In England until 1858 the only remedy for desertion was a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. But by the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857, desertion without cause for two years upwards was made a ground for a suit for judicial separation. It was not till 1937 that by the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, desertion without cause for a period of three years immediately preceding the institutions of proceedings was made a ground for divorce. The law has now been consolidated in the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950 (14 Geo. VI, C. 25). It would thus appear that desertion as affording a cause of action for a suit for dissolution of marriage is a recent growth even in England.
The evidence of condonation consists here in the fact that the spouses led a normal sexual life despite the respondent’s acts of cruelty. This is not a case where the spouses, after separation indulged in a stray act of sexual intercourse, in which case the necessary intent to forgive and restore may be said to be lacking. Such stray acts may bear more than one explanation.
WHEREAS it is desirable to encourage and strengthen the role of the family in society; AND WHEREAS for that purpose it is necessary to recognize the contribution made to a marriage by each spouse;
In many cases, marriages simply fail for no fault of the parties but as a result of discord and disharmony between them. In such situations, putting an end to this relationship is the only way out of this social bondage.
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.…
Even where the Family Courts are not functioning, the objects and principles underlying the constitution of these Courts can be kept in view by the civil Courts trying matrimonial causes.
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
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 21 and 21A—Sections 24 and 25 C. P. C. not excluded—Husband’s Divorce Suit can be transferred to the place where the wife’s maintenance suit is tried.
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.
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…
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.