Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

New Delhi, The Delhi High Court has held that mere acquittal of a person in a criminal case cannot be a ground for granting divorce and dismissed a man's plea seeking a decree of divorce in his favour, claiming that his wife committed cruelty on him. A bench of justices <keyword id="20039759" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="suresh-kumar-kait" source="keywords">Suresh Kumar Kait</keyword> and <keyword id="19957780" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="neena-bansal-krishna" source="keywords">Neena Bansal Krishna</keyword> said the man's acquittal in a criminal case in a trial court does not wash away the cruelty committed by him of being involved with another woman during the subsistence of his marriage with his estranged wife. "<keyword id="20862327" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="marital" source="keywords">Marital</keyword> bonds are delicate emotional human relationships and the involvement of any third person could result in a complete collapse of trust, faith and tranquillity. Any sort of influence by a third person can just be a silent destroyer of the bond, leading to prolonged irreconcilable differences," the bench said. It added that such relations eventually become a ticking time bomb, where feelings of anguish, despair, rejection and disappointment get trapped and post explosion, the shrapnel of these suppressed feelings causes injury to everyone involved, whether directly or indirectly. The high court dismissed the man's appeal and upheld the trial court's order denying him divorce on the ground of cruelty. According to the facts of the case, the couple got married in 1982 and had two children. They started living separately in 1994. The man had claimed that his wife was disrespectful and had refused to take care of him and even assaulted him physically. He had alleged that his wife's conduct had shattered his peace of mind and he was compelled to do all the household work, including cooking and taking care of the children, and sought divorce on the ground of cruelty. However, the woman had claimed that her husband was involved in an illicit relationship with a much younger woman and when she came to know about it in 1993, differences cropped up between them. She had further said because of this illegitimate affair, the man had started living in a separate room, ill-treating her and making her life miserable since December 1993. The woman had also got a first information report (FIR) registered against her husband and his family members under sections 498A (cruelty) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the <keyword id="19898811" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="indian-penal-code" source="keywords">Indian Penal Code</keyword> (<keyword id="19900921" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="ipc" source="keywords">IPC</keyword>). While the man's family members were discharged in the case at the stage of framing of charges, he was acquitted in 2013. The man had denied the allegation that he was involved in an illicit relationship but conceded that the other woman did come to live in his house as a governess to his children. The court, however, described it as a "fantastic" and "absurd" explanation, and said this is a case where section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which provides that no person can take advantage of his own wrong, comes into play in full force. "We, in the light of the blatant conduct of the appellant (husband) in showing scant regard to his matrimonial relationship, are compelled to observe that despite it being a failed marriage of over 40 years, granting divorce would be adding a premium to the wrong acts of the appellant. "While human emotions know no bounds and rules, but definitely, the human sensibilities emanating from the mind should have prevailed for an educated person like the appellant to have reigned his affections for a third person, with scant regard for the respondent who had reposed complete faith by entering into the vows of marriage with him," the bench said. "We hereby conclude that the additional district judge had rightly concluded that it was the appellant (husband) who was responsible for acts of cruelty towards the respondent (wife) and rejected the divorce petition," it added.

