Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts: The appellant is the first wife of the respondent. The wife lived with her husband for a lawful months. After that she went to reside with her father. The wife alleged that the husband had beaten her often and ill-treated her and ultimately drove her out of the house, He married a second wife and on her death he married another. The wife complained that it was not possible for her to live with her husband. The husband denied ill-treatment by him. According to him the wile's father took her away from the husband's house and would not send her back though the husband had gone to the father-in-law's place several times to bring her back. The father-in-law desired that the husband should become a 'gharjawai' (similar to an illatom son-in-law) and to this the husband would not agree. Since the wife would not come to reside with her husband, he married a second wife who subsequently died. Later he tried again to bring the wife but the father-in-law would not send her. According to the husband, he was all along and even now willing to maintain the wife and treat her well at his house.
Held: I hold on the findings that the wife voluntarily went away from her husband and is not justified in living apart from him merely because the husband married again when he was and is willing to receive and maintain her with him. She cannot invoke Cl. (4) which is not declaratory of the pre-existing law in respect of supersession prior to the Act.

Facts: The husband made repeated approaches personally, through his relations and also by sending her letters requesting her to come back home, but she persistently expressed her inability to do so. On 28-8-1984, the wife gave birth to a female child named Varsha, now about three years old. The husband sent a letter telling the wife that he would wait for at the station and would love to take her home. The wife did not reply to that letter. The petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the husband against the wife. Another petition was filed against the father for wrongfully witholding the husband's wife.
Held: There was nothing on record to show that wife ever complained of ill-treatment by husband and his family members to her father. Further, wife merely expressed fond hope and invited Husband to her arms but did not clearly expressed any desired to go to Husband. Further, where a wife submits herself meekly to dictates of her father and had no courage to disobey and leave parental house to go to husband, she is guilty of willful neglect. Moreover, Husband made all possible efforts to persuade and bring back wife to his home and even after setting totally frustrated, made last attempt by filing petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, conduct of wife amounts to 'willful neglect' on her part proved within meaning of Section 13(1) of the Act. Thus, decree of divorce passed by Trial Court against wife under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act was right. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Facts: The allegation of the husband was that his marriage with the respondent was solemnised 12/13 years ago. Whereafter, they continued to live happily in village Gohar. After few years, behaviour of the wife became abnormal. She started picking-up quarrels on one pretext or the other and also showing disrespect to the family members. On one occasion, she even went to the extent of levelling false allegation that her father-in-law intended to have illicit relations with her. She also started levelling false allegations of alleged misbehaviour towards her by the husband and other family members and that of not providing necessary amenities and getting hard work from her as also neglecting her. The other ground was desertion, for which it was alleged that the wife had deserted the husband (for a continuous period of more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition). Petitioner alleged that in the year 1975, he fell ill and his condition started deteriorating day-by-day. The respondent wife instead of discharging her marital obligations of looking after him, left his house and she even did not pay a visit to him at Bilaspur hospital where he was under treatment. She thereafter did not come back and declared that she had no intention of doing so. The petition was contested by the wife. It was asserted by her that she had been treated with cruelty by the husband. It was due to the act and behaviour of the husband and the other members of the family that she was forced to leave her marital home and live with her parents. She in fact was turned out from the house since the husband-petitioner wanted to get rid of her as she could not bear a child. It was the conduct of husband-petitioner which forced her to move petition before the Gram Panchayat for grant of maintenance. A specific plea was raised by her that the husband had earlier filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act seeking decree for restitution of conjugal rights. After having withdrawn the said petition, now the present petition had been moved which act on the part of the husband itself was sufficient to refuse him any relief.
Held: The rules of the Court further require a party to the petition to make specific averments about the previous litigation, under the Act, if any, mentioning the purpose of taking of the same and the result thereof but in the present case the husband deliberately avoided to make any reference to the previous petition under Section 9 of the Act which he had admittedly taken out and which had been dismissed as withdrawn. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that because of the condonation of the act of cruelty, the husband was not entitled to a decree for divorce in view of clear provision of Clause (b), Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act.

Facts: The husband filed a complaint for divorce in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Divorce Division (U.S.A.) alleging that the husband and wife (present appellant) stayed together at Ahmedabad till 30-12-1972, and thereafter the wife deserted the husband without any reason or cause and started living with her parents, and though several attempts were made there was no result. It is the case that the wife resisted the said complaint and made accusation against the husband. The husband is not entitled to take advantage of his own wrong. It is claimed that the husband was sponsored by the brother of the wife to go to U.S.A. for studies. The husband stayed there up to 1974 and studied in Chicago and got a job there. As the husband did not call the wife, somewhere in March 1976 the wife went to U.S.A. with her father at her own costs and went to Chicago with her younger daughter and met the husband. The husband, however, refused to keep them as he had illicit relations with one Miss Jullie. The wife has admitted that the husband had come to Ahmedabad in 1972 and the parties lived together, but denied that she deserted the husband on 30-12-1972 and failed to communicate about the normal day-to-day affairs or that the wife failed to carry out the marital obligations or that she told the husband that she was not prepared to live with him. It was further asserted that the County Court of Illinois held that the husband had deserted the wife and also held that the wife had conducted herself as a good, faithful and affectionate wife, and the decree passed by the said County Court for legal separation was on the basis of the counterclaim filed by the wife, and the claim of the husband for divorce was dismissed.
Held: Allegation of the wife was that she went to America but the husband did not respond and she had to stay separately. Her application for maintenance and for legal separation was granted, showing the husband to be the defaulting party. So now when the husband relies on that decree for legal separation, he cannot say that ignoring that decree for judicial separation he should be considered to be a faithful husband and the wife should be considered to be an erring wife, and the decree for judicial separation should be passed. From the facts and circumstances of the case 1 am not prepared to concede to this case of the husband. Apparently it seems that he has no desire to continue the marital relations with the wife. He is keen in getting divorce, whether it is for marrying with Miss Jullie, as alleged by the wife, or for any other purpose, and for that he has made all attempts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the findings of the learned trial Judge against the husband are not justified. In the result, however, I come to the conclusion that the order of dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce passed by the learned trial Judge is quite justified. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Facts: The petitioner/father is a Surgeon and the mother is working as a nurse. They got married on 10.10.2008. It was an inter-caste and a love marriage, which was not approved by the parents of the mother. The child Mukta was born on 8.10.2009. The Court in its order had directed the parents to submit a joint parenting plan. It is submitted that the correct method was not adopted by the learned trial Judge to take forward the idea of joint parenting plan which is based on the report of the Law Commission submitted on 25.5.2015.
Held: Ideas of custody have changed due to economic, social developments. Parenting Plan is mutual arrangement of custody and access which is outcome of matured parenting. It was easy to grant access for longer time to mother, who was not residing in her matrimonial home. Custody of child shall at present essentially remain with father because child had stayed and had been brought up in house of father. However, parents shall have equal say on attending school meetings and on deciding child's education, day schedule, hobby classes without taxing child. Appeal partly allowed.

Facts: The parties were married in the month of February, 1980. After the marriage, the respondent has been living with the petitioner in a house constructed by her parents. Two sons (twins) were born out of the wedlock in the month of May, 1981. The petitioner alleges that the respondent, who is a habitual drunkard, has been maltreating her since 1982. According to the petitioner, the respondent returned home at about 9 a.m. on July 12, 1986 drunk. He asked for the custody of the children since he wanted to go away with them. When the petitioner refused to oblige, he tried to forcibly snatch away the children. On July 13, 1986 at about 9.30 a.m. the respondent once again tried to take away the children along with the belongings. The petitioner alleges that she thereupon locked the house. The respondent reported the matter to the Police who directed her to unlock the premises. The Petitioner was also summoned to the Police Chowki the next day, that is, on July 14, 1986. According to the petitioner, on July 15, 1986, the children were ultimately taken away by the respondent. The respondent has filed a return refuting the allegations made against him and resisting the petition. His version is that he was humiliated by the parents of the petitioner on a number of occasions. On July, 12, 1986, he was asked to leave the house. He, therefore, decided to leave the house with his wife and children. The petitioner, however, refused to go with him and he was not even allowed to go into the house to collect his belongings. He thereupon went to the Police Chowki and reported the matter to the Police. On July 14, 1986, he took the children along with him to the house of one of his colleagues who resides in the BBMB quarters. According to the respondent, he has applied for the allotment of Government accommodation which was expected to be allotted very soon. Besides, he had also started constructing a house on the land belonging to the parents of the petitioner which he intends to occupy no sooner it is completed. The allegations that he is a drunkard and that he is unable to take care of the children have been stoutly denied.
Held: a. The best interests of the minors requires that their custody be given to the petitioner, we have passed the order allowing the petition. The petitioner will ensure that they continue to attend the nursery school till they attain the age when they can be admitted to a regular school and that as and when they attain such age, they will be admitted to the regular school. We are also of the view that the best interests of the minor children require that they should not be altogether deprived of the paternal affection and company and, therefore, direct that the respondent will be provided access to the minor children by the petitioner at her parents house between 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on every Saturday. The respondent will not, however, take the children out and will not by an act or omission on his part create any situation which has the direct or indirect effect of disturbing the sense of security and emotional balance of the children and the domestic harmony.
b. It is well established that the writ of Habeas Corpus can be pressed into service for granting the custody of a child to the deserving spouse. "It is further well established in England that in issuing a writ of habeas corpus a court has power in the case of infants to direct its custody to be placed with a certai n person. 'When an infant is brought before the Court by habeas corpus, if he be of an age to exercise a choice, the Court leaves him to elect where he will go. If he be not of that age, and a want of direction would only expose him to dangers or seductions, the Court must make an order for his being placed in the proper custody.'

