While hearing the Shri Rakesh Raman vs. Smt. Kavita case, the Supreme Court said that the continuation of broken down marriage would only cause cruelty on both sides. A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia opined that dissolution of the marriage would affect only the two parties as there was no child out of the wedlock. Moreover, the bench was further informed that the appelant’s present salary was more than Rs.1,00,000/ per month. The top Court deem it fit and proper to give an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/ to the respondent/wife as permanent alimony. The bench further ordered to deposit the amount within a period of four weeks.
In this case, the appeal arises out of a divorce proceeding initiated by the appellant. The couple barely stayed together as a couple for four years and were living separately for the last 25 years. There was no child out of wedlock and the matrimonial bond was completely broken and beyond repair. The suit was decreed and the marriage was dissolved by the Order of the Additional District Judge (North). The respondent/wife, then, filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court which set aside the order of the Trial Court and dismissed the petition of the husband. The appellant’s case was that his wife was not happy in their small dwelling, and used offensive, even abusive language against him. The respondent denied that she ever ‘deserted’ her husband or inflicted any cruelty on him. The respondent’s counsel submitted that she only took recourse to legal avenues available to her under the law.
The High Court stated that “the respondent did not allow her husband to enter his house on 29.11.1998, would not prove that it was her intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end and therefore the ground of dissolution of marriage on desertion were not made out.” It further highlighted that the mere filing of such complaints, or their result in acquittal would not amount to cruelty, as the wife was only exercising the options available to her under the law. Thus, the High Court opined that the mere filing of criminal cases against the appellant's husband would not constitute cruelty. The matter was then presented before the top Court where a two-judge bench allowed the appeal stating that “Continuation of this ‘marriage’ would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other.”
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments