Mr M Vs Mrs M on 7 February 2014

Posted on August 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this very good divorce judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, it is held that the knife caused metal cruelty on husband and his parents for the following reason,

the Appellant established that the Respondent could not substantiate the allegations of cruelty in the criminal case. Even the allegations of cruelty made by the Respondent in the written statement in the present case could not be established by her;
The Appellant and his family members were required to attend Criminal Court on 56 different dates from the year 2001 to 2004. Considering the manner in which the criminal case proceeded, the Appellant and his family members were subjected to humiliation, trauma and agony as set out in the deposition of the Appellant;
The Respondent made a very serious defamatory allegation against the Appellant, both in the written statement and in her evidence, that due to ill treatment by the Appellant, she started suffering from arthritis. The Respondent made no efforts to substantiate the said allegation. Thus, the Respondent made unfounded defamatory allegation against the Appellant;
Not only that the Respondent did not substantiate the said allegation, even the cause of death of her father was not brought on record. Even this allegation is an unfounded defamatory allegation;

Mr M Vs Mrs M on 7 February, 2014

Citations:

Amit Welangi Vs Nupur Welangi on 1 Jun 2018

Posted on June 12, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The knife made many false allegations on her husband (Pune-based IT Project Manager) in DVC and the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has granted Divorce due to this.

The baseless and false allegations are

addicted to consumption of alcohol
come home fully drunk
quarreling with her on various silly matters
abusing her in front of her child and spoiling family atmosphere
abusing her in filthy language
harassed and subjected to mental torture
manhandled her
in the company of and having illicit relationship with another woman and spending huge amount on her
undergoing second marriage with another woman
filed a frivolous petition against knife

Amit SO Vinay Welangi Vs Nupur WO Amit Welangi on 1 June, 2018

Rekha Devi Vs Mahesh Kumar on 16 January, 2018

Posted on May 4, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Patna High Court delivered this judgment based on the mental cruelty the Knife levelled on the husband.

A variety of instances to establish mental cruelty by Knife were vividly brought out in this case.

Frivolous Allegation on Mother in Law of having illicit relations
Trying to separate Son from his family
Threatening to commit suicide, if demands are not met

Key points

In Para 6,

Appellant/wife levelled frivolous and bald allegation against his mother of having illicit relation with his Uncle. Mother of Respondent/husband felt very embarrassed, insulted and pained by such false and reckless allegation.

In Para 7,

On 16.06.1996 Respondent/husband and his mother went to the house of his in-laws where the mother of the husband tried to make her understand not to leave matrimonial home and if there is any problem she must tell family members and hearing this the Appellant/wife became so much furious that she pushed her Mother-in-Law and she fell down causing head injury. On this ungraceful act people surrounded there and asked Appellant/wife about such irratic behaviour and she told that unless and untill Respondent/husband separates him from his family, she won’t enter her matrimonial home otherwise she will set her ablaze.

In Para 8,

Respondent/husband’s family was so much pressurized by the Appellant/wife that there was disruption in the joint family of Respondent/husband and he was allotted a separate share in the joint family property and Respondent/husband had to reside in a single room away from his joint family. A happy joint family was ruined and separated by cruel conduct of Appellant/wife.

In Para 9,

Since the Appellant/wife is daughter of policeman she is a spoiled child, idiot and obstinate and respondent/husband found him self helpless in house of his inlaws and had to tolerate all sorts of insult and humiliation.

Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 clearly explain the cruel behavior of the Knife.

In Para 15,

After sometime Defendant/wife refused to cohabit with plaintiff and never permitted physical relation with her and failed to perform her marital obligation as wife and has withdrawn from society of her husband.

Rekha Kumari @ Rekha Devi vs Mahesh Kumar on 16 January, 2018

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

K.Srinivas Vs K.Sunita on 19 November, 2014

Posted on May 4, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Wonderful judgment from the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby it is declared that filing a false complaint by Knife on husband and his family constitutes cruelty and this is sufficient ground a marriage can be dissolved.

The prosecution tried these tactics to counter the appeal from Husband

if a specific finding regarding the falsity of the criminal complaint was returned
if the Complainant or a witness on her behalf had committed perjury or had recorded a contradictory or incredible testimony
it is not possible to label the wife’s criminal complaint detailed above as a false or a vindictive action. In other words, the acquittal of the Appellant and his family members in the criminal complaint does not by itself, automatically and justifiably, lead to the conclusion that the complaint was false
the investigation may have been faulty
the prosecution may have been so careless as to lead to the acquittal, but the acquittal would not always indicate that the Complainant had intentionally filed a false case

Hon’ble two-judge bench has destroyed this angle in Para 5.

