DELHI HIGH COURT
Pradeep Nandrajog and Ms. Pratibha Rani, JJ.
Anurag Sharma —Appellant
versus
Manushi Sharma —Respondent
MAT. APP. (F.C.) No.94 of 2014
Decided on 10.11.2016
234 (2016) DLT 381 (DB); 2006 (2) Mh.L.J.307; 2007 (4) KHC 807; (1994) 1 SCC 337; (2006) 4 SCC 558 – Relied upon
Result: Appeal allowed.
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—It all began when Anil Sharma PW-2, a friend of the family of Anurag and a junior colleague in the office of the father of Manushi introduced the two families and Manushi’s mother sent an e-mail to Anurag’s mother attaching therewith Manushi’s bio-data Ex.PW-3/1. It was made known that after graduating in Honours in Commerce, Manushi had obtained a Masters Degree in Business Administration and was currently employed with a bank in Mumbai earning Rs.7.5 lacs per annum. The response by Anurag’s mother was by e-mail Ex.PW-3/1 (three e-mails have been exhibited as Ex.PW-3/1) enclosing therewith Anurag’s bio-data Ex.PW-1/D1; seeking birth details of Manushi, informing in the e-mail that the boy’s family was highly religious and believed in horoscope matching. The bio-data informed that Anurag had a Bachelors Degree in Commerce and a Masters Degree in Business Administration and was employed with ITC Ltd. at Kolkata. In response, Manushi’s father gave particulars of Manushi’s birth to Anurag’s mother vide e-mail Ex.PW-3/1.
2. It is apparent that the horoscopes matched and the proof thereof is the admitted case of the parties that along with their families, Manushi and Anurag met at Hotel Centaur in Delhi on April 19, 2008, followed by another meeting at Hotel Taj in Delhi on April 20, 2008, when the extended family of Manushi and Anurag; being a few cousins, uncles, aunts and grand-mother apart from their parents were present. Horoscope having matched, the elders of the family having interacted, the couple agreeing for a matrimonial union, the Roka ceremony was performed. Formal engagement took place on May 12, 2008 at Hotel Radisson, Noida.
3. It is apparent that the astrologer who matched Manushi’s and Anurag’s horoscope was a novice. The marriage between the two, which was solemnized on December 06, 2008, was turbulent and as we would be reverting back to the events post May, 2008 till the two got married, we note that the two separated on May 26, 2009. The marriage lasted for five months and twenty one days. Petition seeking annulment of the marriage by granting a decree for divorce was filed by Anurag on July 02, 2010 invoking Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. We find that in the caption of the petition annulment was prayed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but in the prayer reference is only to Section 13(1)(ia). Learned counsel for the parities were in agreement that annulment of the marriage was sought for on the ground of mental cruelty and was defended on said understanding of the petition.
4. After the engagement on May 12, 2008, Anurag went to Mumbai on May 18, 2008. The couple admittedly went to see a movie in Inorbit Mall, and suffice it to note that the first serious discord between the couple occurred on May 18, 2008.
5. Before noting the rival versions as to what transpired between the couple on May 18, 2008 it would be profitable to note that as per Anurag, on being informed that Manushi was employed with Yes Bank and since his job with ITC was transferrable and he was of the opinion that a successful career lady may not be able to have a happy consortium with him, he was hesitant to agree to the proposed marriage and disclosed to his prospective in-laws that he did not want a career oriented wife and was assured by them that Manushi was working only for passing time and was occupied till she got married. A fact obviously denied by Manushi and for which she places reliance upon her bio-data forwarded to Anurag’s mother in which it was clearly informed that she was a qualified professional working with a bank and earning a decent salary.
6. The event which took place on May 18, 2008 has two rival versions. Being in unison with the fact that the two went to Inorbit Mall to see a movie.
The two rival versions as to what happened at Inorbit Mall
7. As per Anurag, Manushi suddenly started shaking uncontrollably and behaved abnormally when the managemen
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.
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.