Supreme Court of India’s Recent Landmark Divorce Rulings Judgments

Posted on March 24, 2024 by MediumPulse Medium Pulse News

Supreme Court of India’s Recent Landmark Divorce Rulings Judgments

Divorce is the legal dissolution of a marriage, which results in the termination of the marital union between two individuals. It involves a series of legal processes and procedures that ultimately lead to the court granting a divorce decree, thus formally ending the marriage. The specific requirements, laws, and procedures for divorce vary depending on the jurisdiction in which it takes place, as well as the type of marriage involved (e.g., civil, religious, or customary).

Some common grounds for divorce include:

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage: This ground signifies that the marriage has deteriorated to an extent that it cannot be repaired, and it is beyond any reasonable hope of reconciliation.
Adultery: When one spouse has a voluntary sexual relationship with someone other than their partner, it may constitute grounds for divorce.
Cruelty: This ground involves physical or mental cruelty inflicted by one spouse on the other, making it unsafe or intolerable to continue living together.
Desertion: If one spouse abandons or leaves the other without any reasonable cause, the deserted spouse may file for divorce.
Conversion to another religion: In some cases, a spouse’s conversion to another religion may form the basis for a divorce.

Divorce can be a complex and emotionally challenging process, often involving issues such as child custody, division of assets, maintenance, and alimony. Seeking the guidance and assistance of legal professionals can help individuals navigate the various aspects of divorce proceedings.

Supreme Court of India has delivered several significant judgments related to divorce and matrimonial disputes. Some of the key judgments include:

Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain: In this case, the Supreme Court held that the courts should exercise their discretion in granting divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli: The Supreme Court laid down guidelines for determining the quantum of maintenance to be awarded to a spouse in matrimonial disputes.
Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni: The Supreme Court held that the ground of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” can be used to grant divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh: The Supreme Court held that a husband cannot be prosecuted for adultery if the act was consensual and the wife had forgiven him.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India: The Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized adultery, as unconstitutional.

These are just a few examples of the many landmark judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of India in the field of divorce and matrimonial disputes.

1	Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr – [2024] 2 S.C.R. 2522024 INSC 101 Judge : Satish Chandra Sharma,VIKRAM NATH 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 harass the Appellants, amounting to an abuse of the process of the law. 12. To buttress his contention, Learned Counsel for the Appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that Respondent No. 2 filed a petition seeking Divorce and only thereafter, the memo seeking reopening Decision Date : 05-02-2024 \| Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/758/2024
2	Yagwati @ Poonam Vs Ghanshyam – [2024] 1 S.C.R. 11002024 INSC 1100 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
3	Prakashchandra Joshi Vs Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi @ Kuntal Visanji Shah – [2024] 1 S.C.R. 6972024 INSC 55 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 Decision Date : 24-01-2024 \| Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/934/2024 \| Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
4	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer PRIYA INDORIA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. – [2023] 15 S.C.R. 5252023 INSC 1008 Judge : Ujjal Bhuyan,B.V. NAGARATHNA 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
5	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ADITI ALIAS MITHI Vs JITESH SHARMA – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 2472023 INSC 981 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
6	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MUNILAKSHMI Vs NARENDRA BABU & ANR. – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 10582023 INSC 943 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 Decision Date : 20-10-2023 \| Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/3297/2023 \| Disposal Nature : Disposed off
7	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MANMOHAN GOPAL Vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 10732023 INSC 953 Judge : Aravind Kumar,S. RAVINDRA BHAT 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
8	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer X Vs M/S SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. & ORS. – [2023] 15 S.C.R. 4432023 INSC 919 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,Manoj Misra,J.B. PARDIWALA 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
9	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer DR. NIRMAL SINGH PANESAR Vs MRS. PARAMJIT KAUR PANESAR @ AJINDER KAUR PANESAR – [2023] 13 S.C.R. 8322023 INSC 896 Judge : BELA M. TRIVEDI,ANIRUDDHA BOSE 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 Decision Date : 10-10-2023 \| Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2045/2011 \| Disposal Nature : Dismissed
10	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SMT. M. HEMALATHA DEVI & ORS. Vs B. UDAYASRI – [2023] 13 S.C.R. 2582023 INSC 870 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
11	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer CPL ASHISH KUMAR CHAUHAN (RETD.) Vs COMMANDING OFFICER & ORS. – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 6012023 INSC 857 Judge : DIPANKAR DATTA,S. RAVINDRA BHAT 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
12	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SMT. ROOPA SONI Vs KAMALNARAYAN SONI – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 8712023 INSC 814 Judge : SANJIV KHANNA,M.M. SUNDRESH 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
13	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ABHISHEK Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – [2023] 11 S.C.R. 5072023 INSC 779 Judge : Sanjay Kumar,ANIRUDDHA BOSE,Sarasa Venkatanarayana Bhatti 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. Decision Date : 31-08-2023 \| Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1457/2015 \| Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
14	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SMT. SHIRAMABAI W/O PUNDALIK BHAVE AND OTHERS Vs THE CAPTAIN, RECORD OFFICER FOR O.I.C. RECORDS, SENA CORPS ABHILEKH, GAYA, BIHAR STATE AND ANR. – [2023] 11 S.C.R. 1302023 INSC 744 Judge : HIMA KOHLI,Rajesh Bindal 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 Decision Date : 18-08-2023 \| Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5262/2023 \| Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
15	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ROHIT BISHNOI Vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR – [2023] 10 S.C.R. 5022023 INSC 642 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
16	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SAKSHI ARHA Vs THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND OTHERS – [2023] 9 S.C.R. 5832023 INSC 559 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.
17	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer PRIYANKA MISHRA & ORS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 11522023 INSC 729 Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,Ahsanuddin Amanullah 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 Decision Date : 08-05-2023 \| Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1545/2023 \| Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
18	English ગુજરાતી – Gujarati हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SHILPA SAILESH Vs VARUN SREENIVASAN – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 1652023 INSC 468 Judge : VIKRAM NATH,J.K. MAHESHWARI,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,SANJIV KHANNA,ABHAY S. OKA 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 Decision Date : 01-05-2023 \| Case No : TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL)/1118/2014 \| Disposal Nature : Reference answered
19	English हिन्दी – Hindi मराठी – Marathi తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer SH. RAKESH RAMAN Vs SMT. KAVITA – [2023] 3 S.C.R. 5522023 INSC 433 Judge : SUDHANSHU DHULIA,J.B. PARDIWALA 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 cases against him – Trial court passed a decree of Divorce holding that the wife had deserted the husband and had meted out cruel behaviour against him – However, the High Court set aside the order – On appeal, held: There are bitter allegations of cruelty and desertion from both the Decision Date : 26-04-2023 \| Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2012/2013 \| Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
20	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer DELMA LUBNA COELHO Vs EDMOND CLINT FERNANDES – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 4732023 INSC 389 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 Decision Date : 18-04-2023 \| Case No : TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL)/1475/2021 \| Disposal Nature : Dismissed
21	English हिन्दी – Hindi తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer CAPTAIN PRAMOD KUMAR BAJAJ Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER – [2023] 2 S.C.R. 302023 INSC 204 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 Decision Date : 03-03-2023 \| Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6161/2022 \| Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
22	English हिन्दी – Hindi मराठी – Marathi Disclaimer APARNA AJINKYA FIRODIA Vs AJINKYA ARUN FIRODIA – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 6802023 INSC 146 Judge : B.V. NAGARATHNA,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN – 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 Decision Date : 20-02-2023 \| Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1308/2023 \| Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
23	English हिन्दी – Hindi தமிழ் – Tamil తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer NAIM AHAMED Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) – [2023] 1 S.C.R. 10612023 INSC 85 Judge : BELA M. TRIVEDI,AJAY RASTOGI 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 Decision Date : 30-01-2023 \| Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/257/2023 \| Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
24	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer IC-56663X COL ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2022] 9 S.C.R. 7002022 INSC 1182 Judge : BELA M. TRIVEDI,UDAY UMESH LALIT 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
25	English ગુજરાતી – Gujarati हिन्दी – Hindi தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer DASHRATHBHAI TRIKAMBHAI PATEL Vs HITESH MAHENDRABHAI PATEL & ANR – [2022] 16 S.C.R. 5222022 INSC 1067 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

About MediumPulse Medium Pulse News

MediumPulse Medium Pulse News

View all posts by MediumPulse Medium Pulse News →

This entry was posted in Delhi Advocate High Court Delhi Lawyer Supreme Court of India. Bookmark the permalink.

