{"id":556,"date":"2020-04-23T10:30:00","date_gmt":"2020-04-23T10:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?p=556"},"modified":"2021-01-17T04:34:47","modified_gmt":"2021-01-17T04:34:47","slug":"ten-important-cases-on-divorce","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/","title":{"rendered":"Ten important cases on Divorce"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_47_1 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"ez-toc-toggle-icon-1\"><label for=\"item-6a3b3bd35956a\" aria-label=\"Table of Content\"><span style=\"display: flex;align-items: center;width: 35px;height: 30px;justify-content: center;direction:ltr;\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/label><input  type=\"checkbox\" id=\"item-6a3b3bd35956a\"><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4'><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/#Lahari_Gurrala_Aditi_Reddy_M_Symbiosis_Law_School_Hyderabad_3rd_February_2020\" title=\" Lahari Gurrala &#038; Aditi Reddy M | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 3rd February 2020\"> Lahari Gurrala &#038; Aditi Reddy M | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 3rd February 2020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/#Divorce_can_be_granted_by_the_Supreme_court_under_article_142_even_if_the_facts_of_the_case_do_not_provide_a_ground_in_law\" title=\"Divorce\ncan be granted by the Supreme court under article 142 even if the facts of the\ncase do not provide a ground in law.\">Divorce\ncan be granted by the Supreme court under article 142 even if the facts of the\ncase do not provide a ground in law.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/#SECOND_MARRIAGE_IS_VOID_UNLESS_AND_UNTIL_THE_FIRST_MARRIAGE_IS_DISSOLVED\" title=\"SECOND MARRIAGE IS VOID\nUNLESS AND UNTIL THE FIRST MARRIAGE IS DISSOLVED.\">SECOND MARRIAGE IS VOID\nUNLESS AND UNTIL THE FIRST MARRIAGE IS DISSOLVED.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/#Divorce_cannot_be_granted_on_the_ground_of_Adultery_if_the_petitioner_fails_to_implead_the_alleged_adulator_as_co-respondent\" title=\"Divorce cannot be granted on\nthe \u00a0ground of Adultery if the petitioner\nfails to implead the alleged adulator as co-respondent.\">Divorce cannot be granted on\nthe \u00a0ground of Adultery if the petitioner\nfails to implead the alleged adulator as co-respondent.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/#The_ground_of_Mental_Cruelty_for_Divorce_will_not_depend_on_upon_the_numerical_count_of_such_incidents_but_on_the_intensity_gravity_and_stigmatic_impact_of_it\" title=\"The\nground of Mental Cruelty for Divorce will not depend on upon the numerical\ncount of such incidents but on the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of\nit.\">The\nground of Mental Cruelty for Divorce will not depend on upon the numerical\ncount of such incidents but on the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of\nit.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/#No_Court_has_competence_to_issue_a_direction_contrary_to_law_nor_the_Court_can_direct_an_authority_to_act_in_contravention_of_the_statutory_provisions\" title=\"No Court has competence\nto issue a direction contrary to law nor the Court can direct an authority to\nact in contravention of the statutory provisions\">No Court has competence\nto issue a direction contrary to law nor the Court can direct an authority to\nact in contravention of the statutory provisions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/#THE_MARRIAGE_BETWEEN_THE_PARTIES_CANNOT_BE_DEAD_FOR_INVOKING_THE_JURISDICTION_OF_THE_SUPREME_COURT_UNDER_ARTICLE_142_OF_THE_CONSTITUTION_FOR_DISSOLVING_THE_MARRIAGE\" title=\"THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE PARTIES CANNOT BE DEAD\nFOR INVOKING THE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 142 OF THE\nCONSTITUTION FOR DISSOLVING THE MARRIAGE.\">THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE PARTIES CANNOT BE DEAD\nFOR INVOKING THE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 142 OF THE\nCONSTITUTION FOR DISSOLVING THE MARRIAGE.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/#THE_A_DECREE_OF_DIVORCE_UNDER_MUTUAL_CONSENT_IF_ONE_OF_THE_PARTIES_DOES_NOT_GIVE_CONSENT\" title=\"THE A\nDECREE OF DIVORCE UNDER MUTUAL CONSENT IF ONE OF THE PARTIES DOES NOT GIVE\nCONSENT\">THE A\nDECREE OF DIVORCE UNDER MUTUAL CONSENT IF ONE OF THE PARTIES DOES NOT GIVE\nCONSENT<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/#ASKING_OUT_THE_WIFE_FOR_MONEY_MAY_AMOUNT_TO_CRUELTY\" title=\"ASKING OUT THE WIFE FOR\nMONEY MAY AMOUNT TO CRUELTY\">ASKING OUT THE WIFE FOR\nMONEY MAY AMOUNT TO CRUELTY<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/#A_DECREE_OF_DIVORCE_CAN_BE_GRANTED_WHEN_THE_HUSBAND_IS_ASKED_TO_GET_SEPARATED_FROM_HIS_PARENTS\" title=\"A DECREE OF DIVORCE CAN BE GRANTED WHEN THE\nHUSBAND IS ASKED TO GET SEPARATED FROM HIS PARENTS \">A DECREE OF DIVORCE CAN BE GRANTED WHEN THE\nHUSBAND IS ASKED TO GET SEPARATED FROM HIS PARENTS <\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/#THE_SUPREME_COURT_HAD_LAID_DOWN_FIVE_TESTS_IN_ORDER_TO_PROVE_CRUELTY\" title=\"THE SUPREME COURT HAD LAID DOWN FIVE TESTS IN ORDER TO PROVE CRUELTY\">THE SUPREME COURT HAD LAID DOWN FIVE TESTS IN ORDER TO PROVE CRUELTY<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Lahari_Gurrala_Aditi_Reddy_M_Symbiosis_Law_School_Hyderabad_3rd_February_2020\"><\/span><em><strong> Lahari Gurrala &#038; Aditi Reddy M <\/strong><\/em><strong><em>|<\/em> <em>Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad |<\/em><\/strong> <em><strong>3rd February 2020<\/strong><\/em><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Divorce_can_be_granted_by_the_Supreme_court_under_article_142_even_if_the_facts_of_the_case_do_not_provide_a_ground_in_law\"><\/span><strong>Divorce\ncan be granted by the Supreme court under article 142 even if the facts of the\ncase do not provide a ground in law.<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Sukhendu Das.\u00a0 <\/strong> <strong>&#8230;&#8230;..Petitioner.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Vs <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Rita Mukherjee. \u2026\u2026.Respondent., 2017 (8) Supreme 33<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Facts of the Case:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The\nAppellant and the Respondent were married on 19<sup>th<\/sup> June,1992 as per\nthe Special Marriage Act, 1954. A girl child was born out of the wedlock on 14<sup>th<\/sup>\nApril,1993. There was matrimonial discord between the Appellant and the\nRespondent and they were living separately since the year 2000.\u00a0The\nAppellant filed an application under\u00a0Section\n27 of the Act seeking a divorce.<\/li><li>The\nAppellant alleged that the differences arose because of the improper behaviour\nof the Respondent in not showing due respect to his ailing father. It was\nfurther alleged that the\u00a0Respondent deserted him and refused to give the\ncustody of the child to him. The Respondent is accused of using intemperate\nlanguage and threatening the Appellant with filing of criminal cases if he\nperused the petition for divorce which he proposed in the year 2005.<\/li><li>The Respondent filed a written\nstatement denying the allegations made in the application filed by the\napplicant for divorce. She refuted all the averments in the application and\nsought for dismissal of the application for divorce. The Respondent did not\nparticipate in the proceedings before the trial court after filing the written\nstatement.<\/li><li>The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta by\nthe judgment dated 6 th August, 2009 dismissed the application for divorce. The\nAppeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed by the High Court of\nCalcutta on 4th April, 2012. The Respondent did not seek to appear before the\nHigh Court also. The correctness of the judgment of the High Court is assailed\nin the above Appeal.<\/li><li>After referring to the pleadings in the case, the\ntrial court found that the Appellant failed to prove cruelty on the\u00a0part of the Respondent. The evidence adduced by\nthe Appellant was scrutinized by the trial court to come to a conclusion that\nthe Appellant did not make out a case for divorce.