MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Even District Judge needs 17 years to get his divorce

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

[S.A. BOBDE] AND [L. NAGESWARA RAO] JJ.

OCTOBER 09, 2017

CIVIL APPEAL No. 7186 of 2016

SUKHENDU DAS …. Appellant

Versus

RITA MUKHERJEE …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

  1. The Appellant and a Respondent are District Judges operative in a State of West Bengal. Their wedlock was achieved on 19th June, 1992 as per a Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). A lady child was innate out of a nuptials on 14th April, 1993. There was matrimonial conflict between a Appellant and a Respondent and they were vital alone given a year 2000. The Appellant filed an focus underneath Section 27 of a Act seeking a divorce.
  2. The Appellant purported that a differences arose given of a crude function of a Respondent in not display due honour to his bum father. It was serve purported that a Respondent forlorn him and refused to give a control of a child to him. The Appellant serve averred in a focus that a Respondent did not revisit him even when he was severely ill. The Respondent is indicted of regulating unstinting denunciation and melancholy a Appellant with filing of rapist cases if he perused a petition for divorce that he due in a year 2005.
  3. The Respondent filed a created matter denying a allegations done in a focus filed by a applicant for divorce. She refuted all a averments in a focus and sought for exclusion of a focus for divorce. The Respondent did not attend in a record before a hearing probity after filing a created statement. The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta by a visualisation antiquated 6th August, 2009 discharged a focus for divorce. The Appeal filed opposite a pronounced visualisation was discharged by a High Court of Calcutta on 4th April, 2012. The Respondent did not find to seem before a High Court also. The exactness of a visualisation of a High Court is assailed in a above Appeal.
  4. After referring to a pleadings in a case, a hearing probity found that a Appellant unsuccessful to infer cruelty on a partial of a Respondent. The justification adduced by a Appellant was scrutinized by a hearing probity to come to a end that a Appellant did not make out a box for divorce. The High Court, holding note of a fact that a Appellant and a Respondent are legal officers, done an try for conciliation between a parties. However, in annoy of a bid of a High Court, both a Appellant and a Respondent did not seem privately before a High Court. Despite holding note of a fact that a Appellant and a Respondent were vital alone given a year 2000, a High Court discharged a Appeal by holding that unrecoverable relapse of wedlock can't be a belligerent for divorce. The High Court hold that a Appellant unsuccessful to infer mental cruelty on a partial of a Respondent.
  5. Notice was released to a Respondent on 8th October, 2012 to try a probability of an gentle fortitude to a matrimonial dispute. The parties were destined to seem before a Mediation Centre of a Supreme Court on 21st November, 2012. The Respondent did not seem before a Mediation Centre in annoy of use of a Notice. She chose not to seem before this Court. Fresh Notice was systematic on 17th August, 2015 though a Respondent did not seem in annoy of receipt of Notice again.
  6. Mr. Raja Chatterjee, schooled warn appearing for a Appellant submitted that a Respondent forlorn a Appellant about 17 years behind and she refused to come behind and live with him. Apart from a claim of desertion, a schooled warn also purported mental cruelty on a partial of a Respondent who threatened a Appellant in a year 2005 that she would get a rapist box filed opposite him if he did not stop attempts to get a divorce. The schooled warn serve submitted that a Appellant and a Respondent have been vital detached due to matrimonial conflict given 17 years and for all unsentimental functions a wedlock has damaged down.
  7. The Respondent, who did not seem before a hearing probity after filing of created statement, did not respond to a ask done by a High Court for personal appearance. In annoy of use of Notice, a Respondent did not uncover any seductiveness to seem in this Court also. This control of a Respondent by itself would prove that she is not meddlesome in vital with a Appellant. Refusal to attend in move for divorce and forcing a appellant to stay in a passed wedlock would itself consecrate mental cruelty [Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 [para101 (xiv)]]. The High Court celebrated that no try was done by possibly of a parties to be posted during a same place. Without entering into a doubtful contribution of a case, we are of a opinion that there is no odds of a Appellant and a Respondent vital together and for all unsentimental functions there is an unrecoverable relapse of a marriage.
  8. This probity in a array of judgments has exercised a fundamental powers underneath Article 142 of a Constitution for retraction of a wedlock where a Court finds that a wedlock is totally unworkable, emotionally dead, over deliver and has damaged down irretrievably, even if a contribution of a box do not yield a belligerent in law on that a divorce could be postulated [Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, (2010) 4 SCC 393 [para 11]]. Admittedly, a Appellant and a Respondent have been vital alone for some-more than 17 years and it will not be probable for a parties to live together and there is no purpose in constrained a parties to live together in wedlock [Rishikesh Sharma v. Saroj Sharma, (2007) 2 SCC 263 [para 4 and 5]]. The daughter of a Appellant and a Respondent is aged about 24 years and her control is not in emanate before us. In a rare contribution of this box and in sequence to do finish probity between a parties, we concede a Appeal in practice of a energy underneath Article 142 of a Constitution of India, 1950.
  9. For a aforementioned reasons, a Appeal is authorised and a focus for divorce filed by a Appellant underneath Section 27 of a Act is allowed.
READ  Domestic Violence Act protect Mother­in­law and Sister­in­laws also

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2019 MyNation KnowledgeBase
eXTReMe Tracker
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

READ  Domestic Violence Act protect Mother­in­law and Sister­in­laws also
Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh