Law Center
Husband Cannot Expect Wife Living In London To Return To India & Fulfil Her Matrimonial Duties
11 March 2020, Gujrat HC
Case:
• The couple hails from Madhapar town near Bhuj in Gujarat
• They got married in the year 2009
• After living with the husband briefly, the woman left for London and gave birth to their daughter
• The daughter is currently studying at a school in the Kingsbury area of UK
• The husband too decided to accompany his wife after a while
• However, following an acrimonious relationship, he returned to India
• In 2015, the wife filed a domestic violence case against her husbandand in-laws
• In 2016, the woman also filed for divorce in the family court of Bhuj, however, herself withdrew the same in 2017
Bail is rule and jail is exception
8 March 2020
A forgery case was registered against the accused in 2012. The police filed a closure report in 2013. But five years later, a Judicial Magistrate ordered further investigation. He was thereafter arrested in January 2019. His first bail application before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was dismissed. The second was dismissed as withdrawn.
Meanwhile, the police reinvestigated the case and submitted a second report stating that no offence has been committed by the appellant and he deserves to be discharged. After filing of this closure report, the accused filed yet another bail application before High Court, on the grounds that the second closure report has not been accepted by the Trial Court and that appellant has failed to point out whether material witnesses have been examined or not.
While allowing the appeal filed by the accused, the court said:
"The High Court ought to have kept in view that `Bail is rule and jail is exception'. There is no gainsaying that bail should not be granted or rejected in a mechanical manner as it concerns the liberty of a person. In peculiar circumstances of this case where closure report was filed twice, the High Court ought not to have declined bail only because the trial court was yet to accept the said report. Further, the examination of witnesses would depend upon the fate of 2nd closure report. Considering the nature of allegations attributed to the appellant and the period he has already spent in custody, we are satisfied that he deserves to be released on bail forthwith."
Personal liberty is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative; Bail allowed in POCSO
3 March 2020
The High Court allowed a bail application filed for grant of regular bail in connection for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(n) of the Penal Code and Section 5(1)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
The FIR was lodged by the father of the victim on 26-09-2018 with the allegations that his daughter told him about the mental and physical harassment given by the applicant/accused since 2014. The victim had mentioned about applicant had taken few photographs for which he was blackmailing and harassing her along with abusing her on the phone and forcing him to make physical relations with him. The counsel for the applicant, Vinod Sharma submitted that applicant was an innocent person; no date or month of the physical relations had been mentioned in the FIR; according to the medical report dated 27-09-2018, no sexual intercourse had been committed with the victim in last few days; no said photographs were produced by the prosecution; no rape or sexual intercourse had ever been committed by the applicant on the prosecutrix; in medical report dated 27.-09-2018, no sign of rape had been found and there was no swelling, no injury, no bleeding; the applicant has no criminal history; he was in custody since 27-09-2018; prosecution had not filed so far any reliable certificate of date of birth of the victim.
The Court while allowing the bail relied on the judgment of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 where the Supreme Court had observed that the personal liberty was a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the present case the attendance of the accused could be secured without having him to be put in custody.
SC Dissolves Two-Month Marriage After 16-Yrs | Invokes Irretrievable Breakdown As Ground For Divorce
19 Dec 2019, Sc of India
Indian marriages may be for seven lives, but the process of getting a contested divorce in India is no less than that! The system unfortunately is based on either parties proving the fault of the other and does not yet recognise irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce in India.
In it’s recent judgement, the Supreme Court dissolved a marriage by exercising its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, since a wife kept contesting divorce even after 16-years of separation from the man
Case:
• The appellant and the respondent got married in accordance with Hindu rites in the year 2000
• The parties co-lived for a period of only two months, after which the respondent-wife went to Canada, where she eventually obtained citizenship in 2002
• The appellant alleged that the respondent went to Canada without his consent
• The respondent returned to India only after she got her Canadian citizenship in 2002
• Even after coming back, there were continuous quarrels between the parties
• Owing to the same, Panchayat had intervened and further asked the parties to reside separately from their family
• However, this solution did not prove to be effective as well
• Subsequently, the respondent left for Canada again
• This prompted the appellant husband to file for a divorce Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty before the lower Court
• The appellant contended that the loneliness and lack of co-habitation had caused him extreme physical and mental torture
• The husband also stated that despite his reluctance to go to Canada, he had signed the immigration papers in order to save his marriage
• However, the papers were never submitted
• In fact, the appellant stated that the respondent herself had reached Canada on improper travel documents
• The respondent, in her arguments, blamed the appellant for abandoning her and made various other allegations relating to dowry, physical assault and extra-marital affairs
• She also claimed that she was forced to have an abortion when she was taken to a doctor once
• The appellant denied this allegation and stated that the respondent was never pregnant
• After hearing the arguments from both sides, the Additional District Judge granted a decree of divorce against which an appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab
• Aggrieved, the appellant-husband filed an appeal before the Supreme Court
• The respondent-wife, in the meanwhile, expressed consent to continue to staying with the appellant
The Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph passed a judgment after taking note that the Supreme Court has earlier invoked its inherent powers under Article 142 to grant a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage
The top Court took note that this was done”not only in cases where parties ultimately, before this Court, have agreed to do so but even otherwise”