Wills, intestacy, and succession, save as regards agricultural land. 5. Marriage and Divorce ; infants and minors; adoption; wills, intestacy and succession; joint family and partition; all matters in respect of which parties in judicial proceedings were
Decision Date : 07-03-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2553/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
89
English
Judge : VINEET SARAN,R.F. NARIMAN
offences; (ii) matrimonial disputes relating to Divorce , judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, child custody; (iii) guardianship matters; (iv) insolvency and winding- up matters; (v) testamentary matters (grant of probate, letters of administration and succession certificate);
Decision Date : 28-02-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2402/2019 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench
90
English
Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HEMANT GUPTA
transferred by him into her bank account.The suit is pending. Two divorce petitions instituted by Savita have been dismissed by the family court. 5. On 25 February 2016, the first respondent filed a private complaint3 against the appellants which forms the subject matter of the present
Decision Date : 15-02-2019 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/238/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
91
English
Judge : N.V. RAMANA,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
or Jewish religion, or the husband adopting the Moslem faith; and in Clause (e) the objection may be removed by the man divorcing the wife who constitutes the obstacle; thus if a man who has already married one sister marries another, he may divorce the first, and make the second lawful has no legal effect before consummation. (2) If consummation has taken place— (i) the wife is entitled to dower, proper or specified, whichever is less (§ 286, 289); (ii) she is bound to observe the iddat, but the duration of the iddat both on divorce and death is three course
Decision Date : 22-01-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5158/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
92
English
Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,ASHOK BHUSHAN
The well-recognised examples of non-arbitrable disputes are: (i) disputes relating to rights and liabilities which give rise to or arise out of criminal offences; (ii) matrimonial disputes relating to Divorce , judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, agreements and disputes relating to status, such as Divorce , cannot be referred to arbitration. The following categories of disputes are generally treated as non- arbitrable: M/S. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED v. AFTAB SINGH [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] A B C D E F G H 814 SUPREME
Decision Date : 10-12-2018 | Case No : REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL)/2629/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
93
English
Judge : KURIAN JOSEPH,HEMANT GUPTA
JJ.] Divorce Act, 1869 – s.10-A – Matrimonial Dispute – Court assisted mediation and conciliation – Held: Having regard to the entire background of the long drawn litigation between the parties and the fact that they have taken a conscious decision to part, there is no need for them to through the regular process – Marriage between the appellant and the respondent is dissolved by decree of divorce by mutual consent – Deed of settlement to form part of the decree – Application u/s.10-A, 1869 Act is allowed – Since the parties have settled the dispute, the Passport Officer parties to go through the regular process. Therefore, their application under Section 10-A of the Divorce Act, 1869 is allowed and their marriage is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The amount of Rs.1.25 crore paid by the husband to the wife by way of permanent alimony shall not parties have reached a settlement. 6. The deed of settlement has been produced along with the I.A. The same is taken on record. The deed of settlement shall form part of the decree. In terms of the settlement, the parties have filed an application under Section 10-A of the Divorce Act of under Section 10-A of the Divorce Act is allowed and the marriage between Dr.Benoy Idicula Babu and Dr. Nisha Saira Benoy is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. 7. We make it clear that the amount of Rs.1.25 crore paid by the husband to the wife by way of permanent alimony
Decision Date : 22-11-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/11262/2018 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Disposed off
94
English
Judge : S. ABDUL NAZEER,A.K. SIKRI
is planning to divorce his wife. Further, the appellant informed the complainant that since they belong to different communities, a month is needed for the registration of their marriage. Therefore, she started living with the appellant at his Government quarters. The FIR
Decision Date : 22-11-2018 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1443/2018 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Allowed
95
English
Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,KURIAN JOSEPH
