SK. MANIRUDDIN V. SOMA BANERJEE MANU/TN/7669/2018

MATERIAL FACTS

The parties, verified under the Marriage Registrar, Chinsurah, Hooghly, tied the knot on 05.01.1998 under the Special Marriage Act. On the basis of cruelty and desertion, the wife (respondent) pleaded for divorce. The respondent’s case was that, by practice, she was a Hindu, whereas the husband (appellant) was a Muslim and both became associated with each other through their mutual friend and eventually grew intimate towards one another.
It was also the scenario that the respondent had been dwelling at her father’s place after 1998, whereas the appellant was residing in his house, and had seldom expressed any interest in moving her to his family home. It was also argued that while Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) was received by the appellant as salary per month, he hardly provided any amount for her maintenance.
Furthermore, by hiding material evidence, the appellant married her and he also harassed her directly as well as via his men and that both parties had been residing independently for more than fourteen (14) years and that the matrimonial bond had irrevocably dissolved and a divorce order could consequently be issued in her support.

ISSUE

Whether the decree of divorce can be granted?

RULE OF LAW

Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954

ANALYSIS

Apart from the plea on the basis of cruelty for an order for divorce under Section 27 of the Act, the facts of the wife (respondent) as P.W. 1 and her cross-examination explain that the appellant threatened and abused her on several occasions. For such claims, nevertheless, there was also no substantial proof on paper. P.W. 2 is the respondent’s father and throughout his questioning, he did not testify regarding anything about some occurrence of physical abuse or suffering.
Conversely, the claim made by the respondent, whatever it is, does not seem to be persuasive at all. Thus, on account of the proof of P.W. 1 and from P.W. 2 it can be inferred that there was no mental or physical cruelty in the actions of the appellant or the husband. As a consequence, the facts of the present case do not pose any question of cruelty, whether physical or mental.
With respect to desertion, the proof of P.W. 1 during her cross-examination shows that the respondent submitted multiple complaints to get away from the marital tie and that she married the appellant (husband) out of the former love relationship between them, but she sought to get out of the matrimonial bond by bringing various cases on numerous charges because her family members did not support such relationship. Therefore, based on the above facts, one can conclude that the respondent has faltered to show that the appellant deserted her for no reason whatsoever.

CONCLUSION

In order to allow the parties to establish a common arrangement with trust and dignity and to practice their independent choice and conscience in the case, the court proposed going for an alternative relief such as an order for legal separation. Therefore, a divorce order for the dissolution of the marriage was not a legal option available to the respondent/wife, and at present, there was no legitimate basis for the same.

The post Are the grounds of cruelty and desertion sufficient to get a decree for divorce? appeared first on LexForti .

Asha Qureshi Vs Afaq Qureshi

Facts:

The appellant and the respondent were husband and wife. They lived as husband and wife for one year. Only after the marriage, the respondent came to know that the appellant was already married to Motilal Vishwakarma. But he died before the marriage of the parties. While marrying the respondent, the appellant stated that she was a virgin. The fact of the first marriage of the respondent with the appellant was suppressed by her. The respondent filed a case against the appellant under sec 24 of the special marriage act to state that the marriage is null and void. 

Issue:

• Whether not disclosing the first marriage amounts to fraud?

Legal provision:

1. Sec 24 of the Special Marriage Act
2. Sec 17 of the Indian Contracts Act

Appellant’s contention:

The appellant contended that the appellant and the respondent had known each other for a long time. Thus, the respondent was aware of the appellant’s marriage. Thus there is no fraud in the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. 

Respondent’s contention:

The respondent contended that the appellant failed to disclose about her first marriage to the respondent and also she lied that she was a virgin. Thus, according to sec 17 of the Indian Contracts Act, the appellant conducted a fraudulent act.

Observation:

It was observed that according to sec 17(1) of the Indian Contracts Act, suggesting a fact which is not true is a fraud. Thus, the appellant conducted a fraudulent act. The fraudulent marriage was held to be null and void under sec 24 of the Specific Marriage Act.

Judgment:                   

The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that not disclosing their first marriage to their spouse amounts to fraudulent act. Under sec 17(1) of the Indian Contracts Act, suggesting a fact which is not true is a fraud. According to sec 24 of the Specific Marriage Act, this case became null and void. Thus, the appeal was dismissed and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court confirmed the order of the trial court and granted divorce to them.   

The post Suggesting a false statement is a ground for divorce appeared first on LexForti .

Suman Kapur Vs Sudhir Kapur

Facts:

The appellant Suman Kapur is the wife of the respondent, Sudhir Kapur. The appellant and the respondent were childhood friends and they studied together in the same school. Afterwards, they decided to marry and the marriage was inter-caste marriage. The appellant was a scientist; she was working in the Department of Bio-Chemistry in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. After their marriage, she became pregnant within one month in 1984. But due to harmful radiation in the lab, she aborts the womb without the consent of her husband. She became pregnant again in 1985; due to an acute kidney infection, she aborted that womb also without the consent of her husband.

Again in 1989, she became pregnant and this time also she terminated the womb without the consent of her husband. The respondent filed a case in the Additional District Court, Delhi under sec 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for getting a divorce from the appellant. The Additional District Court granted divorce to the respondent. The appellant approached the High Court to quash the order of the Additional District Court but the High Court dismissed her appeal. The present had been filled by the appellant for challenging the order of the Additional District Court and the High Court.

Issues:

• Whether aborting the womb without the consent of the other spouse amounts to mental cruelty? 

Legal Provision:

Sec 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act

Appellant’s contention:

The appellant contended that, while the appellant became pregnant for the first time she aborted the womb due to the affection of the harmful radiation and she aborted the womb for the second time due to an acute kidney infection and while she became pregnant for the third time the womb was naturally miscarriage. Thus, there are valid reasons for the abortion and so this case couldn’t come under the mental cruelty.

Respondent’s contention:

The respondent contended that the appellant aborted the wombs without the consent of the respondent. While she became pregnant for the third time she aborted the womb without any valid reason and lied that the womb as aborted due to natural miscarriage. These incidents lead the respondent to be depressed and thus this case comes under mental cruelty.

Observation:

It was observed that aborting the womb without the consent of the other spouse will lead the spouse to be depressed. Even though there is a valid reason for the abortion the consent of the other spouse is necessary.

Judgment:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even though there is a valid reason for the abortion, the consent of the other spouse is necessary. Aborting the womb without consent of the other spouse will come under the mental cruelty and according to sec 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, mental cruelty is the ground for the divorce. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree granted by the High Court and the Additional District Court.     

The post Aborting the womb without the consent of the spouse amounts to mental cruelty appeared first on LexForti .