Denial of sex is mental cruelty Supreme Court of India


Bombay High Court held that willful denial to have sex with spouse without any reason is mental cruelty and is a ground for divorce. High Court upheld the divorce order granted by a family court on the grounds that his wife treated him cruelly by denying sexual relations.
Division bench of Justice Vijaya Kapse-Tahilramani and Justice P N Deshmukh has said, “Sex plays an important role in marital life and cannot be separated from other factors that lend to matrimony a sense of fruition and fulfillment,” The avoidance of wife to have physical relations with him is sufficient to hold that he was subjected to cruelty,” said the bench.
High Court, dismissing her application challenging the divorce said that they are not interfering with the orderpassed by the Family Court.
In another judgment it is held that mere labeling of one spouse by another as schizophrenic is not enough to obtain a divorce decree on the grounds of cruelty. In an appeal against refusal of Divorce by Family Court a wife has come up with allegation of mental illness and cruelty by husband and the High Court has denied divorce holding that for a divorce, the illness should be so grave that the couple could not live together.
Appellant had alleged that her husband had concealed the fact that he suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time of their wedding and had subjected her to physical as well as verbal abuse.
Relying on Supreme Court judgment in Ram Narain GuptaVs. Rameshwari Gupta a division bench of Justice Vijaya Kapse-Tahilramani and Justice V L Achliya held as follows.
“If the mere existence of any degree of mental disorder could justify dissolution of a marriage, few marriages would indeed survive in law. Mental disorder of the husband, even if proved, cannot by itself warrant a decree of divorce. It must be further proved that it is of such a nature that the wife could not be expected to live with the husband.“Trivial irritations, quarrels and usual wear and tear of a married life would not be adequate to grant divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty. Married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty.”
Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant failed to prove her allegation of mental disorder and cruelty against husband.
In August 2013 the Supreme Court has ruled that temporary ill-health including schizophrenia, cannot be a ground for divorce under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and V. GopalaGowda, held “Under Hindu law, marriage is an institution, a meeting of two hearts and minds and is something that cannot be taken lightly.”Further, “any person may have bad health, this is not their fault and most times, it is not within their control, as in the present case.”
Source: Live Law


Supreme Court of India: Denial of an opportunity to recall the witnesses for cross-examination would amount to condemning the appellant without giving him the opportunity to challenge the correctness of the version and the credibility of the witnesses.


“The principle of law that emerges that the criminal court has ample power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any such person even if the evidence on both sides is closed and the jurisdiction of the court must obviously be dictated by exigency of the situation, and fair-play and good sense appear to be the only safe guides and that only the requirements of justice command and examination of any person which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

Supreme Court of India

P.Sanjeeva Rao


State Of A.P.

on 2 July, 2012

Author: T Thakur

Bench: H.L. Dattu, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad





(Arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) Nos.4286-87 OF 2011)

P. Sanjeeva Rao …Appellant


The State of A.P. …Respondent



1. Leave granted.


View original post 3,165 more words

Police Pension Scam: Court fixes Feb. 26 for cross-examination of witness

kaykayjabari's Blog

An FCT High Court on Friday fixed Feb. 26 for the continuation of the cross-examination of EFCC witness, Julius Adebulu, an Internal Auditor with the Police Pension Office.

Justice Husseini Baba-Yusuf fixed the date after Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), counsel to Atiku Abubakar Kigo, sought an adjournment.

EFCC arraigned Esai Dangabar, Atiku Abubakar Kigo, Ahmed Wada, Veronica Onyegbula, Sani Zira and Uzoma Attang on a 20-count charge, which includes stealing and criminal breach of trust.

Earlier, counsel to EFCC, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), opposed an attempt by Awomolo to cross-examine his witness over a document.

The document was a payment voucher, which the EFCC witness claimed did not emanate from his office.

At the last sitting of the court, the witness told the court that he was not aware of cheques and vouchers signed after the implementation of the e-payment system by Police Pension Office in September 2009.

Adebulu then…

View original post 351 more words