\u00a0<\/li><li>Later, the \u00a0High Court, made an attempt for conciliation between\nthe parties. However, in spite of the effort of the High Court, both the\nAppellant and the Respondent did not appear personally before the High Court. The\nHigh Court dismissed the Appeal by holding that irretrievable breakdown of\nmarriage cannot be a ground for divorce. The High Court held that the Appellant\nfailed to prove mental cruelty on the part of the Respondent.<\/li><li>Notice\nwas issued to the Respondent on 8 th October, 2012 to explore the possibility\nof an amicable resolution to the matrimonial dispute. The parties were directed\nto appear before the Mediation Centre of the Supreme Court on 21 st November,\n2012. The Respondent did not appear before the Mediation Centre in spite of\nservice of the Notice. Fresh notice was given but the Respondent did not appear\nin spite of receipt of the Notice again.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Issue:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Whether divorce can be granted even\nif the facts of the case do not provide a ground in law on which divorced could\nbe granted?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Held:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The High Court of Calcutta observed\nthat no attempt was made by either of the parties to be posted at the same\nplace. It was also stated that without entering into the disputed facts of the\ncase there is no likelihood of the Appellant and the Respondent living together\nand for all practical purposes there\nis an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.<\/li><li>The Supreme Court in order to complete\njustice between the parties has exercised\nits inherent powers under Article 142\u00a0of the Constitution for dissolution\nof a marriage where the Court finds that the marriage is totally unworkable,\nemotionally dead, beyond salvage and has broken down irretrievably, even if the\nfacts of the case do not provide a ground in law on which the divorce could be\ngranted.<\/li><li>For the\naforementioned reasons, the Appeal is allowed and the application for divorce\nfiled by the Appellant under Section 27 of the Act is allowed.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"SECOND_MARRIAGE_IS_VOID_UNLESS_AND_UNTIL_THE_FIRST_MARRIAGE_IS_DISSOLVED\"><\/span><strong>SECOND MARRIAGE IS VOID\nUNLESS AND UNTIL THE FIRST MARRIAGE IS DISSOLVED.<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>SMT.\nSARLA MUDGAL, PRESIDENT, KALYANI &#038; ORS\u2026.. Petitioner<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Vs.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>UNION\nOF INDIA &#038; ORS.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>1995 AIR 1531,\u00a0\n1995 SCC (3) 635<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>IN\nTHE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Facts of the Case:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>There\nare four petitions under Article 32\u00a0of the Constitution of India. There\nare two petitioner in a Writ Petition i.e.\u00a0\nPetitioner 1 is the President of \u201cKALYANI\u201d- a registered society \u2013 which\nis an organisation working for the welfare of needy families and women in\ndistress. Petitioner 2, Meena Mathur was married to Jitender Mathur on February\n27, 1978. In early 1988, the\npetitioner was shocked to learn that her husband had solemnised second marriage\nwith one Sunita Narula @ Fathima. The marriage was solemnised after they\nconverted themselves to Islam and adopted Muslim religion. According to the\npetitioner, conversion of her husband to Islam was only for the purpose of\nmarrying Sunita and circumventing the provisions of\u00a0Section 494,\u00a0IPC.\nJitender Mathur asserts that having embraced Islam, he can have four wives\nirrespective of the fact that his first wife continues to be Hindu.<\/li><li>Sunita\nalias Fathima is the petitioner in a Writ Petition where she contended that\nalong with Jitender Mathur who was earlier married to Meena Mathur embraced\nIslam and thereafter got married. A son was born to her. She further states\nthat after marrying her, Jitender Prasad, under the influence of her first\nHindu-wife, gave an undertaking on April 28, 1988, that he had reverted back to\nHinduism and had agreed to maintain his first wife and children. Her grievance\nis that she continues to be Muslim, not being maintained by her husband and has\nno protection under either of the personal laws.<\/li><li>Geeta\nRani, petitioner in another\u00a0 Writ\nPetition contended that she was \u00a0married to Pradeep Kumar according to\nHindu rites on November 13, 1988. It is alleged in the petition that her\nhusband used to maltreat her and on one occasion gave her so much beating that\nher jaw bone was broken. In December 1991, the petitioner learnt that Pradeep\nKumar ran away with one Deepa and after conversion to Islam married her. It is\nstated that the conversion to Islam was only for the purpose of facilitating\nthe second marriage.<\/li><li>Sushmita\nGhosh is another unfortunate lady who is petitioner in Civil Writ Petition\ncontended that she was married to G.C. Ghosh according to Hindu rites on May\n10, 1984. On April 20, 1992, the husband told her that he no longer wanted to\nlive with her and as such, she should agree to divorce by mutual consent. The\npetitioner was shocked and prayed that she was her legally wedded wife and\nwanted to live with him and as such the question of divorce did not arise. The\nhusband finally told the petitioner that he had embraced Islam and would soon\nmarry one Vinita Gupta. He had obtained a certificate dated June 17, 1992, from\nthe Qazi indicating that he had embraced Islam. In the writ petition, the\npetitioner has further prayed that her husband is restrained from entering into\nsecond marriage with Vinita Gupta.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Issues:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Whether\na Hindu husband after married under Hindu law, by converting into Islam, can\nsolemnise second marriage?<\/li><li>Whether\nsuch marriage without having the first marriage dissolved under the law, would\nbe valid upon the fist wife who continues to be a Hindu?<\/li><li>Whether\nthe apostate husband would be guilty of the offence under Section 494 of the\nIndian Penal Code?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Held:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Until Uniform Civil Code\nis enacted for all the citizens of the country, there is an open inducement to\na Hindu husband, who wants to enter into a second marriage while the first\nmarriage is subsisting, to become a Muslim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Since monogamy is the law\nfor Hindus and the Muslim law permits as many as four wives in India, errand\nHindu husband embraces Islam to circumvent the provisions of the Hindu law and\nto escape from penal consequences. The doctrine of the indissolubility of\nmarriage, under the traditional Hindu law, did not recognise that conversion\nwould have the effect of dissolving a Hindu marriage. Conversion to another\nreligion by one or both the Hindu spouses did not dissolve the marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nCourt, therefore, hold that under the Hindu Personal Law as it existed prior to\nits codification in 1955, a Hindu marriage continued to subsist even after one\nof the spouses converted to Islam. There was no automatic dissolution of the\nmarriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A\nmarriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, can\nonly be dissolved by a decree of divorce on any of the grounds enumerated in\nSection 13 of the Act. One of the grounds under Section 13 (i) (ii) is that\n\u201cthe other party has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion\u201d. It\nis obvious from the various provisions of the Act that the modern Hindu Law\nstrictly enforces monogamy. A marriage