The Respondent-Wife has admitted in her cross-examination that she did not mention all the incidents on which her Complaint is predicated, in her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. It is not her case that she had actually narrated all these facts to the Investigating Officer, but that he had neglected to mention them. This, it seems to us, is clearly indicative of the fact that the criminal complaint was a contrived afterthought. We affirm the view of the High Court that the criminal complaint was “ill advised”.

Final nail in the coffin:

Prosecution: the filing of the criminal complaint has not been pleaded in the petition itself by Husband

Supreme Court: the criminal complaint was filed by the wife after filing of the husband’s divorce petition, and being subsequent events could have been looked into by the Court.

This is also called as Counter blast.

In Para 7,

We unequivocally find that the Respondent-Wife had filed a false criminal complaint, and even one such complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty.

K. Srinivas vs K. Sunita on 19 November, 2014

Citations: [2014 SUPREME 8 36], [2015 JLJR SC 1 114], [2014 JT 13 8], [2015 SCC CRI 3 400], [2015 RCR CIVIL SC 1 38], [2014 AIOL 702], [2015 ALLCC 90 808], [2015 ALLMR SC 2 435], [2015 ALR 108 742], [2015 AWC SC 1 80], [2015 SCSUPPL CHN 1 233], [2015 LW 4 671], [2015 OLR 1 267], [2015 PLJR 1 126], [2015 PLR 179 435], [2014 SCC 16 34], [2015 SCC CIV 3 415], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 915], [2015 AIC 146 107]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175889126/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5767b12be691cb22da6d57e4

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

U.Sree Vs U.Srinivas on 11 December, 2012

Posted on May 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the Divorce case of famous musician Mandolin U Shrinivas. Supreme Court affirmed that he faced mental cruelty at the acts of his Knife. Alimony of 50 Lakhs is also ordered by Justice Dipak Misra.

U.Sree vs U.Srinivas on 11 December, 2012

Shortly after, he died from a failed liver transplant operation in 2014.

Mandolin U Srinivas Far too young to go

Vishwanath Vs Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal on 4 July, 2012

Posted on May 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the Supreme Court judgment from Justice Dipak Misra and Deepak Verma observing clear case of causing Mental cruelty by Knife on Husband.

Vishwanath vs Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal on 4 July, 2012

Sangita Nigam Vs Saurabh Nigam on 22 November, 2017

Posted on May 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the divorce grant/affirm judgment from Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court on grounds of deserting husband and causing mental cruelty to him and his family.

Smt. Sangita Nigam vs Saurabh Nigam on 22 November, 2017

Supriya Subhash Bhatmare Vs Shivanand Babaso Swami on 27th April, 2018

Posted on May 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Bombay High Court ordered a marriage be null and void and decreed as such based on the ground on non consummation of marriage between the Knife and husband. Both parties started fighting the litigation right from the day of their marriage !!

Supriya Subhash Bhatmare Vs Shivanand Babaso Swami on 27th April, 2018

R.Natarajan Vs Sujatha Vasudevan on August 29, 2011

Posted on May 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a Madras High Court judgment delivering a Divorce decree based on Mental cruelty by Knife.

R.Natarajan Vs. Sujatha Vasudevan on August 29, 2011

K.Srinivas Rao Vs D.A.Deepa on 22 February, 2013

Posted on May 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the landmark judgment of Supreme Court confirming the divorce degree granted by Family Court.

Intro

The marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 25/4/1999 as per Hindu rites and customs. Unfortunately, on the very next day disputes arose between the elders on both sides which resulted in their abusing each other and hurling chappals at each other. As a consequence, on 27/4/1999, the newly married couple got separated without consummation of the marriage and started living separately.

Later on

Knife filed complaint for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC against the appellant-husband (C.C.No. 79/2009). It may be stated here that on 19/10/2009 the appellant-husband was acquitted in this case.

The appellant- husband was convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment. He and his parents were acquitted of the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act. His parents were acquitted of the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. After this judgment the respondent-wife and her parents filed a complaint in the High Court saying that since the appellant-husband was convicted he should be dismissed from service. Similar letters were sent to the High Court by the maternal uncle of the respondent-wife

In Para 22,

The statement that the mother of the appellant-husband asked her to sleep with his father is bound to anger him. It is his case that this humiliation of his parents caused great anguish to him. He and his family were traumatized by the false and indecent statement made in the complaint. His grievance appears to us to be justified.

That this statement is false is evident from the evidence of the mother of the respondent-wife, which we have already quoted. This statement cannot be explained away by stating that it was made because the respondent-wife was anxious to go back to the appellant-husband. This is not the way to win the husband back. It is well settled that such statements cause mental cruelty. By sending this complaint the respondent-wife has caused mental cruelty to the appellant- husband.

In Para 23,

The conduct of the respondent- wife in filing a complaint making unfounded, indecent and defamatory allegation against her mother-in-law, in filing revision seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellant-husband, in filing appeal questioning the acquittal of the appellant-husband and acquittal of his parents indicates that she made all attempts to ensure that he and his parents are put in jail and he is removed from his job. We have no manner of doubt that this conduct has caused mental cruelty to the appellant- husband.

In Para 24,

Staying together under the same roof is not a pre-condition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof. In a given case, while staying away, a spouse can cause mental cruelty to the other spouse by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial proceedings making the other spouse’s life miserable.

Paras 25 and 26 talk about the death of the marriage.

the appellant-husband should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) to the respondent-wife as and by way of permanent alimony. In the result, the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside.

Directions issue by the Apex Court

a) In terms of Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, the Family Courts shall make all efforts to settle the matrimonial disputes through mediation. Even if the Counsellors submit a failure report, the Family Courts shall, with the consent of the parties, refer the matter to the mediation centre. In such a case, however, the Family Courts shall set a reasonable time limit for mediation centres to complete the process of mediation because otherwise the resolution of the disputes by the Family Court may get delayed. In a given case, if there is good chance of settlement, the Family Court in its discretion, can always extend the time limit.

b) The criminal courts dealing with the complaint under Section 498-A of the IPC should, at any stage and particularly, before they take up the complaint for hearing, refer the parties to mediation centre if they feel that there exist elements of settlement and both the parties are willing. However, they should take care to see that in this exercise, rigour, purport and efficacy of Section 498-A of the IPC is not diluted. Needless to say that the discretion to grant or not to grant bail is not in any way curtailed by this direction. It will be for the concerned court to work out the modalities taking into consideration the facts of each case.

c) All mediation centres shall set up pre-litigation desks/clinics; give them wide publicity and make efforts to settle matrimonial disputes at pre-litigation stage.

K. Srinivas Rao Vs D.A. Deepa on 22 Feb 2013

Click here to read the other judgments cited in this order.

Citations: [2013 SCC 5 226], [2013 AIOL 118], [2013 AIR SC 2176], [2013 AIR SC 1396], [2013 MHLJ SC 5 10], [2013 SUPREME 2 80], [2013 SLT 2 338], [2013 SCALE 2 735], [2013 BOMCR SC 3 129], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 2 232], [2013 JT 3 97], [2013 MPLJ SC 3 567], [2013 SCC CIV 2 775], [2013 SCC CRI 2 963], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 179], [2013 ALR 97 732], [2013 ALD 3 11], [2013 AIC 124 228], [2013 CHN 2 92], [2013 MAHLJ 5 102013 BLJ 3 379], [2013 DMC SC 1 458], [2013 ILR KER 1 813], [2013 JLJR 1 443], [2013 KHC 1 6472013 SCR 2 126], [2013 LW 2 883], [2013 PLR 171 149], [2013 CDR SC 1 161], [2013 AD SC 3 4582013 MLJ SC 3 852013 AWC SC 3 2462], [2013 WBLR SC 4 412], [2014 WLN SC 4 132], [2013 CGLRW 1 484], [2013 BOMCR 3 129], [2013 AIR SCW 1396], [2013 MAH LJ 5 10], [2013 MHLJ 5 10], [2013 ILR KERALA 1 813], [2013 RCR CIVIL 2 232], [2013 JT SC 3 97], [2013 MPLJ 3 567]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14713882/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af30e4b0149711415c0f

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/k-srinivas-rao-vs-d-a-deepa

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: HM Act Sec 13 – Divorce Granted to Husband

Mr M Vs Mrs M on 7 February 2014

Amit Welangi Vs Nupur Welangi on 1 Jun 2018

Rekha Devi Vs Mahesh Kumar on 16 January, 2018

K.Srinivas Vs K.Sunita on 19 November, 2014

U.Sree Vs U.Srinivas on 11 December, 2012

Vishwanath Vs Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal on 4 July, 2012

Sangita Nigam Vs Saurabh Nigam on 22 November, 2017

Supriya Subhash Bhatmare Vs Shivanand Babaso Swami on 27th April, 2018

R.Natarajan Vs Sujatha Vasudevan on August 29, 2011

K.Srinivas Rao Vs D.A.Deepa on 22 February, 2013