Last Updated on April 25, 2020 by Legalseva.net
Here in this post, we will analyze five most recent judgments on the topic of Divorce so that you can have knowledge on the subject and take conscious decisions regarding your future of marriage. Divorce is definitely not a pleasant decision in life but if it becomes the only solution to have mental peace then for survival, it comes a necessity otherwise you will be drained in a failed marriage for sure.
Let’s have the judgments here.
Also Read- Send Legal Notice for a Divorce
1 Munish kakkar v. Nidhi kakkar.
Date of decision: December 17, 2019.
The application has been allowed without following the principles of section 311 Cr.P.C.
The determination of income of the husband is the most material aspect of the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C to determine the extent of liability to pay the maintenance of the wife. The discretion under section 311 Cr.P.C to summon any witnesses or to recall or reexamining any person already examined can be exercised if it appears essential to the just decision of the case. It will be premature to express any opinion that the income tax returns for the year 2009 to 2012 are not essential for the just decision of the court. No ground is made out for interfering the order. He had obtained the divorce under the district judge. But the said divorce has been set aside by high court in appeal. Now the SLP filed by the petitions is pending in Supreme Court. He has submitted that the respondent wife is a Canadian citizen and herself a lawyer. It has been urged that by misusing her status as an Advocate, she is filing frivolous application to delay the proceedings. The sole point required to be determined in the present petition is regarding the validity of order summoning a witness from income tax department to prove the income tax returns which appears to be necessary in just decisions. The pendency of other matrimonial litigation between the parties appears to be irrelevant for adjudication of this revision petition.
Also Read- Calculating Maintenance During Divorce
2 Soumitra Kumar Nahar v. Parul Nahar.
Date of decision: 18 January, 2020
Bench: Honorable Dr Chandrachud, Ajay Rastogi.
Appellant: Soumitra Kumar Nahar
Respondent: Parul Nahar
Leave granted
High court declined the father’s visitation right to meet his daughter, at the same time accepted the visitation of his son during the divorce petition. Supreme court of India observed that parental responsibility does not end even when there is a breakdown of the marriage . this observation was set in the context of a matrimonial dispute pertaining to the custody of the children- with the court brokering an interim agreement to be followed by the parties.
The court’s observation on parental responsibilities is a reaffirmation of principles it has been reiterated on numerous occasions. It arrives at this observation by placing the children are victims in all custody battles, and any and all decisions ought to be taken in the best interests of the child. Hereinafter, these are referred as the core principles of decision.
Also Read- Interim Maintenance Under Divorce Act
3 Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan
Date of decision: 20 January, 2020.
Bench: Deepak Gupta, Anirudda Bose
Appellant: Yashita Sahu
Respondent: State of Rajasthan.
Leave granted
Issues of the case:
Yashita sahu and varun varma got married on 30.05.2016 in India. They went to USA were the husband works. A daughter born to them, later their relationship got strained and wife give the petition for divorce and also for the custody of minor child in Norfolk juvenile and domestic relation district court. Court ordered for maintenance of wife and daughter and decided the parenting time of both father and mother is fixed. But after some months wife along with the child left USA and came to India. Father filed a writ petition in high court of Rajasthan
Court ordered wife to return back to USA as the proceedings are in pending and also directed husband to do necessary arrangements for wife with child and any companion.
Wife filed the appeal in Supreme Court.
Respondent arguments: wife is the one who approached the court initially and also she signed an agreement of sharing the parenting. Court directed her not to leave USA with the child. She violated all this. He also states that he is even ready to live with his wife and he is not interested in the divorce. He also submitted that, in modern parenting; the father can be the natural guardian of his minor daughter. He promises to bear all expenses and make necessary arrangements for stay and travel of his wife with daughter and with any companion.
Court decision: court made two options for wife.
First one is go to America along with her daughter and the husband will make necessary arrangements according to the affidavit presented by husband
Second is if she does not inform the counsel within 1 week, counsel presumes she is not ready to go USA. The child shall handover to husband and one of the parents of husband should stay with them. Husband shall make necessary arrangements for child to see her mother twice in a year in vacation time.
Also Read- Mutual Divorce Procedure in Easy Steps
4 Sanjeev kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor
Decision date: 19, February 2020
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, K M Joseph.
APPELENT: Sanjeev Kapoor
Respondent: Chandana Kapoor
Appeal dismissed.
An application under 125(1) of the Cr.P.C was filed by appellant against her husband for maintenance of her son and daughter along with the divorce petition. Court ordered a sum of 25000/- month for maintenance and they signed the divorce petition with terms and conditions. Later husband gives maintenance of 25000/- for four month and later refused to send money. later wife filed an application under Cr.P.C for the enforcement of the order. Additional principal Judge of family court rejected the order and held it not maintainable as the order is conditional and they have not performed accoding to the condition.
Arguments: according to section 362cr.p.c court cannot alter or review the judgment except to correct a clerical or arithmetic mistake. And which is contrary to the decision of principal judge family court.
High court rejected the appeal.
Supreme Court also rejected the appeal and clarified. Sec 362 cr.p.c do not prohibit court the magistrate to pass the next order. The appeal is dismissed.
Also Read- Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Divorce Free Legal Advice
5 Kriti Vijayvargiya v. Rahul Vijayvargiya.
Date of decision: 28 February, 2020
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineeth saran
Petitioner: Kriti Vijayvargiya
Respondent: Rahul Vijayvargiya.
Transfer Petition disposed in foresaid terms.
Both the parties and their advocates are presented in the court. The set an agreement and signed upon certain terms and conditions. According to the settlement agreement they cancel out all cases filed against each other, which includes Domestic violence Act, inter alia and filed under sec 125 of criminal procedure code. Husband the 2nd respondent of the case agrees to pay 11, 50,000/- to wife, the petitioner for the full settlement of the case. Both decide to live independently as they were young.
Also Read- Best Advice related to Divorce/Marriage/ Matrimonial Disputes/Alimony/Domestic Violence
For case specific advice, please call best/top/expert Divorce Lawyers in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Baltana Kharar Mullanpur Derabassi etc in Punjab Haryana High Court.
This post is written by Swetha Ravidas.
For more call on 99888-17966.