performed under the Act cannot be\ndissolved except on the grounds available under section 13 of the Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A Hindu marriage\nsolemnised under the Act can only be dissolved on any of the grounds specified\nunder the Act. Till the time a Hindu marriage is dissolved under the Act, none\nof the spouses can contract a second marriage. Conversion to Islam and marrying\nagain would not, by itself, dissolve the Hindu marriage under the Act. The\nsecond marriage by a convert would, therefore, be in violation of the Act and\nas such void in terms of Section 494, IPC. Any act which is in violation of\nmandatory provisions of law is per-se void<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>All the four ingredients\nof Section 494 IPC are satisfied in the case of a Hindu husband who marries for\nthe second time after conversion to Islam. He has a wife living, he marries\nagain. The said marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life\nof the first wife. The Court, therefore, hold that the second marriage of a\nHindu husband after his conversion to Islam is a void marriage in terms of\nSection 494 IPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Divorce_cannot_be_granted_on_the_ground_of_Adultery_if_the_petitioner_fails_to_implead_the_alleged_adulator_as_co-respondent\"><\/span><strong>Divorce cannot be granted on\nthe \u00a0ground of Adultery if the petitioner\nfails to implead the alleged adulator as co-respondent.<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Ram\nKumar @ Ramender Kumar\u2026\u2026 Appellant <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>vs<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Smt.\nRaksha @ Galabo\u2026\u2026. Respondent <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PANJAB-HARYANA <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>AIR 2003 P H 334, I (2004) DMC 347, (2003) 133 PLR\n707<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Facts\nof the Case:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The marriage between Ram\nKumar and Raksha was solemnized according to\nHindu rites and ceremonies on 09.05.1983. Both the parties resided together as\nhusband and wife and cohabited with each other. From this wed-lock, a female\nchild was born, who is at present 11 years old. <\/li><li>After\n13 years of the marriage, the husband filed the divorce petition in the year\n1996 alleging therein that the respondent-wife is a quarrel some lady and she\nquarrels with the appellant and his family members over trivial. She used to\nwear dirty clothes and whenever she was asked to do the needful, she used to\ncall bad names to the appellant and his family members.<\/li><li>It was\nfurther alleged that the respondent has left the matrimonial home of the\nappellant without any reasonable excuse and she deliberately deserted the\nappellant. It was also alleged that the respondent is mentally retarded and is\nof unsound mind lady. It has also been pleaded that the elder brother of the\nrespondent is also mentally retarded and is of unsound mind. <\/li><li>Similarly,\nthe female child, who was born to this wedlock, is mentally retailed. It was\nalso pleaded that the respondent has illicit relations with some other person,\nwhose name has not been disclosed in the petition nor he was impleaded as a\nparty.<\/li><li>The\nrespondent contested the aforesaid divorce petition by denying all the\nallegations levelled in the petition. It was pleaded by her that she is a simpleton\nrustic lady and the appellant is bent upon to get rid of her by hook or crook.\nIt was further pleaded by her that the appellant gave her such medicines which\naffected her mind and she was taken by her father-in-law to Delhi, where he\ncommitted rape on her in a hotel. It was also pleaded that father of the\nappellant is having an evil eye on the respondent and in these circumstances;\nit is not possible for her to remain in the house of the appellant, who always\ntreated her with cruelty.<\/li><li>The\nlearned Additional District Judge, after taking into consideration the evidence\nled by both the parties, dismissed the divorce petition filed by the appellant,\nwhile holding that the allegations levelled by the appellant against the\nrespondent have not been proved.<\/li><li>Aggrieved\nby the judgement passed by the Additional District Judge, the appellant has\nfiled an instant appeal against the judgment and decree.<\/li><li>It was\ncontended by the appellants that \u00a0when the wife levels false allegations\nagainst the character of her husband and his family members, it amounts to\ncruelty on the part of the wife. He submitted that in the present case, the\nallegations of the respondent that the appellant was having illicit relations\nwith widow of cousin of the appellant, and her father-in-law has raped her have\nnot been established by her, therefore, the same amounts to false allegations.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Issue:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Whether the allegations made by the parties\nagainst each other are true or not?<\/li><li>Whether the petition for divorce filed by the\nappellant can be allowed?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Held:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>As held by the trail court that the respondent\nand one of the respondents has stated that the appellant was having illicit relations\nwith the wife of his cousin and at this juncture, it may be mentioned that the appellant cannot be permitted to take\nadvantage of his own wrong.\u00a0Then it has also transpired that father of the\npetitioner has committed rape with the respondent. Thus, these allegations made\nby the respondent cannot be said to be scandalous, rather the same are\nsubstantiated by cogent evidence, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take\nbenefits of his own wrong.<\/li><li>It was held that the prayer of the appellant for divorce on the ground of\nadultery cannot be allowed as he has not disclosed the name of the person with\nwhom the respondent is having illicit relations nor such person has been made\nparty in the petition filed by him.<\/li><li>Rule 10\nof the Hindu Marriage (Punjab) Rules, 1956 provides that if a petition is\npresented by husband for divorce on the ground of adultery, then he is required\nto implead the alleged adulator, a co-respondent.<\/li><li>The court has held that if a petition for\ndivorce is filed by the husband on the ground of adultery, it is\nnecessary for the petitioner to implead the alleged adulator as co-respondent.\nHowever, in the said case the husband has not impleaded the alleged adulator,\nthe petition filed by him is not maintainable being non-joining of the necessary\nparty. Thus, in view of the aforesaid fact also, the learned trial court has\nrightly dismissed the petition for divorce filed by the appellant as the\nalleged adulator was neither named nor impleaded as a respondent in the\npetition.<\/li><li>In the view of the aforesaid\ndiscussion, the court has found no merit in the instant appeal filed by the\nappellant. The same is , accordingly, dismissed with costs, which are assessed\nat Rs. 2000\/-.\u00a0 <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_ground_of_Mental_Cruelty_for_Divorce_will_not_depend_on_upon_the_numerical_count_of_such_incidents_but_on_the_intensity_gravity_and_stigmatic_impact_of_it\"><\/span><strong>The\nground of Mental Cruelty for Divorce will not depend on upon the numerical\ncount of such incidents but on the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of\nit.<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Vinita\nSaxena \u00a0\u00a0\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026Petitioner<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>vs<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Pankaj\nPandit\u00a0\u00a0 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In\nthe Supreme Court of India <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(2006)\n3 SCC 778<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Facts of the Case:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The marriage between the\nappellant-Vinita Saxena and the respondent-Pankaj Pandit was solemnized on\n7.2.1993 as per Hindu rites and customs. No child was born out of wedlock. The\nmarriage, according to the appellant, lasted for five months and was never\nconsummated on account of the fact that the respondent was incapable of\nperforming his matrimonial obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to the appellant,\nfrom the first day of the marriage, the respondent&#8217;s mother treated the appellant\nwith utmost cruelty both mental and physical and that the reason for cruelty\nwas the respondent&#8217;s mental disorder.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The respondent&#8217;s case is a\ncase of Paranoid Schizophrenia and the appellant discovered only after the\nmarriage that the respondent was under constant treatment and observations of\ndifferent doctors even prior to the marriage for the said ailment.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Though the appellant knew the\nrespondent prior to her marriage, in fact, it is only after the marriage, the\nappellant realised and discovered the mental disorder of the respondent. The\nappellant was never told by the respondent nor his parents that he was\nsuffering from such serious mental disorder and that he was under the treatment\nand used to take strong medicines before the marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to Dr. C.R. Samanta,\nwho was a consultant psychiatrist at Aashlok Hospital, the respondent was a\ncase of Schizophrenia and depression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>At mother-in-law instance, the\nappellant was beaten mercilessly by the respondent, which made him nervous to\nthe extent that he consumed &#8220;Baygon Spray&#8221; to commit suicide.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The situation further became worse on 8.7.1993 and 9.7.1993. Again on the\ninstigation of the respondent&#8217;s mother, the respondent slapped and abused the\nappellant mercilessly and she was not even allowed to have food that day and\nthe next day morning i.e. on 9.7.1993. On 9.7.1993, the appellant was pushed\nand kicked out of the matrimonial home by her mother-in-law and the respondent\nand thereafter, the appellant was not permitted to return again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The appellant filed H.M.A petition on 30.6.1994 against the respondent\nfor dissolution of marriage under\nSection 13(1)(1-a) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 on the grounds of\nmental and physical cruelty and insanity before the Court of District Judge at\nDelhi.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The trial Court vide its order\ndated 15.5.1993, relying on the facts and averments made by the parties as well\nas taking the medical documents placed on record observed that a letter of\nrequest should be written to the Medical Superintendent, L.N.J.P. Hospital to\nconstitute a panel of doctors to examine the respondent and to report about his\nmental state. However, this order was subsequently set aside by the High Court\nin a Revision Petition filed by the respondent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The trial Court, vide order\ndated 19.3.2001, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under\u00a0Section\n13(1)(1-a) and (iii) of the Act for\nthe grant of decree of divorce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Being aggrieved by the said\norder, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court vide\norder dated 10.9.2004 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant holding that\nthe respondent is not suffering from Schizophrenia and that there is insufficient\nmaterial on record to establish the cause of cruelty and further held that the\nincidents of cruelty is not so grave which come within the scope of concept of\ncruelty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal by\nway of special leave petition before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The respondent filed a counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter\naffidavit that the special leave petition is devoid of any merit inasmuch as\nthe Courts below have given findings of fact in favour of the respondent and\nthe Courts below have rejected the pleas of the appellant on the ground that\nshe has not made out any case for grant of divorce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In support of the appellant case, she was produced all the witnesses and\nthe medical reports in order to prove the appellant is unable to live with the\nother spouse because of mental and physical cruelty by the respondent and his\nmother. It was also observed that there was no evidence whatsoever adduced by\nthe respondent or on his behalf. The respondent, however, got only his\nstatement recorded and before his cross-examination could be concluded,\ndeliberately did not appear in the witness box to complete his deposition.<strong><br>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Issue:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Whether\nis the appellant can be granted divorce on the plea of mental and physical\ncruelty and insanity?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Held:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It was held that the trial\nCourt failed to appreciate the uncontroverted evidence of the appellant who had\nproved the case on every count. It has been established beyond doubt by the\nMedical doctors who had deposed as witnesses and brought the original medical\nrecord of the respondent that the respondent is suffering from mental disorder.\nFurther ground for grant of divorce on the plea of mental insanity\/mental\ndisorder is different than cruelty. The appellant, in our view, had proved\nbeyond doubt that the respondent suffered from mental disorder and that the\nappellant suffered cruelty by and at the behest of the respondent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Learned single Judge of the High Court failed to appreciate that in the\nabsence of any evidence led by the respondent, the appellant&#8217;s evidence had to\nbe relied upon and on the basis of the evidence, the decree for divorce was\nbound to be granted in favour of the appellant. The appellant had also given\nspecific instances of cruelty which clearly establish that she had a reasonable\napprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for her to live with the\nrespondent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The facts and circumstances of the case as well as all aspects pertain to\nhumanity and life would give sufficient cogent reasons for us to allow the\nappeal and relieve the appellant from shackles and chain of the respondent and\nlet her live her own life, if nothing less but like a human being.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Supreme Court held that,\nthe orders of the Courts below have resulted in grave miscarriage of justice to\nthe appellant who has been constrained into living with a dead relationship for\nover 13 years. The resultant agony and injustice that has been caused to the\nappellant, it is a fit case for interference under\u00a0Article 136\u00a0of the Constitution of India and reversal\nof findings of the Courts below which have resulted in grave miscarriage of\njustice. In the result, the civil appeal stands allowed. There will be a decree\nfor divorce in favour of the appellant-wife and against the respondent-husband.\nThe order of the trial Court as affirmed by the High Court, stands set aside.