The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  - Section 25

Divorce by mutual consent - In the suit of maintenance/permanent alimony - Family court determined the income of the husband as Rs 1,40,000/- per month fixing the amount of permanent alimony at Rs 20,000/- per month - Appeal - High court confirmed the order passed by family court as an alternative measure fixed the amount of permanent alimony at Rs. 40 lakh in lum sum - Appeal by the wife appellant u/s 25 (3) of the Act - Future prospects of respondent - Fix the amount of maintenance at Rs 40,000/- per month in the alternative permanent alimony/maintenance at Rs 40 lakhs - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Topic Index

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  - Section 13

Divorce by mutual consent - Respondent withdrew her consent - Petition dismissed - Appeal by appellant - High Court - Dismissed - Appeal - Whether consent once given in petition for divorce by mutual consent - Can subsequently withdrawn by one of the parties - Yes - Whether Court can grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent - When consent has been withdrawn by one of parties - No - A mandatory requirement of law - No Court can pass a decree of divorce in absence of that - Though there is bitterness amongst parties - Not even lived as husband and wife for past 11 years - Even they will give this union another chance - If not for themselves - For the future of their daughter - Appeal dismissed - No costs.

Found In:  Topic Index, Imp. Decision, Judgement

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  - Section 13

Divorce - Filed by the husband on the ground of cruelty - Trial Court holding that husband remained unsuccessful in proving that wife treated him with cruelty - Observations of the trial Court affirmed by Single judge of HC - HC Concluded that both parties were at fault, and granted relief to the husband by passing a decree for judicial separation - Division Bench set aside the judgment and granted decree of divorce to the husband - Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court concluded that behaviour of the husband as well as the wife falls short of the standard required to establish mental cruelty - No compelling necessity, before the Division Bench to justify reversal, of the decree of judicial separation - Order of the Division Bench set aside - Appeal allowed - no costs.

Found In:  Topic Index, Judgement

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Order IX Rule (13)

Setting aside decree ex-parte - Against defendant - Appellant/husband filed a case - Divorce - Against the respondent/wife - Refused to receive the notice of Court- Service vide publication -Affixation proceeded ex- parte - Marriage was dissolved - Respondent, after 4 years of the ex-parte decree of divorce - Moved an application for setting aside - Trial Court dismissed - High Court allowed application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, 1908 - Reversed order of the trial Court - Appeal - No case of respondent/wife - That there had been a fraud or collusion between the appellant and the postman - No document summoned from post office - No attempt to examine postman - Nobody's case "National Herald" daily newspaper - Did not have a wide circulation in Delhi or in the area where the respondent/wife was residing with her brother - High Court not set aside material findings - In respect of service of summons by process server/registered post and substituted service - High Court not consider the grounds on which - Trial Court dismissed the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC - Impugned order by High Court set aside - Trial Court restored - Appellant directed to pay Rs.10 lakhs to respondent - As a lumpsum amount of maintenance to her - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Imp. Decision, Judgement

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  - Section 13 , Section 28

The Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Petitioner-wife and respondent-husband were married two daughters born - Grievance ADJ passed decree of divorce within eight days from presentation of first and second Motions u/Section 13-B(1) of HM Act, 1955 - Petitioner-wife filed a suit for declaration seeking a declaratory decree that respondent obtained decree by fraud - Respondent-husband filed an appeal in High Court - Appeal allowed - Aggrieved respondent-wife filed review petition dismissed - SLP before Supreme Court - Short question for consideration regard to custody of two children - First daughter aged about 17 years second daughter aged about 11 years - Both living with father and in his custody - Both of them want to continue to live with their father and they do not want to go with their mother - Children forcibly taken away from father and handed over to mother affect their mental condition and it will not be desirable in the interest of their betterment and studies - Matter relating to custody of children - First paramount consideration is welfare and interest of child - Not the rights of parents - Interest and welfare of children if they continue to be in custody of father - Providing visitation rights to mother - If visitation rights for visiting her children once in a fortnight is ordered - Petitioner-wife willing to withdraw all civil and criminal cases - Both residing at Delhi - Respondent-husband directed to bring both daughters to Supreme Court Mediation Centre at 10 a.m. on Saturday of every fortnight and hand over both of them to the petitioner-wife - Mother is free to interact with them and take them out and keep them in her house for overnight stay - It is also clear - If visitation is not workable due to attitude of any party - Counsel for them free to mention - Ordered Accordingly.