Facts: Learned Principal Judge ought involved the police force to take custody of the minor child when the minor child was completely unwilling to live with the respondent-wife because it would cause bad impression on the growing girl i.e. the minor child and it would jeopardize the health and progress of the minor child.
Held: I am of the view that the petitioner/original opponent has deliberately flouted and disobeyed the orders of the court below and with a view to prolong the said issue i.e. to keep the minor child present as far as possible and hence the initial order of notice dated 18.10.2011 and later on the order to keep the minor child present have not seen light of the day in its proper perspectives. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has rightly observed in the case referred above that the issues relating to custody of minors and tender-aged children have to be handled with love, affection, sentiments and by applying human touch to the problem. In view of the above, the orders under challenge mentioned in para 8 (A) to the petition appears just and proper and in my view, the attempt made by the petitioner to overreach the process of law cannot be tolerated for a second. There appears no substance in this Special Civil Application and accordingly the same is dismissed.

Facts: It has been alleged that the petitioner was very much interested to settle her family life for this reason, she agreed to live together with the respondent as husband and wife, despite many differences. She joined the company of her husband at Shimla, but the respondent did not stop torturing her and ultimately the two cases were filed between that period. Hence, the petitioner was compelled to leave in the matrimonial house and went to her parents house at Pragpur, District Kangra. The respondent and his parents took the custody of the male child with them and the custody of minor girl child is with the petitioner. The transfer of the cases has been sought primarily on the ground that she neither has finances nor the capacity to bear the expenses, as she is totally dependent upon her parents who are retiree. Therefore, it will be impossible for the petitioner to visit Shimla time and again to effectively contest the above said petition. It has been averred that her minor girl got admission in a School in the same vicinity, as also the daughter of the petitioner is not keeping good health and cannot live without mother (petitioner). Further it has been averred that Shimla is at a distance of about more than 250 Kms from Pragpur and it is not possible for the petitioner to visit Shimla on each and every hearing and bear the expenses.
Held: Petitioner was residing at long distance from jurisdiction of Trial Court with her minor girl who is studying in school there. In such circumsatnces, it is convenience of Petitioner wife which was required to be considered over and above inconvenience of husband. It was convenience of wife that has to be looked in cases relating to transfer of matrimonial proceedings. Petitioner has made out case for transfer of petition. Petition allowed.

Facts: The (R1)wife left matrimonial home shortly after the birth of the son (R2). The wife filed an application for interim maintenance under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of herself and the minor son. The Family Court awarded interim maintenance to the Respondents. The Appellant-husband challenged the Order of the Family Court. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and affirmed the Judgment passed by the Family Court. This Court issued notice to the wife and directed the Appellant to file his Income Tax Returns and Assessment Orders. He was also directed to place a photocopy of his passport on record. By a further Order, the Appellant was directed to make payment of the arrears towards interim maintenance to the wife and a further amount which was due and payable to the wife towards arrears of maintenance, as per his own admission. By a subsequent Order, it was recorded that only a part of the arrears had been paid. A final opportunity was granted to the Appellant to make payment of the balance amount, failing which, the Court would proceed under the Contempt of Courts Act for willful disobedience with the Orders passed by this Court. In the backdrop of the facts of this case, it was fit to frame guidelines on certain aspects pertaining to the payment of maintenance in matrimonial matters.
Held: The Judgment and order passed by the Family Court, affirmed by the High Court for payment of interim maintenance to the Respondents was affirmed by this Court. The husband was directed to pay the entire arrears of maintenance within a period of twelve weeks from the date of this Judgment, and continue to comply with this Order. The Court also gave directions regarding enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced Under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (sic1955); Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and Section 128 of Code of Criminal Procedure, as may be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it had become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there was uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. It was directed that where successive claims for maintenance were made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or set-off, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount was to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding.