Back
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
Pankaj Shukla – Appellant
Versus
Deepak Chaturvedi – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, the following key points can be summarized:
The parties were married on 18th April 2008 according to Hindu rites and rituals (!) .
The respondent-husband filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, alleging that the appellant-wife left the matrimonial home shortly after marriage to pursue her studies and later her law practice, and that the marriage was never consummated (!) (!) .
The appellant-wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights, asserting her willingness to cohabit with the respondent-husband (!) .
The Family Court allowed the respondent-husband’s petition for divorce and dismissed the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights; this decision was upheld by the High Court (!) (!) .
Both courts observed that the parties have been living separately since December 2008, nearly seventeen years, and that no matrimonial bond remains, with the respondent-husband having remarried (!) (!) .
The courts found that pursuing the marriage further would serve no purpose given the long separation and the absence of genuine intent to restore the relationship (!) .
Despite the divorce decree, the respondent-husband is required to pay permanent alimony to the appellant-wife. Considering their financial positions and circumstances, a lump-sum amount of ₹50,00,000 is deemed just, fair, and reasonable (!) (!) .
The respondent-husband is directed to pay the alimony amount within three months, and the appellant-wife is to furnish her bank details for the transfer (!) (!) .
The appeals are disposed of with the divorce decree upheld and the alimony payment ordered as specified (!) .
All pending applications are disposed of accordingly (!) .
These points encapsulate the core legal and factual findings of the case, emphasizing the long separation, the finality of the divorce, and the financial settlement ordered.
JUDGMENT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order dated 27th March 2023 in D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 1605/2019 and 1604/2019 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The appellant-wife is before us challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, whereby the Family Court allowed the respondent-husband’s petition for divorce, which the High Court has upheld by the impugned order.
3. The facts giving rise to the present case, briefly, are as follows:
3.1. The parties were married on 18th April 2008 according to Hindu rites and rituals.
3.2. The respondent-husband alleges that the appellant- wife left her matrimonial home on 22nd December 2008 as she wished to study for the judicial services examination but later started her practice as an advocate.
3.3. On 21st December 2012, the respondent-husband filed a petition under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Hereinafter, “HMA”] before the Family Court, seeking a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. He pleaded that the marriage was never consummated and that the appellant-wife refused to join him at Pali as she wa
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
