Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025

Posted on April 18 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench judge of Calcutta High Court denied maintenance to deserter wife.

From Para 24,

24. During the cross-examination of the respondent wife in the Domestic Violence case, the respondent wife has stated that “On 31st January, 2015, I left matrimonial home and came to my parental home”. In the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the respondent wife made out a case that on 3rd February, 2015, her husband and her in-laws have brutally tortured upon her. The Learned Magistrate as well as the Learned Appellate Court finds that as per the case of the wife, she left her matrimonial house on 31st January, 2015 and she never came back to her matrimonial home, how the petitioner and his parents cause torture upon the respondent wife.

From Para 29,

29. This Court finds that the respondent wife in the Domestic Violence case made out the case of torture by the petitioner on 3rd February, 2015 and in the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. made out a case by making a bald allegation of torture other than the case made out in an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the case of domestic violence, the respondent wife in support of her case had examined her mother as witness. The mother of the respondent wife in her statement has stated that “she came to depose as per direction of her daughter and her daughter asked her what to tell and her affidavit was prepared by her lawyer and she only put her signature”. She also stated that they provided with several things to her daughter on her reception but not on demand and after marriage there was no demand for dowry. The respondent wife cleverly not brings her mother as witness in the case filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

From Para 30,

30. Husband is legally and morally bound to provide maintenance to his wife. The right of the wife to be maintained by the husband stems from the corresponding obligation to perform marital duty. Section 125 (1)(a) of Cr.PC (Section 144 (1) (a) of BNSS) provides maintenance to the wife who is unable to maintain herself. However, the right of the wife to claim maintenance from her husband, who has sufficient means, is not absolute. It is subject to sub-section (4) of Section 125 (Section 144 (4) of BNSS). A wife who chooses to live separately without sufficient reason is disentitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr.PC (Section 144 (4) of BNSS). It is crucial to assess whether the wife’s decision to live separately is based on valid grounds. If valid grounds, such as cruelty or desertion, exist, she may still claim maintenance despite living apart. In cases where the wife refuses to live with the husband without any just cause and there is no evidence of ill-treatment by the husband, the wife is not entitled to maintenance.

From Para 36,

36. The affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the parties, this Court finds that both the parties have not disclosed their affidavit of assets and liabilities correctly and thus one party cannot take the benefit of the wrong committed by the other party when the both the party have committed wrong.

From Para 37, (When there is no neglect, it is wrong to sustain maintenance to minor child)

37. This Court has already held that the respondent wife is living separately since 31st January, 2015 without any sufficient reasons and there is no evidence to show that she was ill-treated by the petitioner, thus the order passed by the Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta in Misc Case No. 29 of 2016 dated 6th September, 2024 is set aside with respect to grant of maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month for the respondent wife. As regard the maintenance of the minor, this Court has not interfered with.

Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025

Index of Maintenance Judgements is here.

Analysis by Adv Talari Rajeswari

Sanjay Kumar Shaw Vs Anjali Kumari Shaw on 07 Apr 2025

Posted on April 18 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Patna High Court held as follows,

From Para 13,

13. It appears from the petition that application for divorce has been filed by the appellant under Section 13 (1) (ia) & (ib) of the Act i.e. on the ground of cruelty and desertion. However, the main ground taken for divorce is that respondent-wife is suffering from mental disease or disorder
(schizophrenia) and permanent disability in her leg and due to her abnormal behavior the appellant-husband do not like to continue the matrimonial life with respondent. The learned Trial Court in para 12 of the impugned Judgment considered this aspect and held that appellant has failed to prove that respondent is suffering from the schizophrenia disease and her leg disability. From perusal of the record the question which this court has to decide is whether the respondent is suffering from schizophrenia or other mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with respondent-wife or not?

From Para 14,

14. Taking note of the evidence adduced by the appellant, it is clear that he has not proved the mental disease or disorder of the respondent-wife, as the doctor who is treating the respondent-wife has not been examined. The grounds claimed by the appellant-husband are that the respondent-wife is of unsound mind, aggressive and has deserted the appellant have not been proved from the material available on the record.

