Initiating unnecessary litigations against spouse is cruelty and ground for divorce: SC | India News
A bench of judges Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh roy invoked the special power under article 142 of the Constitution to grant divorce on the basis of the irreparable breakdown of the marriage and also for cruelty in light of the wife’s conduct for bringing multiple cases in court against him, including the Petition in HC for disciplinary action against her husband who worked as an assistant professor at a public university.
The court noted that the law has not been amended despite the recommendations of the Law Commission recognize the irremediable breakdown of the marriage as grounds for divorce and the matter is also pending in the supreme court. However, he said that it would be useless to keep the matter pending and dissolved the marriage invoking his special power to do justice.
It took two decades for a marriage, which failed to take off and is never consummated with the initial litigation of the spouses just fifteen days after getting married, to be legally dissolved with the Supreme Court on Monday allowing the divorce allegation of a supporting husband that multiple lawsuits were initiated. for a wife against him is cruelty.
It took two decades for a marriage, which failed to get off the ground and is never consummated with the spouses’ initial litigation just fifteen days after getting married, to be legally dissolved with the Supreme Court on Monday allowing the divorce allegation of a supporting husband that multiple lawsuits were initiated. for a wife against him is cruelty.
The court said that the trial court and the higher court did not find adequate material to conclude that the husband was entitled to divorce for cruelty and that the wife’s conduct during the processing of the case should be examined. The court noted that the wife had resorted not only to litigation, but also publicly threatened him in his office. He said that HC wrongly dismissed these incidents as “marriage wear and tear.”
“… these continuous acts of the defendant would amount to cruelty even if they had not arisen as a cause before the institution of the petition, as determined by the court of first instance. This conduct shows the disintegration of the conjugal unit and, therefore therefore, the disintegration of the marriage. In fact, there was no initial integration in itself that would allow the later disintegration. The fact that the complaints and the judicial processes have been continued and that they may amount to cruelty is an aspect that has taken note from this court, “the court said. .
“He requested disciplinary proceedings against the appellant because of the second marriage despite the fact that the second marriage took place shortly after the divorce decree. Therefore, he tried to somehow ensure that the appellant loses his job. such complaints seeking removal of the spouse from work have been held to amount to mental cruelty, “he said.
In this case, the couple married in 2002, but as the court said, “there was a crash landing on the take-off stage itself!” as she left immediately after the marriage saying that her consent was not taken. Fifteen days later, the husband filed for divorce for not consummating the marriage, but she refused to give her consent and requested the restoration of marital rights. The family court granted the divorce after five years and the husband remarried within a week.
The family court order was overturned by Madras HC and the husband approached the supreme court that ended the two-decade litigation in which the parties lived apart.