1	Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr – [2024] 2 S.C.R. 2522024 INSC 101 Judge : Satish Chandra Sharma,VIKRAM NATH 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 harass the Appellants, amounting to an abuse of the process of the law. 12. To buttress his contention, Learned Counsel for the Appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that Respondent No. 2 filed a petition seeking Divorce and only thereafter, the memo seeking reopening Decision Date : 05-02-2024 \| Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/758/2024
2	Yagwati @ Poonam Vs Ghanshyam – [2024] 1 S.C.R. 11002024 INSC 1100 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
3	Prakashchandra Joshi Vs Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi @ Kuntal Visanji Shah – [2024] 1 S.C.R. 6972024 INSC 55 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 Decision Date : 24-01-2024 \| Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/934/2024 \| Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
4	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer PRIYA INDORIA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. – [2023] 15 S.C.R. 5252023 INSC 1008 Judge : Ujjal Bhuyan,B.V. NAGARATHNA 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
5	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ADITI ALIAS MITHI Vs JITESH SHARMA – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 2472023 INSC 981 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
6	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MUNILAKSHMI Vs NARENDRA BABU & ANR. – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 10582023 INSC 943 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 Decision Date : 20-10-2023 \| Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/3297/2023 \| Disposal Nature : Disposed off
7	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MANMOHAN GOPAL Vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 10732023 INSC 953 Judge : Aravind Kumar,S. RAVINDRA BHAT 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
8	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer X Vs M/S SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. & ORS. – [2023] 15 S.C.R. 4432023 INSC 919 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,Manoj Misra,J.B. PARDIWALA 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
9	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer DR. NIRMAL SINGH PANESAR Vs MRS. PARAMJIT KAUR PANESAR @ AJINDER KAUR PANESAR – [2023] 13 S.C.R. 8322023 INSC 896 Judge : BELA M. TRIVEDI,ANIRUDDHA BOSE 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 Decision Date : 10-10-2023 \| Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2045/2011 \| Disposal Nature : Dismissed
10	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SMT. M. HEMALATHA DEVI & ORS. Vs B. UDAYASRI – [2023] 13 S.C.R. 2582023 INSC 870 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
11	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer CPL ASHISH KUMAR CHAUHAN (RETD.) Vs COMMANDING OFFICER & ORS. – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 6012023 INSC 857 Judge : DIPANKAR DATTA,S. RAVINDRA BHAT 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
12	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SMT. ROOPA SONI Vs KAMALNARAYAN SONI – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 8712023 INSC 814 Judge : SANJIV KHANNA,M.M. SUNDRESH 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
13	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ABHISHEK Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – [2023] 11 S.C.R. 5072023 INSC 779 Judge : Sanjay Kumar,ANIRUDDHA BOSE,Sarasa Venkatanarayana Bhatti 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. Decision Date : 31-08-2023 \| Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1457/2015 \| Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
14	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SMT. SHIRAMABAI W/O PUNDALIK BHAVE AND OTHERS Vs THE CAPTAIN, RECORD OFFICER FOR O.I.C. RECORDS, SENA CORPS ABHILEKH, GAYA, BIHAR STATE AND ANR. – [2023] 11 S.C.R. 1302023 INSC 744 Judge : HIMA KOHLI,Rajesh Bindal 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 Decision Date : 18-08-2023 \| Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5262/2023 \| Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
15	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ROHIT BISHNOI Vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR – [2023] 10 S.C.R. 5022023 INSC 642 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
16	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SAKSHI ARHA Vs THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND OTHERS – [2023] 9 S.C.R. 5832023 INSC 559 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.
17	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer PRIYANKA MISHRA & ORS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 11522023 INSC 729 Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,Ahsanuddin Amanullah 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 Decision Date : 08-05-2023 \| Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1545/2023 \| Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
18	English ગુજરાતી – Gujarati हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SHILPA SAILESH Vs VARUN SREENIVASAN – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 1652023 INSC 468 Judge : VIKRAM NATH,J.K. MAHESHWARI,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,SANJIV KHANNA,ABHAY S. OKA 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 Decision Date : 01-05-2023 \| Case No : TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL)/1118/2014 \| Disposal Nature : Reference answered
19	English हिन्दी – Hindi मराठी – Marathi తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer SH. RAKESH RAMAN Vs SMT. KAVITA – [2023] 3 S.C.R. 5522023 INSC 433 Judge : SUDHANSHU DHULIA,J.B. PARDIWALA 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 cases against him – Trial court passed a decree of Divorce holding that the wife had deserted the husband and had meted out cruel behaviour against him – However, the High Court set aside the order – On appeal, held: There are bitter allegations of cruelty and desertion from both the Decision Date : 26-04-2023 \| Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2012/2013 \| Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
20	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer DELMA LUBNA COELHO Vs EDMOND CLINT FERNANDES – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 4732023 INSC 389 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 Decision Date : 18-04-2023 \| Case No : TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL)/1475/2021 \| Disposal Nature : Dismissed
21	English हिन्दी – Hindi తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer CAPTAIN PRAMOD KUMAR BAJAJ Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER – [2023] 2 S.C.R. 302023 INSC 204 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 Decision Date : 03-03-2023 \| Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6161/2022 \| Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
22	English हिन्दी – Hindi मराठी – Marathi Disclaimer APARNA AJINKYA FIRODIA Vs AJINKYA ARUN FIRODIA – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 6802023 INSC 146 Judge : B.V. NAGARATHNA,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN – 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 Decision Date : 20-02-2023 \| Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1308/2023 \| Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
23	English हिन्दी – Hindi தமிழ் – Tamil తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer NAIM AHAMED Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) – [2023] 1 S.C.R. 10612023 INSC 85 Judge : BELA M. TRIVEDI,AJAY RASTOGI 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 Decision Date : 30-01-2023 \| Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/257/2023 \| Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
24	English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer IC-56663X COL ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2022] 9 S.C.R. 7002022 INSC 1182 Judge : BELA M. TRIVEDI,UDAY UMESH LALIT 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
25	English ગુજરાતી – Gujarati हिन्दी – Hindi தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer DASHRATHBHAI TRIKAMBHAI PATEL Vs HITESH MAHENDRABHAI PATEL & ANR – [2022] 16 S.C.R. 5222022 INSC 1067 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