\nThere will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cThe Supreme Court held that what constitutes mental cruelty will not\ndepend upon the numerical count of such incidents or only on the continuous\ncourse of such conduct, but really go by the intensity, gravity and stigmatic\nimpact of it when meted out even once and deleterious effect of it in the\nmental attitude, necessary for maintaining a conducive matrimonial home\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"No_Court_has_competence_to_issue_a_direction_contrary_to_law_nor_the_Court_can_direct_an_authority_to_act_in_contravention_of_the_statutory_provisions\"><\/span><strong>No Court has competence\nto issue a direction contrary to law nor the Court can direct an authority to\nact in contravention of the statutory provisions<\/strong><strong><\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Manish Goel<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>vs<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Rohini Goel<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the\nSupreme Court of India<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>2010 (2)\nSCR 414<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Facts of the Case:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The husband, the petitioner, possessed the\nqualifications of CA, CS and ICWA, while the respondent-wife was a Doctor by\nprofession. The parties got married on 23rd July, 2008 in Delhi. Their\nrelations became strained immediately after the marriage and they were living\nseparately since 24.10.2008. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The husband filed a case under Section 12 of the Hindu\nMarriage Act, 1955 for annulment of marriage. The wife, Smt. Rohini Goel filed\na petition under Section 12 r\/w Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Also,\nan FIR was also lodged by her against husband and his family members under\nSections 498-A, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>By persuasion of the family members and friends, the\nparties entered into a compromise before the Mediation Centre, Delhi by which\nthey agreed to settle all their disputes \u00a0and also for dissolution of their marriage.\nThe parties filed an application under Section 13-B(1) of the Act before the\nFamily Court seeking divorce by mutual consent. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The parties then filed another application to waive the\nstatutory period of six months in filing the second petition. However, the\nCourt rejected the said application. Hence, they filed a petition before the\nHon\u2019ble Supreme Court of India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Issue :<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Whether\nthe latter application filed by the parties to waive\nthe statutory period of six months can be allowed ?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Held:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It was held that Article 136 of the Constitution gives discretionary\npower to the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment,\ndecree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made\nby any court or tribunal in the territory of India. However, it is an\nextra-ordinary jurisdiction vested by the Constitution in the Court and extra\nordinary care and caution has to be observed while exercising this\njurisdiction. There is no vested right of a party to approach this Court and a\ncourse can be taken when this court feels that it is so warranted to eradicate\ninjustice. Such a jurisdiction is to be exercised by the consideration of\njustice and call of duty. The Court has to see that injustice is not\nperpetuated or perpetrated by decisions of courts below. Also, there should be\na question of law of general public importance or a decision which shocks the\nconscience of the court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It was observed that even otherwise, the statutory period of six months for\nfiling the second petition under\u00a0Section\n13-B(2)\u00a0of the Act has been\nprescribed for providing an opportunity to parties to reconcile and withdraw\npetition for dissolution of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not\nable to advance arguments on the issue as to whether, statutory period\nprescribed under\u00a0Section 12-B(1)\u00a0of the Act is mandatory or directory\nand if directory, whether could be dispensed with even by the High Court in\nexercise of its writ\/appellate jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus, this is not a case where there has\nbeen any obstruction to the stream of justice or there has been injustice to\nthe parties, which is required to be eradicated, and this Court may grant\nequitable relief. Petition does not raise any question of general public\nimportance. None of contingencies, which may require this Court to exercise its\nextraordinary jurisdiction under\u00a0Article\n142\u00a0of the Constitution, has been brought to notice\nin the case at hand. Thus, in view of the above, the court did\u00a0 not find any justification to entertain this\npetition. It is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"THE_MARRIAGE_BETWEEN_THE_PARTIES_CANNOT_BE_DEAD_FOR_INVOKING_THE_JURISDICTION_OF_THE_SUPREME_COURT_UNDER_ARTICLE_142_OF_THE_CONSTITUTION_FOR_DISSOLVING_THE_MARRIAGE\"><\/span><strong>THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE PARTIES CANNOT BE DEAD\nFOR INVOKING THE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 142 OF THE\nCONSTITUTION FOR DISSOLVING THE MARRIAGE.<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Savitri Pandey <\/strong><strong>\u2026\u2026Appellant<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>vs<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Prem\nChandra Pandey<\/strong><strong> \u2026\u2026.Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>(2002)\n2 SCC 73<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Facts of the case:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The appellant and the\nrespondent had solemnised their marriage on 6.5.1987, after which the parties\nhad lived together till 21.06.1987, without consummating the marriage as stated\nby the appellant. After 21st June, 1987 the parties started living separately. <\/li><li>The appellant had\nalleged that her parents spend a whole sum of Rs.80000\/- with respect to the\nceremonies of the marriage and had given a several other articles to the\nrespondent and his family. Even after this, the family members along with the\nrespondent had made further demands of Colour TV, Refrigerator and some other\nornaments besides hard cash of Rs.10,000\/-<\/li><li>The father of the\nappellant obliged the respondent by giving him Rs.10,000\/- in the first week of\nJune, 1987 but could not fulfil the other demands of his parents. Upon which the\nrespondent and his family members were alleged to have started torturing the\nappellants on false pretexts.<\/li><li>The appellant being\naggrieved by the respondent and his family members had filed a petition under\nSection 13 of the Act, seeking the dissolution of the marriage by divorce along\nwith the prayer for the return of the property and the grant of the permanent\nalimony. <\/li><li>Later on, the respondent\nhad also filed another petition seeking divorce and grant of other reliefs but\nhowever the respondent filed an application revoking the petition on14.05.1996\nwhich was allowed by the court. <\/li><li>After this, the\nappellant had alleged that the respondent was having an illicit affair with a\nlady with whom his marriage was solemnised. These allegations were completely\ndenied by the respondent and had stated that the appellant wife was taking\nadvantage of her own wrongs. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Issue:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Whether the defendant has\ntreated the petitioner with cruelty? If so, its effect?<\/li><li>\u00a0Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief\nunder Sec.27 of the Hindu Marriage Act? If so, its effect?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Held:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The Family Court after\nthe arguments had observed and concluded that there was no evidence which led\nto prove the allegations made by the appellant. Adding to this, the court had\nheld that it was proved that the respondent had deserted the petitioner, and so\nthe petitioner will get or is entitled to for a decree of divorce. <\/li><li>Later on, the High Court\nin this case held that there was no evidence produced that the wife has been\ntreated with cruelty by the husband and there is no evidence that the\npetitioner was deserted. <\/li><li>The Supreme Court in this\ncase had upheld the views of the lower court and stated that that the desertion\nactually means the ignorance from matrimonial duties, by either party instead\nof leaving the place. It also requires the existence of cohabitation between\nthe parties earlier.