Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, R.POORNIMA
Albin – Appellant
Versus
Yakkobu Pavul @ Ganesan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R. POORNIMA, J.
The Appellant/1st respondent/Wife has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the fair order and decretal order dated 30.04.2019 passed in I.D.O.P.No.207 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil.
2.Brief case of the petition before the lower Court is as follows:
(a) The petitioner and the first respondent are Christians. Their marriage was solemnized on 23.06.1996 according to Christian rites before the Marriage Registrar, Thoothukudi. Out of the said wedlock, two male children were born, namely, Arun Ashick on 17.11.1997 and Arun Ajay on 23.07.2002.
(b) After the birth of the children, the first respondent developed illicit intimacy with the second respondent and began living in adultery with him. Thereafter, on 09.09.2009, the first respondent left the matrimonial home along with the two children. On the very same day, the first and second respondents entered into a marriage agreement before the Sub-Registrar Office, Parasala, vide Document No.1031/2009, and started living together, thereby deserting the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed to grant divorce.
3. The respondent denied all the allegations contained in the petition, i
Established grounds for divorce include corroborative evidence of adultery and desertion, which override claims of coercion regarding marriage agreements.
The appeal court affirmed that substantial evidence of cruelty and adultery justified the husband's divorce petition, while mere allegations against him lacked sufficient proof.
The court held that the divorce petition lacked sufficient evidence of mental cruelty and desertion, and that the litigation initiated by the wife for the protection of her rights could not be consid....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proof of cruelty and desertion under Section 13 (1) (ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Long separation and refusal to cohabit constitute cruelty under the Indian Divorce Act, allowing for divorce without proving adultery post-2019 amendment.
The court concluded that unchallenged testimony constitutes admission and can validate claims of cruelty in divorce proceedings.
Clear evidence is required to prove adultery in divorce cases; mere suspicion is insufficient for granting relief.
The burden of proof lies with the party making the allegations, and without sufficient evidence, the court cannot grant a divorce.
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
