Shivi Bansal VS Gaurav Bansal

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

RAJIV SHAKDHER, AMIT BANSAL
Shivi Bansal – Appellant
Versus
Gaurav Bansal – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Prateek Goswami, Mr. Dhiraj Goswami and Mr. Shashank Goswami, Advocates
For the Respondent: None

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Rajiv Shakdher, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.06.2024 passed by Mr Manish Khurana, learned Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

2. The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the fact that the application moved by her under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [in short, “CPC”] was dismissed.

3. Counsel for the appellant/wife submits that the divorce action instituted by the respondent/husband against the appellant/wife was pivoted on three grounds, i.e., cruelty, adultery, and desertion.

4. It is the submission of the counsel for the appellant/wife that in so far as the desertion is concerned, the pre-requisites of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [in short, “HMA”] were not fulfilled. In other words, it is emphasized that divorce on the ground of desertion is available only if the appellant/wife would have deserted the respondent/husband for not less than two (2) years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.

5. It is, thus, asserted by the counsel for the appellant/wife that since the appellant/wife had lived and cohabited with the respondent/husband till July 20

Click Here to Read the rest of this document