Matrimonial Property Act

Statutes of Nova Scotia

NOVA SCOTIA-CANADA

Matrimonial Property Act amended 1995-96, c. 13, s. 83

CHAPTER 275

OF THE

REVISED STATUTES, 1989

Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia

Continue Reading

Smruti Pahariya Vs Sanjay Pahariya-11/05/2009

AIR 2009 SC 2840 : (2009) 8 SCR 631 : JT 2009 (8) SC 146 : (2009) 7 SCALE 331

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Smruti Pahariya

Versus

Sanjay Pahariya

(Before: K. G. Balakrishnan, C.J.I., P. Sathasivam And Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.)

Civil Appeal No. 3465 of 2009 (@ S.L.P. (C) No. 17402 of 2008),

Decided on: 11-05-2009.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 13B and 13B(2)—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 5 Rule 20—divorce and Matrimonial Causes Amendment Act, 1920—Section 4—Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 142 and 32.

Counsel for the Parties:

Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms. Pragya Ohri, with him for Appellant

C. U. Singh, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Soma Singh, Rajeev Mishra, Sanand R., Parmanand Pandey, with him for Respondent.

Continue Reading

Reconciliation in Matrimonial cases

As observed by this Court in Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha, (1984) 4 SCC 90, conjugal rights are not merely creature of statute but inherent in the very institution of marriage. In R.V.S.L. Annapurna v. R. Saikumar, (1981) Suppl. SCC 71, there were matrimonial problems between the husband and the wife. The Court observed that the two young persons had led to more than one litigation. The Court felt that such a case should not be driven to a ‘bitter legal finish’. On the contrary, every possible effort must be made so as to restore the conjugal home and bring back harmony between the husband and the wife. The Court appreciated the efforts made by learned counsel for both the sides and after some amount of discussion, persuasion and suggestion, the husband and wife agreed to live together in a separate house. The Court stated that they would live together for one month jointly on a trial basis and parents or grant parents of both the spouses would not, for the time being, visit them. The Court stated; “Not that we are suggesting that parents or grandparents should not under any circumstance visit their children or grandchildren, but we are making an experiment in creating mutual confidence and in that endeavour even possible irritations and misapprehensions should not be allowed to vitiate the atmosphere. Solely on that basis and without casting any reflection on any person, we have made the suggestion, which is acceptable to both sides. Therefore, within this provisional period of one month the husband and wife will live together, hopefully happily without their parents or grandparents visiting them during this spell”.

(Emphasis supplied)

15. The above decisions of this Court make it more than clear that the approach of a Court of law in matrimonial matters is much more constructive, affirmative and productive rather than abstract, theoretical or doctrinaire. Matrimonial matters must be considered by courts with human angle and sensitivity. Delicate issues affecting conjugal relations have to be handled carefully and legal provisions should be construed and interpreted without being oblivious or unmindful of human weaknesses. Probably, this aspect has been kept in view by the Legislature in enacting sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act by requiring a court to make all efforts to bring about reconciliation between the parties.

16. Though there is no direct decision of this Court on interpretation of Section 23(2) of the Act, various High Courts have interpreted the said provision.

17. Before more than four decades, in Jivubai v. Ningappa, AIR 1963 Mys 3, the High Court of Mysore stated; “There can be no doubt that a duty is laid on the Court to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties whenever the nature and the circumstances of the case permit it to do so”. Failure of the trial Court to make such effort does not mean that appellate Court at a later stage should not undertake such exercise. “The intention of the provision undoubtedly is to render all possible assistance in the maintenance of the marital bond and if at any stage of the case the circumstances are propitious for reconciliation it will be the Court’s duty to make use of such circumstances irrespective of the stage”. If no endeavour had been made by the Court, it will undoubtedly be a serious omission.

Continue Reading

Balwinder Kaur Vs Hardeep Singh 18/11/1997

AIR 1998 SC 764 : (1997) 5 Suppl. SCR 202 : (1997) 11 SCC 701 : JT 1997 (9) SC 157 : (1997) 7 SCALE 37

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Balwinder Kaur

Versus

Hardeep Singh

(Before: Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar And D. P. Wadhwa, JJ.)

Civil Appeal No. 7771 of 1997 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 1301 of 1997),

Decided on: 18-11-1997.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 23—divorce—Decree in proceedings—Relief—Duty of Court to examine whether (i) grounds for claiming relief exist, (ii) whether there is any connivance—Duty cast in the first instance to bring about reconciliation between parties—Judgment of District Judge silent whether any such efforts were made—Before passing ex parte order, Court required to secure presence of parties, and endeavour to find out truth by putting questions to elicit truth—High Court should have seen if proceedings before District Judge were in accordance with procedure prescribed—Directions to file separate suit for setting aside decree of divorce not a solution to case—By doing so High Court failed to exercise its power of superintendence under Article 227—Matter remanded back for fresh trial.

