T. AMARNATH GOUD, S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Pramila Ghosh (Guha) – Appellant
Versus
Anup Kumar Guha – Respondent
JUDGMENT
T. Amarnath Goud, J. - The respondent as a petitioner instituted T.S.(Divorce)247 of 2017 in the learned Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura against the appellant for decree of divorce and for dissolution of their marriage mainly on the ground that the appellant by filing criminal proceeding treated cruelty with the respondent and also on some other grounds as mentioned in the petition for divorce. The appellant by filing written statement contested the matrimonial proceeding challenging the maintainability and also denying allegations of the respondent and also by stating that the appellant always ready and willing to reside with the respondent and she was treated with cruelty and was harassed in regard with maintenance matter and also the respondent deserted her. After trial, the learned Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura passed the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2021 in T.S.(Divorce) 247 of 2017 granting decree of divorce in favour of the respondent against which the appeal is preferred.
2. The respondent as the petitioner under Clause (ia) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 against the appellant for decree of divorce and dissolution of
Judicial separation serves as an appropriate remedy over divorce in cases of mutual consent among senior parties facing prolonged domestic discord.
A marriage can be dissolved on the grounds of cruelty and desertion when a spouse has left without justification, coupled with claims of mental disorder.
The court upheld the divorce decree citing cruelty and desertion while establishing the obligation for permanent alimony, barring further maintenance claims upon payment.
Refusal of sexual relations may constitute mental cruelty in divorce cases, yet sufficient evidence is essential to substantiate such claims for a decree.
Unsubstantiated claims of cruelty do not justify overturning a divorce decree, especially when separation and mutual conflicts exist.
Cruelty, as defined under the Hindu Marriage Act, allows for divorce when prolonged separation and mutual hostility inflict emotional pain, rendering cohabitation intolerable.
The burden of proof for cruelty and desertion lies with the petitioner, and failure to substantiate claims results in dismissal of the divorce petition.
Occupational constraints do not justify divorce claims under mental cruelty; the possibility of reconciliation is vital, focusing on child welfare.
Divorce – Both parties living separately since long, that by itself would not be a ground for dissolving marriage in absence of there being any such provision in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The court ruled that mere separation does not justify divorce without evidence of cruelty or desertion, emphasizing the burden of proof lies with the applicant.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.