LAW OFFICE ONLINE

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 ----- whether a false allegation of impotency is an act of cruelty to create a ground for divorce ----- Held: the unproved allegations of the wife that the husband was impotent for about six to seven months from the marriage was rightly weighed by the Family Court to hold that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty by making false and baseless allegations against him ----- no husband would like to hear that he was impotent for about 6 to 7 months after the marriage, if that was not true ----- Divorce granted in favour of the husband.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13  -  Whether the award of permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- by the Family Court to the respondent(wife) was legally and factually sustainable -- Held: It is really unfortunate that neither the Family Court nor the High Court kept in mind these legal principles and passed cryptic and unreasoned orders -- Such orders undoubtedly cause prejudice to the parties and in this case, it caused prejudice to the appellant(husband) because the orders of the High Court and Family Court deprived him to know the reasons for fixing the permanent alimony amount of Rs.15,00,000/- payable to his wife – Impugned order of the High Court and the order of the Family Court insofar as it relates to fixation of permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- are set aside.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 125 – Precondition for grant of maintenance -- Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to the wife -- The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her.

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; S. 9 ----- Giving in Adoption by biological mother to her newly married husband after divorce from the biological father of the child without consent of the biological father -----Whether possible ----- Right of giving son or daughter in adoption is impermissible to be exercised by either of them without consent of the other, unless one of them has renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind - ---- However the Court noticed that the biological father took no responsibility of the child ----- Held: in view of complete detachment of the biological father from the child who did not perform any of the fatherly duties, the mother cannot be restrained from lawfully including the child in her new family -----will be permitted to give Master Lakshya in adoption to respondent no.1 for which purpose giving and taking ceremony in adoption shall be performed and a deed of adoption shall also be executed and registered in terms of section 16 of the Act, 1956.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 ----- Whether during pendency of Divorce Suit the wife has right to reside at her husband’s residence ----- Wife has been residing at a rental accommodation ----- She is employed ----- Held: once a matrimonial suit has been filed, the wife has no right to have a force entry in the house of her husband against his will if she is provided with maintenance by the husband ----- Allegation that the wife tried to enter the house of the husband forcibly with the help of the local people -----Held: The sole object of the respondent was to frustrate the suit by contending that she had been staying in the same room as husband and wife and she has actually taken such plea in this proceeding ----- We, however, do not believe such assertion of the wife after taking into consideration the fact that the she has initiated proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code during the pendency of the suit and all the members of the family were arrested ----- No reasonable person will believe the statement of the wife that the husband is staying with her notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case where charge has been framed and he is an accused person along with other members of the family.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 – Validity of Divorce Decree passed by Foreign Court – Held: The present decree dissolving the marriage passed by the foreign court is without jurisdiction according to the Act as neither the marriage was celebrated nor the parties last resided together nor the respondent resided within the jurisdiction of that Court -- The decree is also passed on a ground which is not available under the Act which is applicable to the marriage -- the decree has been obtained by the 1st appellant by stating that he was the resident of the Missouri State when the record shows that he was only a bird of passage there and was ordinarily a resident of the State of Louisiana – Such divorce decree cannot be taken into consideration.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 – Validity of Divorce Decree passed by Foreign Court – Rules framed are The jurisdiction assumed by the foreign court as well as the grounds on which the relief is granted must be in accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married. The exceptions to this rule may be as follows: (i) where the matrimonial action is filed in the forum where the respondent is domiciled or habitually and permanently resides and the relief is granted on a ground available in the matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (ii) where the respondent voluntarily and effectively submits to the jurisdiction of the forum as discussed above and contests the claim which is based on a ground available under the matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (iii) where the respondent consents to the grant of the relief although the jurisdiction of the forum is not in accordance with the provisions of the matrimonial law of the parties.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 – Divorce on the ground of cruelty against wife – Wife attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene without any reason – Observed that no husband would ever be comfortable with or tolerate such an act by his wife and if the wife succeeds in committing suicide, then one can imagine how a poor husband would get entangled into the clutches of law, which would virtually ruin his sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his entire life -- The mere idea with regard to facing legal consequences would put a husband under tremendous stress – Held: Only this one event was sufficient for the Appellant husband to get a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty;

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 –; Wife’s claim to get separated from her in laws and to live separately with husband -- Observed that In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family – A wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage -- No husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income – Held: The persistent effort of the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband;

Information Technology Act, 2000; S. 72 -- Whether recording of telephone conversation of wife without her knowledge is admissible in evidence
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 – Whether recording of telephone conversation of wife without her knowledge is admissible in evidence – Held: Recording of conversation without her knowledge is an infringement of her right to privacy – Bar in Section 72 of the Information Technology Act -- The tapes cannot be admitted in evidence but it may be kept on record.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 125 – Whether qualified unemployed wife is entitled to get maintenance – Held: well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged, if the society wants to progress -- Putting extra financial burden on the husband are to be discouraged.

Special Marriage Act, 1954; S. 27 and 28 – Conversion of the contested Divorce suit to Mutual Divorce – Held: the learned Judge ought to have allowed the petitioner’s application for conversion. He did not do so on wrong notion that he did not have the power to do so. In other words he declined to exercise his jurisdiction thinking that he had no such jurisdiction when in fact, he had the jurisdiction to allow the application for conversion.