Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The courts should make all efforts to try and dispose of matrimonial matters within 1 year so that in the event of granting such a decree, the parties may re-structure their lives.
“Developing any disease during the continuation of marriage is not within the control of any spouse. In such a situation, the other spouse has a marital duty to co-operate and bear with it and help the other spouse.”
When the husband had left the matrimonial home and he is residing away and there is an allegation of second marriage on the husband, the wife cannot be blamed for not taking steps to restore the conjugal rights
The primary object of a Habeas Corpus petition, as applied to minor children, is to determine in whose custody the best interests of the child will probably be advanced.
Kerala High Court noted that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a claim for divorce in the first place because the enactment was made for resolving disputes related to family affairs and marriage recognized by law.
Rajasthan High Court observed that the DNA Paternity Test requires to be conducted only in exceptional cases, and therefore, the child cannot be used as a weapon to get divorce on ground of adultery, on the strength of outcome of a DNA Paternity Test.
It was stated that decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in Naresh Gundyal v. State on same issue, defeats the very object of S. 498-A, IPC and Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
May 2023 was quite an eventful month, as the Supreme Court of India, in only 14 working days, delivered more than 100 judgments, including 4 important Constitution Bench matters and also concluded the hearing in the momentous Marriage Equality matter. While 2 judges retired and 2 joined the Bench, 3 judges due to officially retire during summer vacation, also sat in bench for the last time.
The Court was hearing a case where a wife had lodged a complaint alleging cruelty by her husband and in-laws, after a divorce petition had already been filed by the husband.
Allahabad High Court said that the Court below has adopted a hyper technical approach and passed the dismissal of the husband’s divorce petition
Delhi High Court observed that an inadequately drafted agreement will be one that fails to include essential elements such as the name of all the relevant parties, the terms outlining the conditions of settlement, and the consequences in the event of non-compliance or breach.
This ruling is significant in the light of the judgment dated 01-05-2023, wherein the Constitution Bench had held that the Supreme Court has the power to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India.
Trial Court is not barred from granting maintenance from the date of the order if there are circumstances and reasons for doing the same
The right of privacy claimed by the husband vis-à-vis the prayer of the wife to seek assistance of the Court for production of records to substantiate her charge of adultery levelled against the husband in her petition seeking divorce was the question before the Delhi High Court.
Supreme Court observed that in cases where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitation, then continuation of such a ‘marriage' would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other.
Madras High Court said that after divorce when the spouses have ceased to be husband and wife, proprietary right of both the spouses also get affected.
Given the expansive amplitude of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, the exercise of power must be legitimate, and clamours for caution, mindful of the danger that arises from adopting an individualistic approach as to the exercise of the Constitutional power, observed the Supreme Court
Delhi High Court observed that an ex parte decree of divorce also it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again if no appeal is filed against such decree within the period of limitation.
The Supreme Court also held that the mandatory waiting period of 6 months for divorce by mutual consent can be dispensed subject to requirements and conditions laid down in previous Supreme Court judgments.
