A division bench of High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the wife committed mental cruelty upon husband and therefore granted divorce to husband. But Court also ordered payment Rs.15,000/- per month to wife as alimony.
From Para 24,
24. The appellant is a Doctor and as stated during the course of hearing, the respondent wife is a private teacher. Therefore, facing a criminal case would always castigate a stigma in the Society. The report u/s 498-A of the IPC cannot be used as a tool to teach a lesson to the family members of the husband as it may adversely affect the future prospects of a young professional and it may take long time to fill up the gap. Therefore, we are of the opinion that false accusations made by the wife against the entire family members under section 498-A would amount to mental cruelty and such conduct of respondent wife which inflicts upon the appellant husband such mental pain and suffering would make it not possible for her to live with the appellant husband.
Similar to this Order here, same (judge!) division bench of High Court of Punjab & Haryana passed this Order too. Again, abuser gets divorce and 10 lakhs!!!
In our view, once criminal litigation is initiated between the parties it leads to a point of no return. And if it is a false case filed by the wife merely to harass and humiliate the husband and his family, then the resultant bitterness rarely leaves any room or reason for reconciliation. A perusal of the judgment at Annexure A-1 whereby the appellant and his family members have been acquitted of the charges under Section 406, 498-A 120-B IPC shows that ld. Trial Court has returned very categoric findings holding that the prosecution entirely failed to prove its case. DW-1 Baljinder Singh has stated on oath that he had participated in the marriage between the parties as mediator and nothing was demanded by the appellant or his family from the respondent or her parents. The learned SDJM, Patti in his judgment of acquittal has returned the finding that no medico-legal examination was led by the respondent wife to prove the alleged beatings that she had received at the hands of the appellant and his father.
Citations:
Other Sources:
A division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court gave alimony to abuser, without any basis!!!
From last page of judgment, (total absence of any basis/reason)
Before parting, even though the parties have lived together in matrimonial home only for nine months, and even though there is no child from their wedlock, and even though during this litigation admittedly the appellant has already paid Rs. 23 lacs to the respondent as maintenance yet, we deem it fit to grant her permanent alimony of a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lacs only) as full and final settlement.
Note: Redacted the names of parties in the judgment and the title and tag of this page to mask the names of parties, upon the request of wife on 2024/04/13.
Citations:
Other Sources:
Index is here. The wife knocked on the doors of the Apex Court here.
A single judge bench held that Section 25 of HMA 1955 can be filed after passing of divorce decree.
From Para 14,
14. A conjoint reading of both the provisions, would reveal that both the sections in the Act of 1955 are enabling provisions and confer a right on the indigent spouse to claim maintenance either pendente lite or in the nature of permanent alimony and maintenance.
From Para 15,
15. The words applied in Section 25 of the Act of 1955 permit any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act, i.e. under Sections 9 to 13, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on an application made to it, by either of the spouse pay to the applicant for her/his maintenance, either gross sum or monthly or periodical sums for not exceeding the life of the applicant, having regard to the income and the other property, etc. The term used “at any time subsequent thereto” cannot be made redundant, by giving constricted meaning to the words “wife or husband”, applied in Section 25 of the Act of 1955 and this can be said so, in the wake of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 25, which empower the court to vary, modify or rescind the amount of permanent alimony and maintenance as awarded under sub-section (1) and, on existence of the circumstances set out in sub-section (3), order granting permanent alimony and maintenance can be varied and modified or rescinded as the court may deem just and proper.
Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 25 are thus indicative of the fact that if at the time of decree, an application is made or at any subsequent time of the passing of the decree, an application is made, claiming maintenance by either of the spouse, the court is empowered to grant the claim, which is just and proper and the payment can be secured if necessary, by creating charge on the immoveable property of the respondent. If sub-section (1) is given a restrictive meaning as attempted to be canvassed by Mr. Thombre, then the words used “at any time subsequent thereto” would become redundant, which cannot be the intention of the legislature. The legislature does not use the words in vacuum and when it specifically permits the exercise of power of granting permanent alimony and maintenance on the court exercising jurisdiction under the Act, at the time of passing of the order or at any time subsequent thereto, it is open for the court to grant such maintenance at the time of passing the decree or even subsequent to the decree being passed. The provision cannot be read to constrict it, if the relationship between the husband and the wife is severed and as per Mr. Thombre, on divorce, they no longer remain husband and wife. Section 25 is not only restricted to a decree of divorce, but the decree can also be for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9, the decree can also be for judicial separation under Section 10 or the decree can also be for divorce under Section 13 or the decree can also be for a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B. In the contingency other than the one covered by a decree of divorce, the parties are still husband and wife, when a decree for restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation is passed. The scope of Section 25, therefore, cannot be restricted by holding that on divorce / dissolution of marriage, the wife or the husband cannot bring such proceedings.
Citations :
Other Sources :
Hon’ble Supreme Court granted divorce to husband on the grounds of cruelty (constantly giving threats of suicide) and desertion by knife who is a patient of Bipolar Affective Disorder (A.K.A Chronic Paramoid Schizophrenia). Permanent alimony is granted in this case, God knows why.
Citations : [2012 SCC CRI 1 345], [2011 SCC 12 1], [2011 AIOL 731], [2011 SLT 7 317], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 4 534], [2011 SCALE 11 278], [2012 ALLMR SC 1 473], [2012 SCC CIV 1 685], [2011 GUJ LH 3 513], [2012 CTC 3 75], [2011 ULJ 4 85], [2011 LW 5 690], [2012 CHN 1 34], [2011 KLJ 4 528]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55665/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5767b12ae691cb22da6d5570
Index of Divorce judgments is here.
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
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.
Shortly after, he died from a failed liver transplant operation in 2014.
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
Listed here are various judgments where in Permanent Alimony is granted to Knife.
NOTE: This will be a running document, meaning, it will be frequently updated with judgments as and when I find them.
Supreme Court Judgments
Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgments
Orissa High Court Judgments
This is the Supreme Court judgment from Justice Dipak Misra and Deepak Verma observing clear case of causing Mental cruelty by Knife on Husband.
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
Bad Behavior has blocked 1480 access attempts in the last 7 days.
