Category: Matrimonial

It is also noted that the parties are living separately and there is no possibility of the parties reconciling their disputes and co-habiting together. HELD placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the Case of “Amardeep Singh Versus Harveen Kaur” – [2017 (8) SCC 746]. Marriage dissolved by decree of mutual consent.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH POOJA BHUNESHWAR PRASAD SHARMA — Appellant Vs. ASHISH VINAYBHAI MISHRA — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna, J. ) Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 618…

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) – Divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by wife – From June 2009 wife left the matrimonial home with all her personal belongings and consistently refused to consummate the marriage, thereby causing mental agony to the husband – – From the evidence on record, an inference can be drawn that there was animus deserendi on the part of the wife

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEBANANDA TAMULI — Appellant Vs. SMTI KAKUMONI KATAKY — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

In the interests of justice, transfer of the proceedings is warranted – direct that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-V A D J at Visakhapatnam, A P be transferred to the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge/competent court, Lothagudem Bhadhradri, Kothagudem District, Telangana.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT AKKIREDDY NIHAARIKA — Appellant Vs. AKKIREDDY KARTEEK KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Transfer…

Plea to live in posh home with estranged husband – Plea rejected – If This Court allow the prayer and allow the respondent­wife to move into the said house, it will rather than sub-serving the interest of the parties, would be detrimental to their interests. The record and the pendency of the criminal proceedings would show that the relations between the parties are so strained that if they are permitted to live in the said house, it would lead to nothing else but further criminal proceedings.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAIDEV RAJNIKANT SHROFF — Appellant Vs. POONAM JAIDEV SHROFF — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) I.A. Nos.…

Dissolution of marriage – no useful purpose shall be served to further enter into the merits of the findings recorded by the courts below on “cruelty” and “desertion” by the wife – Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the decree passed by the learned Family Court, confirmed by the High Court, dissolving the marriage between the wife and the respondent-husband is not required to be interfered with on account of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEHA TYAGI — Appellant Vs. LIEUTENANT COLONEL DEEPAK TYAGI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 25 – Matrimonial Case – Transfer of – Family Court at Gurugram (Haryana) to any other court of competent jurisdiction at Gwalior(M.P.) – Both the parties will cooperate with the competent court of jurisdiction at Gwalior for expeditious disposal of the petition – Petition allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH BABITA SRIVASTAVA — Appellant Vs. VINOD SRIVASTAVA — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna, J. ) Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No. 1867 of 2019 Decided on…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.