Is Accusing Wife Of Adultery merely because she talks to a male friend a ground for divorce? The Jharkhand High Court has said it is a gender-based stereotype that itself amounts to cruelty towards her, turning down a husband’s appeal. Ranchi: A husband who said his wife was in an extramarital relationship because she spoke […]
The Patna High Court dismissed a wife’s appeal against a Family Court divorce decree, holding that long separation and denial of conjugal relations amounted to cruelty, and left her free to seek permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed a husband’s appeals against the refusal of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion and a decree of restitution of conjugal rights for his wife, holding that quarrels, family friction and separation do not amount to cruelty or desertion without proof of conduct of the required gravity.
The Jharkhand High Court held that a wife compelled to leave her matrimonial home due to cruelty and torture cannot be treated as a deserter, setting aside the Family Court’s divorce decree for perversity and improper appreciation of evidence.
Invoking Article 142, the Supreme Court dissolved an irretrievably broken marriage, holding that its continuance would only prolong agony. The Court granted divorce despite trial and High Court findings, stressing complete justice over rigid statutory grounds of law.
The Supreme Court, while hearing a case of marital discord, emphasized that the failure of a marriage does not signify the end of life. Exercising its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court granted the couple a divorce. Additionally, it put an end to all pending legal proceedings between them. The ruling highlights the Court’s approach in resolving matrimonial disputes with a focus on justice and closure.
The Gauhati High Court has instructed the Assam government to respond within four weeks to a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Assam Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorces Act, 2024. The petitioner seeks the restoration of the repealed 1935 Act, claiming the new law violates constitutional rights and negatively impacts the Muslim community’s marriage practices.