Continue Reading

Dharmendra Kumar Vs Usha Kumar-19/08/1977

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

In the case before us the only allegation made in the written statement is that the petitioner refused to receive or reply to the letters written by the appellant and did not respond to his other attempts to make her agree to live with him. This allegation, even if true, does not amount to misconduct grave enough to disentitle the petitioner to the relief he has asked for.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Dharmendra Kumar

Versus

Usha Kumar

(Before : A. C. Gupta And S. Murtaza Fazl Ali, JJ.)

Civil Appeal No. 949 of 1977, Decided on : 19-08-1977.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 13(1A)(i) & (ii) and 23—Scope and applicability of—Mere non-compliance with the decree for Restitution does not constitute a wrong within the meaning of Section 23(1)(a)—In order to be a wrong under the section, the conduct alleged must be more than a mere disinclination to agree to an offer of reunion—It must be serious misconduct—Mere refusal to receive or reply letters received from spouse does not amount to misconduct—ILR (1971) I Delhi 6 and ILR (1976) 1 Delhi 725, held good law.

Continue Reading

Guda Vijayalakshmi Vs Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry-13/03/1981

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 25—Transfer of proceedings—Consideration for—Petition for Restitution of conjugal right by one spouse and for judicial separation for another spouse filed in different States—The power of Supreme Court is not circumscribed by the provisions of Sections 21 and 21-A of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Guda Vijayalakshmi

Versus

Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry

(Before : V. D. Tulzapurkar And Amarendra Nath Sen, JJ.)

Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 36 of 1980 ,

Decided on : 13-03-1981.

Judgement

Tulzapurkar, J—On September 26. 1979, the petitioner (wife) filed a suit in forma pauperis seeking maintenance from the respondent (her husband) in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Eluru (Andhra Pradesh) being O. P. No. 72 of 1979. On the receipt of the notice of the suit, the respondent filed a divorce suit (Petition Case No. 28 of 1980) against the wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of the District Judge, Udaipur (Rajasthan). By the instant transfer petition filed under Section 25 C. P. C. 1908 the wife is seeking to get the husband’s suit transferred to Eluru. On merits we are satisfied that it is expedient for the ends of justice to transfer the husband’s suit to the District Court at Eluru (A. P.) where both the proceedings could be tried together and for that purpose the wife is agreeable to have her maintenance suit transferred to the District Court at Eluru (A. P.)

Continue Reading

Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar Versus Sunanda-20/03/2001

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar

Versus

Sunanda

(Before: D. P. Mohapatra And Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.)

Civil Appeal No. 1473 of 1999,

Decided on: 20-03-2001.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 13(1A) and 23—Divorce—Non-cohabitation for more than one year after judicial separation—Divorce not granted—Husband obliged to pay maintenance to wife—Refusal to pay maintenance is ‘wrong’ within the meaning of Section 23.

Continue Reading

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage means

Ashok Hurra vs. Rupa Bipin Zaveri etc., reported in (1997) 4 SCC 226, this Court while dealing with a matrimonial matter quoted few excerpts from the Seventy-first Report of the Law Commission of India on the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” – dated 7.4.1978.

We deem it appropriate to reproduce some excerpts from the said report as under:

“Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is now considered, in the laws of a number of countries, a good ground of dissolving the marriage by granting a decree of divorce.

Continue Reading

Sanghamitra Ghosh Vs Kajal Kumar Ghosh-20/11/2006

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

In order to ensure that the parties may live peacefully in future, it has become imperative that all the cases pending between the parties are directed to be disposed of. According to our considered view, unless all the pending cases are disposed of and we put a quietus to litigation between the parties, it is unlikely that they would live happily and peacefully in future. In our view, this will not only help the parties, but it would be conducive in the interest of the minor son of the parties.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Sanghamitra Ghosh

Versus

Kajal Kumar Ghosh

(Before : G. P. Mathur And Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.)

Transfer Petn. (C) No. 228 of 2004 with T. P. (Cri.) Nos. 105 and 171 of 2004 and T. P. (Civ.) Nos. 727 of 2004 and 168 of 2006, Decided on : 20-11-2006.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 9—Restitution of conjugal rights—Matter adjourned from time to time—Despite persuasion of Court parties not able to sort out their differences and decided to live separately—Marriage totally dead and ceased to exist, irretrievably broken, and wrecked beyond hope of salvage—Petition disposed of.

Continue Reading

Gaurav Sondhi vs Diya Sondhi [DHC-3/5/2005

DELHI HIGH COURT

Gaurav Sondhi vs Diya Sondhi 

DATED: 3 May, 2005

ACTS: Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This petition under Section 115 CPC by the petitioner/husband had originally challenged the order dated 21st July, 2003 which held that the issue of delay in filing of written statement and its consequences shall be considered after the decision in the proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this may not be the correct position in law as well as in equity because once an interim order for maintenance and litigation is passed, there is no disability on the part of the respondent wife to file a written statement/reply and this should not be delayed further. I am of the view that in matrimonial matters, the Court should ensure that interim maintenance is granted expeditiously and litigation expenses are paid to the wife. Once the litigation expenses and interim maintenance are paid to the wife, the Court should ensure that the written statement/reply be filed within a reasonable time thereafter.

Continue Reading