From Paras 20 and 21,

20. In view of the above pronouncement, it appears that the ground of a spouse suffering from schizophrenia, by itself is not sufficient for grant of divorce under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Act as it may involve various degree of mental illness. The law provides that a spouse in order to prove a ground of divorce on the ground of mental illness, ought to prove that the spouse is suffering from a serious case of schizophrenia which must also be supported by medical reports and proved by cogent evidence before the Court that disease is of such a kind and degree that husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with wife.
21. Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act does not make mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify dissolution of marriage. The contents in which the ideas of unsoundness of mind and mental disorder occur in section as ground for dissolution of a marriage, require assessment of degree of mental disorder and its degree must be such that spouse seeking relief cannot reasonable be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognized as grounds for grant of decree. The burden of proof of existence of requisite degree of mental disorder is on the spouse who bases his or her claim on such a medical condition.

Sanjay Kumar Shaw Vs Anjali Kumari Shaw on 07 Apr 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/146315829/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/67f4c506bdfd43233228ae45

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/patna-high-court/patna-high-court-wife-mental-disorder-divorce-schizophrenia-hindu-marriage-act-289016

https://www.indialaw.in/blog/civil/divorce-hc-schizophrenia-isnt-enough/

https://lawtrend.in/schizophrenia-allegation-alone-not-ground-for-divorce-without-proof-of-severity-affecting-marital-life-patna-high-court/

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/patna-high-court/a-v-b-miscellaneous-appeal-no1152-of-2018-spouse-relief-mental-disorder-divorce-1573858

Mental Disorder Must Be Proven to Be of Severe Degree to Justify Divorce Under Hindu Marriage Act, Rules Patna High Court

Index of Divorce Judgments is here.

Analysis by Adv Talari Rajeswari

Asha Rani Vs Ranjit Singh on 11 Dec 2024

Posted on April 12 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows,

From Para 8,

8. However, it is admitted fact on record that the petitioner is a qualified MA (in Punjabi) and B.Ed. On a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner is not working despite being able bodied. When questioned as to why the petitioner is not working, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was previously giving tuitions. However, now since she is residing with her parents in the village, she is unable to give any tuitions. When it is pointed out that even the children in villages study and therefore need tuitions, learned counsel submits that people in villages do not have high paying capacity. However, when it is pointed out that the petitioner can always take online tuitions in village also, learned counsel for the petitioner has no reply.

From Para 12,

12. It is my considered view that it is first and foremost duty of the petitioner to maintain herself. The ennoble purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not to spawn idle wives, and to foist the entire burden upon the hapless husband; but is to protect abandoned wives who are unable to maintain themselves from vagrancy and destitution. A bare reading of Section 125 Cr.P.C. itself indicates that maintenance is admissible to a wife who is ‘unable to maintain herself’. In the present case, that is not so.

Asha Rani Vs Ranjit Singh on 11 Dec 2024

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://mynation.net/docs/1558-2024/ (Thanks to MyNation _/\_)

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here.

Samina Firdaus Vs Shoeb Khan on 24 Jan 2025

Posted on April 7 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Bombay High Court at Nagpur refused to transfer a matrimonial case.

From Para 3,

3. The said application is strongly opposed by the non-applicant on the ground that, the applicant has suppressed several material facts and does not come with clean hand before this Court. He submitted that, though applicant has filed the petition under the provisions of Act of 2005, she never faced any cruelty or any domestic violence at the hands of the present non-applicant and his family members. In fact, the family members of the applicant gave a threat to his life as well life of his family members and they have already attacked on them and therefore, he filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malegaon seeking directions to the police to investigate in the matter. After hearing and after considering his application, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malegaon directed the Police to lodge/registered the First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as “FIR”) against the present applicant and her family members. Thus, if the matter is transferred to Malegaon, there is a life threat to his life as well as life of his family members and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.

From Para 6,

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the non-applicant has placed reliance on the decision of Karnatka High Court in the case of Smt. Sushmitha B.L. @ Uma W/o Sri. Raghavendra B.R. ..vs.. Sri Raghavendra B.R. S/o Sri Ravindra Naik, in Civil Petition No.370/2024 wherein, the Karanata High court has observed that, constitutionally, a female has got equal rights as that of a male. As a matter of fact, women are the primary victims in most situations, but that does not mean that men are not affected by the cruelty of women. Therefore, there is necessity for a gender neutral society. Such a society aims at preventing separation of duties according to sex or gender. It will focus on equal treatment of men and women both in domestic affairs and work places. Equality should be in its truest sense and not at the expenses of either gender. However, admirable our efforts to safeguarding women may be, we should not overlook the challenges encountered by men in our society and rejected the application.

