Mere Filing of Criminal Case by Wife, Demand for Separate House Not ‘Cruelty’: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree

Case: S. Shyamala @ Kathyayani V. B. N. Mallikarjunaiah

Coram: Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty

Case No.: Miscellaneous First Appeal No.3352/2016

Court Observation: “A decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable failure of the marriage can be granted only by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and not by any other courts.”

“The jurisdictional Magistrate had acquitted the accused persons in the said case (lodged by the wife against the husband) on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, they were entitled for the benefit of doubt. Therefore, it cannot be said that the wife had lodged a false complaint against the husband and his family members.”

“Mere filing of a criminal case itself cannot be termed as “cruelty”. For the purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, “cruelty” could be wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger.”

“In the present case, the litigating parties have a daughter, who is aged about 19 years and admittedly she is in the custody of the appellant-wife. The outcome of this litigation will definitely have a bearing on her future life and the same may also have an effect on her marriage prospects.”

Without animus deserendi there can be no desertion within the meaning of Section 10(1)(a) of the Act. In the present case, the husband has failed to prove that the wife had intention to put an end to the marital relation and cohabitation and on the other hand, the material on record would go to show that she and her family members had made all efforts to join the husband, but they were all in vain.”

Previous Posts

Perceived Unfairness Of Hire & Fire Policy Substantially Diluted If Sufficient Notice Is Given To Employee To Respond To Charges: Calcutta HC

Sexual Harassment at Workplaces Kerala HC Calls for Prompt Re-Constitution of Local Complaints Committee under POSH Act upon Expiry of Its Term

NEET-UG: Meghalaya HC Conditionally Affirms Single Judge Order Granting Relief to Candidate Who Missed Counselling Due To Spam Email

Grave Misconduct: Rajasthan HC Imposes 1 Lac Cost On Advocate Who Filed Original Application Without Authorization, Superimposed Sign By Xerox Machine Etc.

Gratuity Can Be Forfeited If Employee Terminated For Causing Damage to Employer Property, Forfeiture Not To Exceed Extent of Loss: Delhi HC

Persons Who Purchased a Portion of Paddy Land after Commencement of Act Cant Reclaim It For Residential Use: Kerala High Court Overrules Earlier Precedent

Right of Accused to Cross-Examine Prosecutrix Can’t Always Be Denied Only Because Of Section 33(5), POCSO Act: Uttarakhand High Court

Assessee Recourse to Constitutional Provisions Not a Proceeding under Income Tax Act: Kerala High Court

Balance Sheets Entries Can Amount To Acknowledgement Of Debt U/s 18 Limitation Act: Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLAT Full Bench Ruling Download Judgement