Divorce & Restitution of Conjugal Rights - If a spouse abuses the other as being born from a prostitute, this cannot be termed as “wear and tear” of family life. - Summoning the police on false or flimsy grounds cannot also be similarly viewed. - Making it impossible for any close relatives to visit or reside in the matrimonial home would also indubitably result in cruelty to the other spouse. - After a cursory discussion of the evidence which the Trial Court had discussed threadbare, the High Court was not justified to set aside the conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court without giving substantiated reasons. - 2015 S.C. msklawreports



The Trial Court 
 The Appellant has deposed  that
when his sister came to the U.S., she initially  stayed  with  him  and  the
Respondent.
 However, the Respondent did not like having her  in  the  house,
so she locked the Respondent and his sister out of the  house,  was  abusive
towards them and told them that they  belonged  to  a  “prostitute  family”.
Eventually the Appellant’s sister was constrained to stay at  a  Lodge.
The
Respondent claimed that the dispute was because her sister-in-law  tried  to
make her join her diamond business, which she did not want to do.
The  Trial
Court found no truth in the argument of the  Respondent,  in  light  of  the
fact that she has no  background  or  knowledge  of  the  diamond  business.
Furthermore, the Appellant has deposed that when his  brother  came  to  the
U.S. to study, he also initially stayed at the Appellant’s  house.
However,
it is in evidence that the Respondent called the Appellant at work  alleging
that his brother was knocking  on  her  door,  thus  implying  that  he  was
behaving in an untoward manner.
She abused the Appellant and his  family  in
the presence of his brother and threatened to file a police  complaint.
The
Appellant  has  deposed  that  he  was  forced  to  make  his  brother  stay
elsewhere.
In a subsequent event,  the  Appellant  informed  the  Respondent
that his parents would be coming to the U.S.
The  Respondent  was  verbally
and physically abusive, and called the police  alleging  domestic  violence.
The Appellant was given a warning by  the  Police.
The  Respondent  claimed
that the incident took place because the  Appellant  was  having  an  affair
with a woman named Solai.
She claimed that he  took  her  to  Solai’s  house
that evening and then wanted to go back at night, which is  why  she  called
the police.
The Trial Court has justifiably highlighted that  summoning  the
police was serious because the  Appellant  was  in  a  foreign  country  and
didn’t know the laws and procedure.
Further,  the  allegation  that  he  was
having an  affair  was  not  accepted,  as  it  was  unbelievable  that  the
Respondent had previously not told anyone about Solai and  further  that  it
never came up du ring the attempted compromise between the families  of  the
two parties.
The Respondent claimed that after having the  child,  she  came
to live with the Appellant, which the Appellant denied.
The Respondent  also
alleged that while she was living with the Appellant’s family,  his  parents
took the child who was only three months old away  for  six  hours.  By  the
time they brought him back, he was unconscious due to starvation.
When  the
Respondent questioned them about this, they asked her  to  leave  the  house
with the child, even though it was late in the night.
The Trial Court  found
this allegation entirely unbelievable. Her allegation  that  the  father  of
the Appellant started misbehaving  with  her  and  went  to  the  extent  of
pulling her hands was also found to be false.
The  Trial  Court  also  took
into consideration the voice mails and emails from  the  Respondent  to  the
Appellant, which were not treated as  the  main  evidence  but  as  evidence
intended to substantiate the oral evidence. 
It was held  that  the  evidence
and the submissions of the Respondent indicate that  she  was  unwilling  to
live in the Appellant’s house in Chennai, and that she wanted him  to  leave
his family in India and live in the U.S. with her.
It is pertinent  to  note
that the Appellant had lost his job in  the  U.S.  and  was  unemployed  and
consequently had to  set  up  residence  in  Chennai.  
 In  light  of  these
circumstances, it was found that the Respondent is not entitled to  conjugal
rights. An order of dissolution of marriage was passed and  maintenance  was
fixed at Rs. 25,000 per month.

The High Court,
 however, held that the Appellant’s allegations in  his
divorce petition were no more than “the ordinary wear and tear”  that  takes
place in a marriage.
It observed that the Appellant did not give details  of
the events of abuse by the Respondent towards  his  family  or  the  cruelty
that was meted out  to  him  in  the  U.S.  in  his  main  petition  or  his
subsequent counter affidavits.
It was only after filing  the  petition  that
the Appellant had produced copies of the abusive voicemails  and  emails  he
received from the Respondent. 
The High Court noted that the Trial Court  did
not need to strictly adhere  to  hard  and  fast  rules  while  entertaining
evidence, but nevertheless held that the Trial Court had acted in  haste  in
allowing the Appellant’s allegations.
The High Court found  that  the  Trial
Court, instead of considering whether the Appellant had established  cruelty
by adducing evidence, took  certain  answers  from  the  Respondent’s  Chief
examination and cross-examination out of context and held  that  a  case  of
cruelty  was  made  out.  
The  High  Court  stated  that  in  a  matrimonial
relationship, parties must be prepared to subject themselves to  the  normal
wear and tear of life, and that the situation  at  hand  was  no  more  than
that.  
The  divorce  petition  was  thus  dismissed  and  the  petition  for
restitution of conjugal rights was allowed.

Apex court 
If a spouse abuses the  other as being born from a prostitute, this cannot be termed as  “wear  and  tear” of family life.  - Summoning the police on  false  or  flimsy  grounds  cannot
also be similarly viewed. - Making it impossible for any close  relatives  to visit or reside in the matrimonial home would  also  indubitably  result  in cruelty to the other spouse.  -
After a cursory  discussion  of  the  evidence which the Trial Court had discussed  threadbare,  the  High  Court  was  not justified to set aside  the  conclusions  arrived  at  by  the  Trial  Court without giving substantiated reasons. - 2015 S.C. msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more