Found In:  Judgement

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Order IX Rule (13)

Setting aside decree ex-parte - Against defendant - Appellant/husband filed a case - Divorce - Against the respondent/wife - Refused to receive the notice of Court- Service vide publication -Affixation proceeded ex- parte - Marriage was dissolved - Respondent, after 4 years of the ex-parte decree of divorce - Moved an application for setting aside - Trial Court dismissed - High Court allowed application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, 1908 - Reversed order of the trial Court - Appeal - No case of respondent/wife - That there had been a fraud or collusion between the appellant and the postman - No document summoned from post office - No attempt to examine postman - Nobody's case "National Herald" daily newspaper - Did not have a wide circulation in Delhi or in the area where the respondent/wife was residing with her brother - High Court not set aside material findings - In respect of service of summons by process server/registered post and substituted service - High Court not consider the grounds on which - Trial Court dismissed the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC - Impugned order by High Court set aside - Trial Court restored - Appellant directed to pay Rs.10 lakhs to respondent - As a lumpsum amount of maintenance to her - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  - Section 156 (3)

Treated as complaint - Order challenged - High Court set aside - Remarks against Magistrate - Non applying judicial mind - Appeal by Magistrate - Set aside - Judicial Discipline- Higher forum not to make remarks - Restrained from making.

Found In:  Judgement

The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956  - Section 7

Suit for partition to get the one half share in the suit properties of adoptive father - Trial Court and lower Appellate Court holding that the suit properties were ancestral and that plaintiff was validly adopted by his adoptive father and he became coparcener in the family of adoptive father - Suit decreed for 1/3rd share in the suit properties to plaintiff - Finding regarding adoption of plaintiff confirmed by Ld. Single Judge - Ld. Single Judge further holding that lower appellate Court not justified in issuing a direction that plaintiff be given the land in village and adoptive mother would not get any share in that land - Appeal against - Presence of adoptive mother in the ceremonies of adoption was only as a mute spectator and not as an active participant - None of the witnesses stating that adoptive father had consulted with adoptive mother or taken her in confidence and the later had given her consent or agreed to the adoption of plaintiff or that she had taken prominent part in the adoption ceremonies - No evidence on record to prove that adoptive mother was a signatory to the adoption deed or that she was present at the time of execution and/or registration of adoption deed - No evidence to show that after execution of the deed of adoption, adoptive mother was made aware of the same or a copy thereof was made available to her - It cannot be assumed that adoptive mother was aware of the execution and registration of the deed of adoption and she deliberately omitted to challenge the same - Consent of the adoptive mother not obtained as per mandate of the proviso to Section 7 of the Act of 1956 - Held that adoptive mother succeeded in proving that the adoption of plaintiff by his adoptive father was not valid - Suit filed by plaintiff not maintainable - Impugned orders of the lower Courts set aside - Suit dismissed.

Found In:  Judgement

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 302 , Section 120-B , Section 304 , Section 34

Murder - Right of self defense - Conviction - Accused hitting the deceased with a hammer on his head causing death - Conviction by Trial Court - Appeal against - Prosecution failed to establish any motive to commit crime - Doctor examining the deceased declared hostile - Inconsistent pleas taken by the accused - High Court acquitting the accused of the charges u/sec. 302 read with 120-B for committing the murder of the deceased - Supreme Court observing that High Court did not consider incriminating circumstances - Accused did not explain as under what circumstances the deceased suffered the grievous injuries on the vital parts of his body - Nature and number of injuries on the body of deceased establishing that accused exceeded right of self defense - High Court showed misplaced sympathy towards accused - One accused personally went to nearby hospital and not only got the deceased admitted in the hospital but donated their own blood to save his life - Thus, in spite of the fact that they committed the offence they did not intend to kill the deceased - Impugned order of High Court set aside - Trial court order modified to the extent that accused held guilty under Section 304 Part-II r/w Section 34 IPC - Sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment each.

Found In:  Judgement

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  - Section 12 , The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005  - Section 12 , Section 23

Suit for annulment of marriage - During the pendency of the case, an application under Section 13-B(1) of the Act, 1955 filed seeking divorce by mutual consent - Parties moved another application to waive the statutory period of six months in filing the second petition rejected by the Family Court on the ground that such a waiver was permissible only under the directions of this Court - Petitioner could not explain as to how the case for divorce could be filed before the Family Court, Delhi during the pendency of the case for divorce before the Gurgaon Court - Procedure adopted by the petitioner amounted to abuse of process of the Court - Petition dismissed.

Found In:  Judgement