The case unfolds the precedent on the issue of whether the son of Hindu tradition can live separately with his wife at his wife’s discretion. The Delhi High Court then observed that if the wife insists on living separately with her husband and followed with no valid reasons then this will amount to cruelty with no aim of divorcing her husband but to only live separately. The bench of JUSTICES NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA AND SURESH KUMAR KAIT made the above observation.
With this the High Court after all the observation about the family court order and considering the appeal of rejecting the plea of the husband for getting a divorce, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Digging into the facts in 2000 of November the couple tied the knot and in 2003 they were blessed with 2 children. The wife then went to her home and came back but then in July 2007 she went, the court made the observation that the husband was unable to present her wife’s intentions about residing with him or not and even he had a lack of evidence to present.
Looking for the wife’s presentation of facts she had no objection to divorce and the court said that the wife since 2007 was not fulfilling the conjugal rights of the marriage and had no intention to come live with her husband. Then, the Family Court looking into the facts allowed the husband to go further with the filing of the divorce.
NAME – LAKSHIKA TOMER, COLLEGE – CHANDERPRABHU JAIN COLLEGE OF HIGHER STUDIES, GGSIPU, AN INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA
0 Comments