consent – In terms of the divorce decree, custody of the children (son and daughter) was to be with the appellant and the appellant was to provide for expenses of the son, while respondent no.1 was to provide likewise for the daughter – Appellant and respondent no.1 were doctors with the seeking custody of the children as also a suit for declaration that decree of divorce was obtained by fraud – High Court directed the custody of the children to be with respondent no.1, with visiting rights to the appellant – Propriety of – Held: Decision to give custody of the children to difficulty, but the unwillingness of respondent no.1 to contribute for her own daughter – Proceedings for the custody and for cancellation of the decree of divorce were to pressurise the appellant to not claim any amounts – High Court gave undue importance to the conversation with the re-marry – Interference by the High Court was unjustified – Order of the Family Court granting divorce in terms of the decree was in order – Children be returned to the appellant by respondent No.1 – Rights and obligations as envisaged in the decree of divorce by mutual consent bind both or fraud. Respondent No.1 is well-educated and is a medical practitioner. There was a six (6) months’ hiatus period for the parties to think over the terms of the settlement before the grant of the decree of Divorce , which is the statutory period available for the parties to have a re-think, Kumar.” 5. A perusal of the aforesaid shows that para 5 was a natural corollary to the decree of Divorce , i.e., that either parties could re-marry. Clause 6 provides for an agreement inter se the appellant and respon- dent No.1 qua the issue of custody of both the children, which was agreed
Decision Date : 26-10-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/10771/2018 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Allowed
96
English
Judge : DIPAK MISRA,R.F. NARIMAN,A.M. KHANWILKAR,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,INDU MALHOTRA
particular act, i.e., adultery does not fit into the concept of a crime. If it is treated as a crime, there would be immense intrusion into the extreme privacy of the matrimonial sphere. It is better to be left as a ground for Divorce . For any other purpose as the Parliament has perceived together and some may seek Divorce . It is absolutely a matter of privacy at its pinnacle. The theories of punishment, whether deterrent or reformative, would not save the situation. A punishment is unlikely to establish commitment, if punishment is meted out to either of them or
Decision Date : 27-09-2018 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)/194/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
97
English
Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR,DIPAK MISRA
despite the injunction order passed by the Delhi High Court dated 28th October, 2004, which was operating against the respondent, he approached the courts in Canada and obtained an ex-parte divorce allegedly to escape the liability to pay the maintenance amount and also adopted delaying tactics operating against the respondent, he approached the courts in Canada and obtained an ex- parte divorce allegedly to escape the liability to pay the maintenance amount and also adopted delaying tactics in the progress of the subject maintenance proceedings. Furthermore, the Magistrate
Decision Date : 25-09-2018 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1220/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
98
English
Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,S.A. BOBDE
the respondent during the pendency of the appeal against the decree of Divorce – Marriage was entered into after application for withdrawal of appeal, though before the order of withdrawal was passed – Validity of the second marriage – Held: Section 15 provides that the second marriage by party shall be lawful only after dismissal of an appeal against the decree of Divorce , if filed – In case an appeal is presented, any marriage before dismissal of the appeal shall not be lawful – On facts, during the pendency of the appeal, there was a settlement between the appellant and
Decision Date : 24-08-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/18312/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
99
English
Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR,DIPAK MISRA
“right” but also the “duty” of this Court to reverse the error and the injustice and to upset the finding notwithstanding the fact that it has been affirmed thrice. There is no warrant to import the concept or the conclusiveness of divorce on the utterance of “Talaq” thrice in interpreting
Decision Date : 31-07-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6620/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
100
English
Judge : DIPAK MISRA,A.M. KHANWILKAR,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
of – On facts, marriage of appellant-wife and respondent No.2-husband as per Sikh rites and Hindu Vedic rites in New Delhi – After three months the parties performed a civil marriage in USA – Birth of girl child M – Appellant fled from US with the minor daughter and filed divorce petition has travelled to India on a tenure Visa which has expired. That does not mean that she is in unlawful custody of her biological mother. Her custody with the appellant would nevertheless be lawful. The appellant has already instituted divorce proceedings in the Family Court, New Delhi. The petitioner and his mother insisted that the respondent undergoes surgery rather than taking medication, since medication would have made it difficult for her to conceive in future. She claims that the petitioner even threatened her with divorce in case she prioritised her own health at their daughter M on 20.12.2016. She further stated that during this time, I realized that I do not want to continue with his suppressed marriage and file for divorce and custody petition against K G in the Hon’ble Court Sh. Arun Kumar Arya, Principle Judge, Family Courts, Patiala House, New appellant would nevertheless be lawful. The appellant MRS. KANIKA GOEL v. STATE OF DELHI THROUGH S.H.O. AND ANR. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] A B C D E F G H 584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R. has already instituted divorce proceedings in the Family Court at Patiala House,
Decision Date : 20-07-2018 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/635/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
Advocate in Jabalpur Lawyer in Jabalpur 