Samina Firdaus Vs Shoeb Khan on 24 Jan 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/196783536/

Index of Transfer judgments is here.

Sushmitha B.L. Vs Raghavendra B.R on 07 Jan 2025

Posted on April 7 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of Karnataka High Court, refused to transfer a divorce case stating that the inconvenience that will be faced by the respondent-husband if the transfer of the case is effected will be more.

From Paras 6-8,

6. Constitutionally, a female has got equal rights as that of a male. As a matter of fact, women are the primary victims in most situations, but that does not mean that men are not affected by the cruelty of women. Therefore, there is necessity for a gender neutral society. Such a society aims at preventing separation of duties according to sex or gender. It will focus on equal treatment of men and women both in domestic affairs and work places. Equality should be in its truest sense and not at the expense of either gender. However admirable our efforts to safeguarding women may be, we should not overlook the challenges encountered by men in our society.
7. Only because the transfer petition is moved by a woman, transfer of the case as sought for cannot be effected. All the attending facts and circumstances have to be looked into.
8. This Court is of the view that the inconvenience projected by the petitioner to attend the Court at Narasimharajapura, Chikkamagaluru District will not be greater than the inconvenience that will be faced by the respondent-husband if the transfer of the case is effected. Also the tender aged children would be put to sufferance. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the relief sought for cannot be granted.

Sushmitha B.L. Vs Raghavendra B.R on 07 Jan 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/677ee68875ee7076ea27c32d

Index of Transfer judgments is here.

Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel on 15 Jul 2024

Posted on April 5 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court passed this decision. Not sure, why this is a reportable judgment!

Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel on 15 Jul 2024

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/669778a11312582eb2f9e52c

Index of Maintenance Judgments under DV Act is here. Divorce Judgments here. DV Judgements here.

Sunita Kachwaha and Ors Vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 Oct 2014

Posted on April 5 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows,

From para 9,

9. Inability to maintain herself is the precondition for grant of maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her. In her evidence, the appellant wife has stated that only due to help of her retired parents and brothers, she is able to maintain herself and her daughters. Where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and the daughters, while her husband’s economic condition is quite good, the wife would be entitled to maintenance.

Sunita Kachwaha and Ors Vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 Oct 2014

Citations: [AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 554]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3786357/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af48e4b01497114160aa

Index of Maintenance Judgments under 144 BNSS is here.

Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025

Posted on April 5 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court held that, the petitioner deliberately avoided employment to maximize Interim maintenance claims.

From Paras 29 and 30,

29. Evidence was adduced showing the petitioner‟s previous employment as an Audit Associate at KPMG Dubai, subsequent work as a Human Resources Manager in her father‟s business, and entrepreneurial venture importing semi-precious jewellery. The respondent referred to her LinkedIn profile confirming her employment history and the learned Principal Judge noted that while the petitioner simply mentioned “Graduate” and “Post Graduate” in her affidavit without specifying details, she concealed her professional qualifications and previous employment history.
30. The learned Principal Judge relied on various precedents holding that prima facie evidence reveals that the petitioner deliberately avoided employment to maximize maintenance claims, referencing the WhatsApp conversation dated 31st December, 2020, i.e., prior to her petition filed on 24th June, 2021. It was further observed that although the petitioner claimed in her petition to be actively seeking employment, she failed to substantiate any job search efforts. The Court below found merit in the respondent’s contention that the petitioner, despite high educational qualifications and work experience, was strategically remaining unemployed.

From Paras 38-40,

38. It is settled that while adjudicating an application for grant of interim maintenance, the Court concerned must be prima facie satisfied whether such case is made out or not.
39. In the instant case, despite the contentions made by the petitioner that she was earlier residing at her maternal home, pursuant to which she started residing with her maternal uncle, who is old and unable to support her, along with the fact that she is unemployed and dispute is existing with respect to her father’s properties, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner is admittedly a well-qualified and able-bodied person. Furthermore, the whole situation where the petitioner was staying with her parents and now with maternal uncle indicates that she wants to convince the court that she is unable to earn.
40. It is trite to observe that it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife despite the circumstances, however, for grant of interim maintenance, prima facie satisfaction is necessary to determine whether the wife is genuinely in need of maintenance and the factors leading to such need of maintenance.

From Paras 33-34,

43. Regarding the prima facie evidence of deliberate unemployment, the WhatsApp conversation between the petitioner and her mother, legitimacy of which can be determined at the appropriate stage of trial, wherein the mother advises that employment would jeopardize alimony claims, is particularly telling. This communication, preceding the maintenance petition, strongly suggests a deliberate attempt to remain unemployed to seek maintenance claims.
44. Furthermore, it has been rightly observed by the learned Principal Judge that while the petitioner claims that she cannot sit idle and is trying to search for a job, she has not placed any evidence on record regarding her efforts to secure employment or resume her business activities either before the Court below or before this Court. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the mere assertion of job-seeking, without corroborative evidence, is insufficient to establish genuine efforts at self-sufficiency.

From Paras 46-47,

46. Here, it is imperative to mention that the petitioner’s reliance on Shailja (Supra), regarding the distinction between “capable of earning” and “actual earning”, the facts of the present case are distinguishable. In the present case, there is prima facie evidence suggesting deliberate avoidance of employment by the petitioner.
47. Taking into consideration the observations made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that qualified wives, having the earning capacity but desirous of remaining idle, should now set up a claim for interim maintenance. Section 125 of the CrPC carries the legislative intent to maintain equality among the spouses, provide protection to the wives, children and parents, and not promote idleness. In light of the same, this Court is of the considered view that a well-educated wife, with experience in a suitable gainful job, ought not to remain idle solely to gain maintenance from her husband. Therefore, interim maintenance is being discouraged in the present case as this Court can see potential in the petitioner to earn and make good of her education.

Finally, from Paras 49-50,

49. The petitioner herein has a master’s degree from Australia, she was earning well in a job in Dubai before her marriage, there are certain conversations between the petitioner and her mother which shows the ex facie mala fides on the part of the petitioner etc. The said factors, upon conjoint consideration to award interim maintenance, do not warrant any inclination of this Court. Moreover, this Court encourages the petitioner to actively look for a job to become self-sufficient as she already got wide exposure and is aware of the worldly affairs unlike other women who are not educated and are completely dependent upon their spouses for basic sustenance.
50. This Court is unable to comprehend the fact as to why, despite being able-bodied and well qualified, the petitioner has remained to choose idle since her return to India. Thus, it is held that the learned Principal Judge rightly passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner herein is not entitled to grant of interim maintenance considering the peculiar facts.

Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025

Index of Maintenance Judgments under 144 BNSS is here.

Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025

Posted on April 2 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Telangana High Court held as follows,

On Limitation,

22. Moreover, it is a settled rule of construction that every effort should be made to iron the creases out in two conflicting enactments and the more liberal enactment should be adopted for resolving the conflict. Both the 1955 Act and the 1984 Act are special statutes designed to ensure efficient resolution of conflicts within the family without subjecting the parties to further procedural hiccups. We also take recourse to the principle of law that when two interpretations are found to be equally possible, the Court may reasonably accept that the Legislature intended to prescribe a larger period of limitation: Shivram Dodanna Shetty Vs. Sharmila Shivram Shetty2, Sonia Kunwar Singh Bedi Vs. Kunwar Singh Bedi3 and Chaudary Chetnaben Dilipbhai Vs. Chaudary Dilipbhai Lavjibhai4.

On Evidence for Divorce in first Marriage,

28. Admittedly, the respondent in the present case did not lead any evidence of the customary divorce between the respondent and his first wife. The impugned order dated 19.11.2024 reflects that despite conditional orders, the respondent neither appeared nor filed his evidence. This means that the respondent declined to lead evidence to prove customary divorce from his first wife or otherwise. Apart from a mere pleading that the respondent obtained divorce through customary practice, no other evidence of the existence of such a customary practice or a document showing that the divorce was indeed obtained through such a customary practice was produced by the respondent.

On impleadment of a co-respondent,

46. Further, Rule 8(3), which requires addition of a co-respondent in a petition under section 11 of the 1955 Act i.e., void marriages, cannot be equated to Rule 8(1) as the issue of whether the marriage is void is essentially a question of law rather than a question of fact. The presence or absence of a co-respondent, viewed from this angle, cannot be fatal to the outcome of the case.

51. We have considered the relevant Rules regulating the proceedings initiated under the 1955 Act and the decisions placed on the point of impleadment of a co-respondent in specific cases. We accept the contentions made on behalf of the appellant in favour of giving a comprehensive construction to the Rule. We are of the view that the presence of the respondent’s first wife as a co-respondent to the lis before us is not necessary since this is not a case where the respondent’s first wife would be required to be heard for preserving the principles of natural justice. This is also not a case where the adjudication would entail questions regarding her character, integrity or reputation. We must also take a practical view of the situation, since admittedly, the respondent’s first wife has been in a state of coma for a while.
52. The requirement of impleading the respondent’s first wife is hence dispensed with under an extended meaning given to the proviso to Rule 8(1) of the 1955 Rules. In other words, we do not find non-impleadment of the respondent’s first wife to be fatal to the petition under sections 11, 5 and 25 of the 1955 Act or in the Appeal before us.

On Desertion,

60. Moreover, the respondent has remained unrepresented in the present Appeal and the whereabouts of the respondent is not known to the appellant for over 4 years. As stated above, the notice addressed to the respondent in the present Appeal was returned with an endorsement “no such person in the address”. To put it simply, the respondent has made no effort to contest the Appeal or pursue the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights filed before the Additional Family Court at Visakhapatnam.

Most importantly, On status of previous marriage,

67. There is a patent contradiction in the findings and reasons given by the Family Court. While the Court denied alimony to the appellant on the basis of the appellant being the second wife, the Court refused to come to any finding with regard to the status of the marriage between the respondent and his first wife. A finding on this was necessary in the context of the appellant’s petition seeking annulment of marriage under section 11 of the Act i.e., on the ground that the respondent had a surviving spouse on the date of his marriage with the appellant. To put it simply, the Trial Court failed to consider that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent, both Hindus, could not have been legally solemnized if the respondent had a spouse living at the time of the marriage.

On Income Affidavits,

69. Another unsubstantiated finding is that the appellant obtained divorce from her first husband with an alimony of Rs.50.00 Lakhs and is now claiming permanent alimony of Rs.1 Crore from the respondent. The Trial Court utterly failed to consider that the respondent was equally accountable to disclose his assets in order to resist the claim of alimony. The impugned order does not disclose any direction on the parties to file their affidavits disclosing their respective assets

Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025

Index of Divorce/Nullity judgments is here.

Arun K.R Vs Arunima T.S on 24 Mar 2025

Posted on April 2 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Kerala High Court held as follows,

From Paras 7-9,

7. In the case at hand, the petitioner is categoric in her version that respondent treated her with cruelty. Unlike physical abuse, which is easier to prove, mental cruelty varies from case to case. When the petitioner/wife says that the respondent/ husband behaved in a manner so as to create an impression in her that she was totally neglected by the respondent, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the said version.
8. It is an admitted case that petitioner had earlier filed O.P.No.871/2019 and subsequently she had withdrawn it, since the respondent confided and promised to lead a family life with her. According to her, after withdrawing the said original petition, respondent again started to behave in the same manner as before.
9. The answers given by the respondent during his cross examination regarding his frequent visits to the temple by taking leave from the job fortifies the case of the petitioner that he is more interested in spiritual affairs than the family life.

Arun K.R Vs Arunima T.S on 24 Mar 2025

Index of Divorce judgments is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: April 2025

Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025

Sanjay Kumar Shaw Vs Anjali Kumari Shaw on 07 Apr 2025

Asha Rani Vs Ranjit Singh on 11 Dec 2024

Samina Firdaus Vs Shoeb Khan on 24 Jan 2025

Sushmitha B.L. Vs Raghavendra B.R on 07 Jan 2025

Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel on 15 Jul 2024

Sunita Kachwaha and Ors Vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 Oct 2014

Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025

Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025

Arun K.R Vs Arunima T.S on 24 Mar 2025