Back
P. B. BAJANTHRI, JITENDRA KUMAR
Bharat Prasad Gupta S/o Baidyanath Prasad Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Asha Devi D/o Jhulan Prasad Gupta – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed impugning the Judgment dated 20.09.2018 passed by Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran at Bettiah in Divorce Petition No. 117 of 2018/CIS No 78 of 2013 whereby the petition of the appellant filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been dismissed on contest.
2.1 The case of the Appellant/Plaintiff as per the pleading is that the marriage between the Appellant/Plaintiff and the Respondent-Wife was solemnized on 28.05.2005 as per Hindu rites and customs and out of the wedlock two female children Khusi Kumari and Anchal Kumari are born, who were, at the time of presentation of the petition, five years and three years of age respectively.
2.2 It is alleged that right from the beginning the behaviour of the Respondent-Wife was cruel towards Appellant/Husband and his family members. As per further allegation, the Respondent-Wife used even to behave with the Appellant schizophrenically. The family members of the Appellant could not tolerate the behaviour of the Respondent-Wife and hence, they separa
M. Gananath Pattnaik VS State Of Orissa - 2002 1 Supreme 545: This case is categorized as bad law (or at least reversed/overruled in the context of the proceedings) because the summary states: "Courts below erred in convicting the appellant for it. He is entitled to benefit of doubt." Errors by lower courts coupled with an entitlement to the benefit of doubt typically indicate a reversal of a previous conviction.
Pawan Kumar Pandey VS Sudha - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1287: Followed/Cited. The text references *Rameshwari Gupta* and *Vinita Saxena* as authorities that were considered to frame questions and reach determinations. Pawan Kumar Pandey VS Sudha - Current Civil Cases (2024): Followed/Cited. Similar to the above case, it relies on *Rameshwari Gupta* and *Vinita Saxena* as established precedents. Sanjay Kumar Shaw Son of Sri Ganga Prasad Shaw vs Anjali Kumari Shaw Wife of Sri Sanjay Kumar Shaw - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 644: Followed/Cited. Explicitly cites *Rameshwari Gupta* (supra) as a standing authority for the matters at hand. Roshan Pandey, Son of Shree Ram Pandey vs Poonam Devi, Wife of Roshan Pandey, Daughter of Devendra Sharma - 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1401: Cited. References *Rameshwari Gupta* as a relevant authority. XXX vs YYY - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2349: Cited. States "It is well settled in the case of Ram Prasad vs.", indicating the case is being used as established precedent. Ramchander VS Ananta - 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 185: Established Doctrine. Defines current legal standards for mental cruelty ("Mental cruelty has to be inferred from a cumulative view..."). Vinita Saxena VS Pankaj Pandit - 2006 2 Supreme 662: Established Doctrine. Sets out core principles for nullification of marriage and definitions of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Kollam Chandra Sekhar VS Kollam Padma Latha - 2013 7 Supreme 78: Established Doctrine. Clarifies the legal interpretation of Schizophrenia under Section 13(1)(iii). A. Jayachandra VS Aneel Kaur - 2005 1 Supreme 626: Established Doctrine. Defines the threshold of 'grave and weighty' conduct for cruelty. Samar Ghosh VS Jaya Ghosh - 2007 3 Supreme 26: Established Doctrine. Elaborates on specific behaviors that constitute mental cruelty. Debananda Tamuli VS Kakumoni Kataky - 2022 3 Supreme 29: Established Doctrine. Sets the test for desertion (factum of separation and intention to desert). Amitkumar Madhusudan Bagdia vs Shritika Amitkumar Bagdia - 2026 0 Supreme(Bom) 128: Categorized as a current judicial ruling. It grants divorce based on specific conduct and clarifies evidentiary standards (WhatsApp messages) and the concept of condonation. Mohit Saxena VS Pratibha Saxena - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2168: Clarification of Statute. Explicitly states that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is "not a statutory ground" under current law, thereby rejecting an argument for its inclusion. Savitri Pandey VS Prem Chandra Pandey - 2002 1 Supreme 90: Jurisdictional/Limitation Ruling. Rules on the scope of Article 142 regarding "dead marriages" and suggests legislative reform, implying the current law does not support the appellant's request.
Shiv Sagar VS Poonam Devi - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2194: This entry is a fragment ("whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the divorce case..."). It is unclear if the dismissal was upheld or if this is the case currently under appeal/review; therefore, the judicial status relative to higher courts is ambiguous.
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