Mere acquittal in cruelty case no ground to grant divorce: Delhi HC

New Delhi, The calculated act of a spouse of denying the <keyword id="18932489" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="childs-affection" source="Orion">child's affection</keyword> to the other parent amounts to mental cruelty, the Delhi High Court has said while upholding the divorce of an estranged couple. The court dismissed an appeal by the wife against a 2018 family court order granting divorce and observed that in the instant case, the daughter was "totally alienated" and used as a weapon against the husband, an army officer. "The learned Principal Judge, <keyword id="128871" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Family-Courts" source="Orion">Family Courts</keyword> has, therefore, rightly concluded that such child alienation is an extreme act of mental cruelty towards a father who has never shown any neglect for the child," said a bench of Justice Suresh <keyword id="15491952" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="kumar-kait" source="Orion">Kumar Kait</keyword> and Neena Bansal Krishna in a recent order. The court said discord and the disputes were between the couple, who got married in 1996 as per Hindu customs and rites, and no matter how bitter the relationship was, it was not appropriate to involve the child or embitter her against the father or to use her as a tool against him. "Any act of any parent calculated to deny such affection to the other parent, amounts to alienating the child which amounts to mental cruelty...Nothing more can be more painful than experiencing one's own flesh and blood i.e., the child, rejecting him or her. Such wilful alienation of the child amounts to mental cruelty," the court said. The court also rejected the appellant wife's objections with respect to daily consumption of alcohol by the husband, saying "merely because a person consumes alcohol daily, it does not make him an alcoholic or add up to a bad character" when there was no untoward incident. It also said making friends at workplace, when the parties were living separately due to work exigencies, also cannot be termed as cruelty. The wife alleged that the husband used to be withdrawn whenever she visited him and would always remain busy on phone with his friends, both male and female. "A person who is essentially living alone, may find solace by having friends and merely because he used to talk to his friends, it can neither be held to be an act of ignoring the appellant nor a cruel act. "It has to be appreciated that both the parties having been essentially living separately because of their work exigencies, were bound to make friends at their place of work and otherwise; and such friendships without anything more, cannot be termed as cruelty," the court stated. It said when an "intimate relationship" of the husband with another woman had been earlier "condoned" by the wife, it cannot be taken as an act of cruelty while deciding the petition for divorce. It also said the conduct of the wife in making complaints to the department against the husband "cannot be expected from an educated spouse" and "proves her vengeance to bring down the respondent (husband)". "Once vindictiveness has crept in and the appellant had marched on to the war path and not only filed complaints in the Department but also initiated various civil/legal cases since 2011, i.e., for about 12 years and has even alienated the daughter from the respondent, it leads to irresistible conclusion that various acts of cruelty have been committed towards the respondent," the court said. The husband sought divorce from the wife before the family court on several grounds including that being an Army officer, he used to get posted at different places, but she never displayed any inclination to join him at his place of work and did not allow him to interact with the daughter. He also claimed that the wife shifted to Pune and withdrew the daughter from the school in Delhi to snap any contact between the father and the child. The husband also alleged that the wife unilaterally ceased cohabitation in June 2008 and made false complaints before Army authorities, and levelled scandalous allegations against him. The court said in its order that although the ground of desertion was not made out against the wife, it upheld the divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Denying child's affection to spouse amounts to mental cruelty says Delhi HC

<ul><li>Delhi HC stays <keyword id="701249" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="transport-dept" source="Orion">Transport Dept</keyword>'s notice, saving Ola, <keyword id="1042120" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="uber" source="Orion">Uber</keyword>, and Rapido from suspension of ride-sharing services.</li><li>A division bench of Justices Suresh <keyword id="15491952" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="kumar-kait" source="Orion">Kumar Kait</keyword> and <keyword id="2581533" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="neena-bansal-krishna" source="Orion">Neena Bansal Krishna</keyword> directed the <keyword id="62110" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="transport-department" source="Orion">Transport Department</keyword> to refrain from taking any coercive measures against Rapido and other ride-sharing platforms.</li></ul>New Delhi, In a major relief to Ola, Uber, and Rapido, the Delhi High Court on Friday put a stay on the public notice and show cause notice issued by the city Transport Department, halting the ride-sharing platforms. A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna directed the Transport Department to refrain from taking any coercive measures against Rapido and other ride-sharing platforms until a comprehensive policy is formulated. In February, the app-based aggregators were prevented from plying bike taxis on the road without commercial permits. The Transport Department, ordering an immediate halt to the bike taxi services provided by these platforms, had warned that any violation will result in penal action. The public notice by the Transport Department said that the companies defying the orders will be fined up to Rs 1 lakh, as the use of bikes for commercial purposes violated the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Following the High Court decision, Uber has expressed its gratitude towards the court's order providing protection to the company against coercive actions regarding its bike taxi service in the capital city. "We welcome the High Court's order to give Uber protection from coercive action on bike taxis in Delhi. This will bring relief to drivers on our platform whose livelihood had been impacted by the ban as also to the hundreds and thousands of riders who choose to ride on Moto for affordability and last mile connectivity. We are committed to serving the city and being the platform of choice for riders and drivers alike," said Uber in a statement. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/is-whatsapp-secretly-listening-to-your-private-conversations-heres-how-to-check/articleshow/100155980.cms">Is WhatsApp secretly listening to your private conversations? Here’s how to check</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/google-pixel-6a-vs-pixel-7a-smartphone-comparison-with-price-and-features/articleshow/100177889.cms">Google Pixel 6a vs Pixel 7a: Is Google's latest mid-ranger worth the extra ₹12,000?</a>

Relief for ride-sharing platforms as Delhi HC put stays on Transport Department notice

You Searched For "kumar kait" and got 3 results

Mere acquittal in cruelty case no ground to grant divorce: Delhi HC

PTI

Denying child's affection to spouse amounts to mental cruelty says Delhi HC

PTI

Relief for ride-sharing platforms as Delhi HC put stays on Transport Department notice

IANS

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides