“Make prenuptial agreements mandatory”: Delhi court while granting no-fault divorce to couple
The Court stressed that refusal to grant divorce would force parties to suffer further and would amount to “law-induced mental cruelty.” A Delhi court recently said that prenuptial agreements should be made mandatory before entering into marriage so that parties to the marriage need not face law induced mental cruelty. Family Court judge Harish Kumar of the Patiala House Courts made the observation while granting divorce on no-fault basis to a couple who had been involved in legal battles for the last seven years. “Time has come to make compulsory prenuptial agreement to be executed before appointed authority after counseling of the parties about the possible risk of marriage going haywire for variety of reasons and making it mandatory to report breach every time breach occurs under intimation to the party allegedly at fault, making it further clear that if breach not reported he/she would not be heard later on that he/she…
Wife demanding to live separately from husband not always cruelty: Calcutta High Court
“Mere demanding to live separately cannot be said to be a cruelty of such degree which would invite the marital tie to be severed”, the Court said. A mere demand by a wife to live separately from here husband does not always amount to cruelty warranting the severance of marital ties, the Calcutta High Court recently observed. [Koushal Kumar vs Priyanka Kumari]. A division bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Prasenjit Biswas explained that there may be circumstances in which such a demand may be reasonable. In such a situation, both husband and wife have reciprocal obligations to understand the emotions and the circumstances that gave rise to such a demand, the judges added. “Mere demanding to live separately cannot be said to be a cruelty of such degree which would invite the marital tie to be severed. There may be circumstances for such demand which cannot be said to be unreasonable and therefore, it…
Live-in couple entitled to protection even if they are not old enough to marry: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Court made the observation while ordering police protection to a couple, where the male partner was 18 years old, but not old enough to marry. A couple in a live-in relationship is entitled to protection from threats by their relatives even if the partners in the relationship may not be of marriageable age, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled. [Gurdeep Kaur and another v. State of Punjab] Justice Arun Monga made the observation while ordering police protection to a couple, where the male partner was 18 years old, but not old enough to marry. The judge observed that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution was applicable to the couple, regardless of whether they were married or if they were of marriageable age. “The issue in hand, however, is not marriage of the petitioners, but the deprivation of fundamental right of seeking protection…
Parent denied custody of child should be given contact right via video call, not just visitation rights: Tripura High Court
“Unless there are special circumstances to take a different view, the parent who is denied custody of the child should have the right to talk to his/her child for 5-10 minutes every day,” the Court said. A parent who has been denied custody of child should be allowed not just visitation rights but also be granted contact rights to stay in touch with the child, preferably via video call, the Tripura High Court recently said. Children dragged into custody battles between estranged parents cannot be deprived of the love and affection of either parent, single-judge Justice Amarnath Goud opined. Hence, even if a parent is denied custody, such a parent should be given “maximum” visitation rights as well as “contact rights” to stay in touch with the child, the Court said. “In addition to ‘visitation rights’, ‘contact rights’ are also important for development of the child, especially in cases where both parents…
Husband bound to look after wife and children under law and religion: Karnataka High Court
“The husband is bound to look after wife and children. That is a duty which the law & religion to which the parties belong enjoins the husband with,” the Court observed. The Karnataka High Court recently observed that a husband has a duty to take care of his wife and children both in law and religion. Justice Krishna S Dixit made the observation while rejecting a Hindu man’s (petitioner) plea to reduce the maintenance payable by him to his wife and daughter. “The husband is bound to look after wife and children. That is a duty which the law & religion to which the parties belong enjoins the husband with,” the judge observed. The petitioner-husband had challenged a family court’s interim order directing him to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹3,000 to his wife and ₹2,500 to each for his two daughters as an interim measure in the pending case. The husband’s lawyer…
DHC: Repeated Complaints with Unexplained Allegations, Long Separation with almost an Impossible chance of Reconciliation, is Cruelty
The court upheld the divorce pronounced by the Family Court based on the wife’s cruelty against her husband. The case involved an appeal filed by a wife, seeking to set aside a judgment that had dissolved her marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on November 18, 2010, following Hindu rituals and ceremonies. However, the appellant claimed that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband, leading her to file complaints with the Crime Against Women Cell in 2011. She alleged that on March 5, 2012, she was brutally beaten by her husband and his family members, eventually being thrown out of her matrimonial home while pregnant. The respondent-husband had filed a petition seeking dissolution of the marriage, claiming that there were no children born out of the union. The Family Court framed several issues for consideration,…
Delhi High Court: Affair Evidence Relevant in Matrimonial Proceedings, Yet Insufficient as Sole Custody Criterion
The High Court of Delhi has pronounced a judgment in a complex custody dispute case that has garnered widespread attention. The case, known as MAT.APP.(F.C.) 132/2020, involved the custody of minor children and brought into question several crucial legal and moral issues. Background of the Case The case was initiated under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The appellant-mother appealed against the judgment passed by Sh. Rakesh Syal, Learned Judge, Family Courts, West, Tis Hazari, dated 22.08.2020. The judgment had granted permanent custody of the minor children to the respondent-father, while providing visitation rights to mother. The case revolved around allegations of an affair between the wife/mother and ‘CGA,’ as evidenced by WhatsApp chats and a video recording. These materials were presented by the father/husband, who had obtained the chats by hacking into her phone. The Family Court accepted these materials as evidence, citing Section 14 of the Family…
Delhi High Court Upholds Nullity of Marriage between Cousins
The Court upheld the nullity of a marriage between cousins under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This landmark judgment clarifies the legal position on such marriages and their validity under Indian law. The case in question, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 35/2023, involved a Grover couple, who were cousins and had married in December 1998. Their union resulted in the birth of a daughter in August 1999. However, Husband filed a petition seeking the nullity of the marriage, citing that it fell within the degree of prohibited relationships as defined in Clause (v) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The provisions of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act state that parties to a marriage shall not be sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits such a marriage. Sapinda relationships are defined as those extending up to the third generation through the mother and the…
Judicial Separation Cannot be for a Specific Period: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, consisting of Hon’ble Shri Justice Sheel Nagu and Hon’ble Shri Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani), delivered a noteworthy judgment that affects the lives of the Husband and Wife. This judgment pertains to First Appeal No. 1003 of 2019, filed by the Husband, and First Appeal No. 1405 of 2019, filed by the Wife. Both appeals stemmed from the same impugned judgment, leading to a consolidated decision. These appeals were filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,challenging the judgment dated 05/04/2019 passed by II Additional District Judge, Khurai, District Sagar (M.P.) in RCS HM No. 100060A/2015. In F.A. No. 1003/2019, the Husband sought judicial separation on grounds of cruelty, while in F.A. No. 1405/2019, the Wife challenged the same impugned judgment. She contended that the trial court had failed to consider her desire to live with her Husband. The court carefully examined the evidence…
Delhi High Court Affirms Interim Maintenance Order for Disabled Husband
In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court recently upheld an interim maintenance order for a disabled husband. The judgment, pronounced in the case, registered as MAT.APP.(F.C.) 133/2022, has garnered attention due to its implications for cases involving disability and maintenance in marriages. Background of the Case The case revolves around the marriage between a disabled husband and his wife, which took place on April 9, 2014. The couple had known each other since 2010 when they met at a gym. However, their married life faced significant challenges due to the husband’s disability. The husband had suffered a serious accident in 2011, resulting in the loss of his leg. During his hospitalization, his wife visited him regularly. According to the husband, he was pressurized by his wife to marry her in 2014. The marriage took place on April 9, 2014, but it was not without its difficulties. The husband…