<\/li><li>Also it observed that the\nappellant herself is trying to take advantage of her own wrong and in the\ncircumstances of the case, the marriage between the parties cannot be held to\nhave become dead for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142\nof the Constitution for dissolving the marriage.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"THE_A_DECREE_OF_DIVORCE_UNDER_MUTUAL_CONSENT_IF_ONE_OF_THE_PARTIES_DOES_NOT_GIVE_CONSENT\"><\/span><strong>THE A\nDECREE OF DIVORCE UNDER MUTUAL CONSENT IF ONE OF THE PARTIES DOES NOT GIVE\nCONSENT<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Smt.\nSureshta Devi\u2026\u2026Appellant<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>vs<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Om\nPrakash\u2026\u2026.Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>1991 SCR\n(1) 274<\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Facts of the case:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The\nappellant-wife and the respondent-husband were married on 21.11.1968 and they\nlived together for six to seven months. After that the wife did not stay with\nthe husband except from 09.12.84 to 07.01.1985, even in that period they had\nnot lived like husband and wife.<\/li><li>On\n08.01.1985 the appellant and the respondent met at Hamirpur. The appellant-wife\nwas accompanied by a counsel. After the discussion the parties decided to file\na petition in the court under Section 13-B for divorce under mutual consent in\nthe District Court. <\/li><li>Later\non15.01.1985 the appellant had filed another petition stating that her\nstatement dated 09.01.1985 was obtained under pressure and the threat of her\nhusband and she was not even allowed to see or meet her relations to consult\nthem before filing the petition for divorce. <\/li><li>So\nthe District Judge had dismissed the petition for divorce but later upon the\nappeal the HC revered the order and granted the decree for the dissolution of\nthe marriage under Section 13-B stating that a party who has given consent to a\npetition for divorce under mutual consent cannot unilaterally withdraw the\nconsent.<\/li><li>Moreover,\nthe High Court also recorded a finding that the wife gave her consent to the\npetition without any force, fraud or undue influence and therefore she was\nbound by that consent.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Issue:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Whether\na party to the petition for divorce for mutual consent under Section 13-b of\nthe Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can unilaterally withdraw the consent or whether\nthe consent once given is irrevocable?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Held:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The\nneed for the detailed study on this question has arisen because of the fact\nthat the High Courts do not speak with one voice on this aspect.<\/li><li>The\nHigh Courts of Bombay, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh were of the opinion that if the\nconsent was given voluntarily given it would not be possible for any party to\nnullify the petition was filed. If the consent was voluntarily given it would\nnot be possible for any party to nullify the petition by withdrawing the\nconsent.<\/li><li>But\nin contrary the High Courts of Kerala, Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan held that it\nis open to one of the spouses to withdraw the consent given to the petition at\nany time before the Court passes a decree for divorce. The satisfaction of the\nCourt after holding an inquiry about the genuineness of the consent, necessarily\ncontemplates an opportunity for either of the spouses to withdraw the consent.<\/li><li>Also\nthe Sub-section of section 13 requires the court to hear the parties and if one\nof the party does not given consent at the time of enquiry then the court\ncannot pass a decree of divorce under mutual consent. <\/li><li>Mutual\nconsent to the divorce is a sine qua non for passing a decree for divorce under\nSection 13-B but the Mutual consent should continue till the divorce decree is\npassed. The appeal was allowed by the SC and the decree was set aside for\ndissolution of marriage.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"ASKING_OUT_THE_WIFE_FOR_MONEY_MAY_AMOUNT_TO_CRUELTY\"><\/span><strong>ASKING OUT THE WIFE FOR\nMONEY MAY AMOUNT TO CRUELTY<\/strong><strong><\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Shobha Rani<\/strong><strong>\u2026\u2026Appellant<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>vs<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Madhukar Reddi<\/strong><strong>\u2026\u2026.Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>1988 SCR (1)1010<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>IN\nTHE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Facts of the case:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The appellant-wife and the respondent-husband were happily married\non December 19<sup>th<\/sup> 1982. The wife is a post-graduate in biological\nsciences and the husband was a medical doctor. Their happy marriage hadn\u2019t last\nfor long and their and at one stage they started exchanging letters to each\nother with bitter feelings and they began to accuse each other.<\/li><li>After a lot of discussion they thought of winding up the marriage\nby mutual consent but they ultimately had to get to the court. The wife filed a\npetition for divorce on the ground of cruelty. <\/li><li>The wife had alleged that the husband and the members of the\nfamily had demanded for money from the wife though she kept repeating that she\nwouldn\u2019t ask her parents as it could create an apprehension in the mind of the\nparents physically or mentally. <\/li><li>But in defence for the above allegations the husband stated that\nthere was no wrong in asking the wife for money as they were life partners and\nhe needed that money. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Issues raised:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Whether the above facts show that there was any sort of cruelty of\nthe husband towards the wife?<\/li><li>Whether this case would fall under the purview of dowry\nharassment?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Held:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The initial family court and the HC on appeal opined that the\nabove facts do not justify the demand for money as dowry harassment as the\nrespondent was a young doctor and it was very normal to ask his wife to give\nhim money when he was in need of it and the allegation made by the wife was no\nsatisfactory evidence that the demands were as to border of harassment.<\/li><li>However the Honourable Supreme Court had treated this as cruelty. <\/li><li>\u00a0\u00a0It has held the word Cruelty\u2019 has not been defined. Indeed, it\ncould not have been defined. It has been used in relation to or in respect of\nmatrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is\nadversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical,\nintentional or unintentional. It is a matter of inference to be drawn by\ntaking into account. The cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is\nproved or admitted.<\/li><li>\u00a0\u00a0Ultimately\nthe SC has held in this case that the facts of this case fall under the purview\nof dowry harassment. The husband and his family members has asked the wife to\nbeing home a sum of money which is considered to be a criminal offence under\nthe Dowry Prohibition Act or under the Indian Penal Code. Such an act can be\nconstrued as cruelty under section 498A of IPC. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"A_DECREE_OF_DIVORCE_CAN_BE_GRANTED_WHEN_THE_HUSBAND_IS_ASKED_TO_GET_SEPARATED_FROM_HIS_PARENTS\"><\/span><strong>A DECREE OF DIVORCE CAN BE GRANTED WHEN THE\nHUSBAND IS ASKED TO GET SEPARATED FROM HIS PARENTS <\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Narendra<\/strong><strong>\u2026\u2026Appellant<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>vs<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>K.Meena<\/strong><strong>\u2026\u2026.Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>[(2016)\n9 SCC 455]<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>IN\nTHE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Facts of the case:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The appellant \u2013husband\nand the respondent-wife got married on 26<sup>th<\/sup> February 1992 and had a\ndaughter who was born on 13<sup>th<\/sup> November 1993. The husband stated that\nthe wife did not leave with him happily even for a month after their marriage. <\/li><li>Later on a petition for\ndivorce was filed by the husband due to wife\u2019s suspicious nature and levelling\nof frivolous by serious allegations charged by her against the husband. The\nwife also put allegations on the husband of having an extra-marital affair with\nthe maid who worked for them and she has also wanted the husband to leave his\nparents and family members and live separately with her. <\/li><li>The wife\u2019s behavior\nmade it difficult for the husband to live with her as she also wanted him to\nleave his parents and other family members and get separated from them to live\nindependently. <\/li><li>Another allegation by\nthe husband was that the wife often threatened him that she would commit\nsuicide. In July 1995, she fought with the husband, went to the bathroom and\npoured kerosene on herself in an attempt to commit suicide. The husband, his\nbrother and some neighbors rushed in to prevent her from committing suicide.<\/li><li>In the month of\nNovember 2001 the husband filed a petition for divorce in the trial court on\nthe ground of mental cruelty of the wife. The trial court granted the divorce\nand the wife challenged it in the HC which set aside the divorce in 2006. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Issue: <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Whether the above facts\nof the case construed mental cruelty of the wife?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Held:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The court, after\nevaluating all the evidence of witnesses, found that there was no fault of the\nhusband or any other reason for the wife to attempt to commit suicide. The\ncourt observed that had the husband failed to help the wife and stop her, the\nhusband would have been subject to extreme hardship due to the domestic\nviolence and dowry prevention laws applicable in India.<\/li><li>In the court\u2019s opinion,\nnormally, no husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated\nfrom his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his\nincome. The persistent effort of the wife to constrain the husband to be\nseparated from the family would be torturous for the husband and in the opinion\nof the apex court, the trial Court was right when it came to the conclusion\nthat this constitutes an act of \u2018cruelty\u2019.<\/li><li>The court considered\nthe unreasonable demands made by the wife to get the husband separated from his\nfamily members. The wife wanted the husband to live separately from his family\nto have access to his earnings. It was also found that the wife deserted the\nhusband after the attempt to suicide. Considering all these facts, the Supreme\nCourt held that the husband was rightfully entitled to get a divorce under\nSection 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"THE_SUPREME_COURT_HAD_LAID_DOWN_FIVE_TESTS_IN_ORDER_TO_PROVE_CRUELTY\"><\/span><strong>THE SUPREME COURT HAD LAID DOWN FIVE TESTS IN ORDER TO PROVE CRUELTY<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Narayan\nGanesh Dastane\u2026\u2026Appellant<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>vs<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Sucheta\nNarayan Dastane\u2026\u2026.Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>1975\nSCR (3) 967<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>IN\nTHE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Facts of the case:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The appellant-husband is a well-educated\nman and the respondent-wife was educated women and her father was Government\nminister. The marriage between the couple got finalised in April, 1956 and\nbefore this the father of the wife had stated that the wife had been severely affected\nby a sunstroke which has affected her mental health for a while and later she\nwas suffering from cerebral malaria and altogether these contributed to a\ndecline on her mental health. The father of the respondent had advised the\nhusband to get a confirmation from the doctor who treated her in the mental\nhospital.<\/li><li>In\nthe month of March, 1957 a daughter was born to them and in march 1959 another\ndaughter was born to them. There were a lot of frivolous arguments and\ndisturbances in their marriage life. When they went to Poona to attend a\nmarriage the respondent promised to consult the psychiatrist as per the\nappellant\u2019s request. But later on doubting that the appellant would divorce her\non the basis of unsound mind the respondent did not cooperate with the doctor\nand the husband. <\/li><li>They\nlived together until February 1961, but the Respondent was three month\u2019s\npregnant when her relationship with her husband was strained. During the\nAppellant\u2019s stay in Delhi, he wrote to the Police asking for protection as he feared\nhis life was in danger from the Respondent\u2019s parents and relatives.<\/li><li>The\nRespondent addressed a letter to the Appellant complaining against his conduct\nand asking for maintenance for herself and her daughters. The Respondent also\nwrote a letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, stating that\nthe Appellant had deserted her, treated her with extreme cruelty, and asked the\nGovernment to separately provide for her maintenance. Her statement regarding\nthe Appellant\u2019s ill-treatment and desertion was recorded by an ASP. The\nrecorded statements and cross-complaints amongst the parties was futile and did\nnot bear any fruit.<\/li><li>On\nDecember 15, 1961, the Appellant informed the Respondent\u2019s father that he has\nmoved the Court for seeking separation from the Respondent.<\/li><li>On February 19, 1962, proceedings were\ninstituted in the Trial Court where the Appellant asked for the annulment of\nhis marriage under \u00a712 (1)(c), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) on the ground\nthat his consent was obtained by fraud. The Appellant alleged that the\nRespondent was treated for Schizophrenia and the Respondent\u2019s father\nfraudulently represented the state of her mental health to him to obtain his\nconsent. Alternatively, he asked for divorce under Section13 (1) (iii), HMA, on\nthe ground that the Respondent was of unsound mind. Alternatively, the\nAppellant asked for judicial separation under Section10 (1)(b) on the ground\nthat the Respondent had treated him with a cruelty which created a reasonable\napprehension in his mind that his life is under threat if he lives with her.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Issues:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Whether the Burden of\nProof of cruelty lies on the Petitioner or not?<\/li><li>Whether the facts have\nto be established beyond reasonable doubt in matrimonial matters?<\/li><li>Whether the act of\nsexual intercourse amounts to condonation of cruelty?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Held:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>In\nthe present case, the Appellant\u2019s contention regarding his wife being of\nunsound mind was fabricated by him. The contention regarding the Respondent\ninflicting cruelty on the Appellant has been proven to exist, but the\nAppellant\u2019s act of engaging in sexual intercourse with the Respondent amounts\nto condonation of cruelty in the eyes of law. <\/li><li>After\nthe acts of cruelty have been condoned, for the Appellant\u2019s claims regarding\ncruelty to have held ground, the Respondent\u2019s subsequent conduct had to be as\ngrave or to the degree of her previous acts of cruelty. The Respondent was\nwilling to make amends and return to the household shared by both parties and\nshe realised her mistakes.<\/li><li>\u00a0The Appellant condoned the Respondent after\nwhich she did not act in the manner she did before the condonation. The\nRespondent will not be held liable for cruelty.<\/li><li>The\ncourt in this case has laid down 5 tests in order to identify the cruelty in\ncases- The tests laid down in determining whether a given conduct amounts to\nlegal cruelty is as follows:<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ol><li>The alleged acts\nconstituting cruelty should be proved according to the law of evidence;<\/li><li>There should be an\napprehension in the Petitioner\u2019s mind of real injury or harm from such conduct;<\/li><li>The apprehension\nshould be reasonable having regard to the condition of the parties;<\/li><li>The Petitioner should\nnot have taken advantage of his position;<\/li><li>The Petitioner should\nnot have condoned the acts of cruelty.<\/li><\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Lahari Gurrala &#038; Aditi Reddy M | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 3rd February 2020 Divorce can be granted by the Supreme court under article 142 even if the facts of the case do not provide a ground in law. Sukhendu Das.\u00a0 &#8230;&#8230;..Petitioner. Vs Rita Mukherjee. \u2026\u2026.Respondent., 2017 (8) Supreme 33 IN THE SUPREME COURT [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":150,"featured_media":557,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[68],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v21.8.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Ten important cases on Divorce - LexForti<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ten important cases on Divorce - LexForti\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Lahari Gurrala &#038; Aditi Reddy M | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 3rd February 2020 Divorce can be granted by the Supreme court under article 142 even if the facts of the case do not provide a ground in law. Sukhendu Das.\u00a0 &#8230;&#8230;..Petitioner. Vs Rita Mukherjee. \u2026\u2026.Respondent., 2017 (8) Supreme 33 IN THE SUPREME COURT [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LexForti\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-04-23T10:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-01-17T04:34:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/prorogation-of-parliament-5.jpg?fit=560%2C315&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"315\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Lahari Gurrala\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Lahari Gurrala\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Lahari Gurrala\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/4d1f372168263513846528ea38410183\"},\"headline\":\"Ten important cases on Divorce\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-04-23T10:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-01-17T04:34:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/\"},\"wordCount\":7160,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Important Cases\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/\",\"name\":\"Ten important cases on Divorce - LexForti\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-04-23T10:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-01-17T04:34:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ten important cases on Divorce\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"LexForti\",\"description\":\"Legal\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization\",\"name\":\"LexForti Legal News & Journal\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1\",\"width\":404,\"height\":404,\"caption\":\"LexForti Legal News & Journal\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/lexforti\/\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/lex-forti\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/4d1f372168263513846528ea38410183\",\"name\":\"Lahari Gurrala\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png\",\"caption\":\"Lahari Gurrala\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/linkedin.com\/in\/lahari-gurrala-0602371b4\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/author\/lahari-gurrala\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ten important cases on Divorce - LexForti","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ten important cases on Divorce - LexForti","og_description":"Lahari Gurrala &#038; Aditi Reddy M | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 3rd February 2020 Divorce can be granted by the Supreme court under article 142 even if the facts of the case do not provide a ground in law. Sukhendu Das.\u00a0 &#8230;&#8230;..Petitioner. Vs Rita Mukherjee. \u2026\u2026.Respondent., 2017 (8) Supreme 33 IN THE SUPREME COURT [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/","og_site_name":"LexForti","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/","article_published_time":"2020-04-23T10:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-01-17T04:34:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":560,"height":315,"url":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/prorogation-of-parliament-5.jpg?fit=560%2C315&ssl=1","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Lahari Gurrala","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Lahari Gurrala","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/"},"author":{"name":"Lahari Gurrala","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/4d1f372168263513846528ea38410183"},"headline":"Ten important cases on Divorce","datePublished":"2020-04-23T10:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2021-01-17T04:34:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/"},"wordCount":7160,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Important Cases"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/","name":"Ten important cases on Divorce - LexForti","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-04-23T10:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2021-01-17T04:34:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/ten-important-cases-on-divorce\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ten important cases on Divorce"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/","name":"LexForti","description":"Legal","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization","name":"LexForti Legal News & Journal","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1","width":404,"height":404,"caption":"LexForti Legal News & Journal"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/lexforti\/","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/lex-forti\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/4d1f372168263513846528ea38410183","name":"Lahari Gurrala","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png","caption":"Lahari Gurrala"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/linkedin.com\/in\/lahari-gurrala-0602371b4"],"url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/author\/lahari-gurrala\/"}]}},"views":226,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/556"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/150"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=556"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/556\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7171,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/556\/revisions\/7171"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/557"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=556"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=556"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=556"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}