Skip to content

Cases of Divorce

Case 1
Early morning he wanted VIOLENT SEX. When refused he asked 2 lakhs! Wife looses case & NO alimony to her! Madras HC.

Ablaa naari, the beacon of love, embodiment of culture has the following false allegations in addition to complaints about husband’s abuses and ill treatments“
(6) On 25.4.2003, the respondent-husband forced the petitioner-wife for sex in the early morning and when she was not willing, the respondent assaulted her severely and threw her from matrimonial home by saying that she was not useful for his sexual life and also asked to bring Rs.2 lakhs from her parents otherwise he will not accept her…..”
The Honourable HC are of the view that the petitioner/wife has not proved the alleged incidences of cruelty by her husband, considered  the petitioner wife is not entitled to any amount as permanent alimony since the petition filed by the petitioner/wife for divorce is not maintainable
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS C.M.A No.887 of 2010 and MP.No.1 of 2010 A.Sukumar Vs. K.S.Chitra. Dated 16-8-2012
Case : 2.
Filing false criminal cases, breaking & throwing mangalsutra, getting husband arrested, neglecting household, ill treating husband etc are cruelty. Divorce granted. P & H HC affirms lower court decree.
* Wife leaves matri home on many occasions * Wife breaks mangalsutra throws it on ground during quarrel * Wife has written letters to husband’s employer urging them to take action against husband * Wife files false 406, 498a case wherein the husband was arrested but the final outcome resulted in acquittal of husband and other accused by the trial court vide judgment dated 23.2.2013 * The Husband argues that “…acts of the appellant (wife in this appeal) in insisting upon the department to initiate action against the respondent and also to prosecute him for demand of dowry show that the marriage had irretrievably been broken and such acts of the appellant amount to cruelty and were sufficient to dissolve marriage between the parties…”
So the Hon HC summarizes that “……The primary question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the acquittal of the husband and his family members of matrimonial offences under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code would be sufficient to hold that it has caused mental cruelty to the husband so as to entitle him to a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Act….”
& the Hon HC concludes that “… Thus, the irresistible conclusion would be that the appellant-wife had treated the husband-respondent with cruelty….” and “…..Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to demonstrate that there was any error or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court which may warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs….”
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 262-M of 2006 (O&M) Dr.Anita Rani Versus Dr.Suresh Kumar Dated : 26-2-2015.
Case No. 3
When cruelty desertion alleged by wife NOT true, wife not caring, living away, she can NOT take advantage of own wrong Wife DENIED divorce !!
This is the sad case of a 56 year old woman and 58 year old male fighting in courts. The lady is seeking divorce and alleging that her husband has been cruel and has deserted her. The lower court dismisses her case. The matter moves to HC. The HC appreciates the arguments and states
We have given the Hon court’s reasoning with some empahsis / addendum in brackets () “….18. So, the evidence of R.W. 1 (husband) is that he never ill-treated the petitioner. P.W. 1 (wife) has clearly admitted that the respondent took keen interest as normal father towards his son and he only used to ask the petitioner for some money and he was in the habit of giving his salary cover to the petitioner. So, it is well-evident that the respondent never ill-treated the petitioner and he was very cordial to the petitioner and the petitioner only acted in an indifferent manner towards the respondent. R, W. 1 further says that when he met with an accident and sustained injuries, the petitioner did not attend to him, P.W. 1 has also stated that at one time, she removed the “Thirumangalyam” as she is employed. R.W. 1 has stated that the petitioner removed her “Mangalyam” and he was upset by it. No Hindu women will be so dare enough to remove the “Thirumangalyam” by herself. Her admission that she removed her “Thirumangalyam” goes to establish her indifferent attitude towards the respondent….” “….21. On going through the evidence of P.W. 1 and R.W. 1, we are clearly of the view that cruelty as alleged by the petitioner is not true and the petitioner is not entitled to divorce on either of the grounds. The Family Court has carefully analysed the entire evidence and has dismissed the petition. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Family Court…”
Madras High Court Sarada vs V. Satyamurthi on 4 December, 2000 Equivalent citations: I (2001) DMC 210, (2001) 1 MLJ 224.
Case No. : 4.
Suicide attempt as husband did NOT set up separate house is cruelty. Husband gets divorce ! Madras HC
* Wife attempts suicide on multiple occasions * She is taken to the Govt Stanley medical hospital and treated * She claims that she tried to commit suicide because husband refused to set up a separate house * Lower courts REJECT husband’s plea of cruelty * Madras HC appreciates the evidence and conduct of parties and concludes that the wife treated the husband with cruelty * Though desertion is NOT proven by the husband in this case, cruelty is proven and so divorce granted
Madras High Court A.P. Ranga Rao vs Vijayalakshmi on 26 September, 1988 Equivalent citations: I (1990) DMC 567
Case No. : 5.
Wife making false adultery allegations & filing complaints with husband’s employer is cruelty. Madras HC sees thru wife’s game

Wife making false adultery allegations & filing complaints with husband’s employer is cruelty. Wife also deserts husband using one pretext or other. Family court rejects husband’s divorce and allows wife’s RCR ! HC seeks wife’s game and orders divorce in favour of husband on both grounds cruelty and desertion! HC sets aside wife’s RCR !!
“….Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that all the allegations made by the respondent were not proved and on the other hand, the appellant’s case of cruelty was supported by evidence. In fact, one should only look at the counter affidavit filed by the respondent which itself would prove the acts of cruelty alleged by the appellant. The learned counsel made impassioned submissions regarding the ordeal suffered by litigants seeking reliefs under the Family Courts Act. He submitted that it is not as if litigants in India rush to the Family Courts without any excuse. Conciliation and mediation takes place at every level within the family, amongst the friends, within the community and only when everything fails that the litigants approach the Family Court and thereafter, there is very little scope for reconciliation. In this case, the appellant had been harassed by the respondent in the office and she had made wild allegations without any justification. She had made allegations regarding adultery, which was not proved, which itself is an act of cruelty and therefore, the Family Court had erred in accepting the case of the respondent. Learned counsel referred to several decisions in support of his submissions.
The Hon HC says “….In 2003 (4) L.W. 609, the Supreme Court held that aspersions regarding infidelity is the worst form of insult and cruelty and that a wife is likely to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it will be dangerous to live with a husband who was taunting her like that.
The Hon HC further states “…. 2005 (4) C.T.C. 287 : 2006 (1) L.W. 512 was a case where the parties had spent a good part of their lives in litigation and the Supreme Court defined the ingredients of desertion where the wife had insisted on the husband shifting from the village to the place where she was working; did not visit him on the death of her father-in-law, did not attend the wedding of her brother-in-law; and the Conciliation Officer’s report was that the wife was willing to live with the husband only if they live separately. In that case also, the Supreme Court, holding that the marriage was as good as dead and dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown…..”
Finally divorce is decreed in favour of the husband
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS C.M.A. Nos.2871 and 2872 of 2004 Nagappan Vs Virgin Rani Dated : 15-4-2009.