Mental Cruelty Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: HC

Mental Cruelty Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: HC

04 January 2014 By Umesh R Yadav

The High Court granted divorce to an assistant film producer, accepting his contention that he had been subjected to mental cruelty by his wife.

The word ‘cruelty’ is not defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, but cruelty includes mental cruelty, the High Court observed.

Its order said, “Mental cruelty can particularly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other.”

Kishor had approached the HC, seeking divorce from Ananya (names changed) after his petition was rejected by a family court.

Ananya made unreasonable demands for money, filed motivated complaints against Kishor and his family, threatened and attempted suicide, and refused to consummate the marriage. All these amount to mental cruelty, the HC ruled.

A Division Bench headed by Justice K L Manjunath dissolved the marriage, stating Kishore has sufficiently proved the cruelty meted out to him by his wife, once his “dream girl”.

Demand for `20L

The HC described as unjustified the wife’s demands for `20 lakh as a lump sum, `20,000 as monthly maintenance and a separate house. It also took a stern view of her actions, such as filing a dowry harassment case to coincide with Kishor’s younger brother’s engagement. Following this, members of his family were arrested and whisked away from a marriage hall. This definitely amounts to mental cruelty, the court ruled. Given the mentality of Ananya, it is unrealistic to expect Kishor to live with her, the court remarked.

“If the husband and wife are not living together, it also leads to mental cruelty on the husband,” the order said.

Failed Romance

Kishor married Ananya on March 26, 2006 by giving `1 lakh to her father as demanded by her, but she told him they could make love only after he had produced HIV test results.

An upset Kishor went to a lab soon after and tested negative. She then demanded certificates to prove he had no diabetes or high blood pressure. She reportedly asked him for an overall ‘fitness certificate’.

Kishor underwent all tests, and the results showed he was in good health. Kishor then decided life would be difficult with her since she was full of suspicion and moved out.

SOURCE - http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bangalore/Mental-Cruelty-Sufficient-Grounds-for-Divorce-HC/2014/01/04/article1982198.ece

Women’s empowerment and ego problems are spoiling society: HC judge

Woman takes alimony from ex-husband but doesn’t let him meet their daughter. Enraged, the judge added, ‘You want his money, but don’t want him to see the child’

Posted On Monday, February 27, 2012 at 03:51:22 AM

The society is being spoilt because of women’s empowerment and ego problems,” an angry judge told an advocate whose woman client accepts alimony from her former husband, but refuses him the right to visit their daughter. The division bench of Justice K L Manjunath and Justice K Govindarajulu were hearing an appeal by Binu Vineet, seeking visitation rights to see his minor daughter whom he had not seen for seven years. The 16-year-old girl lives with her mother, Shiny.   Shiny’s advocate argued against the plea, saying Vineet was not interested in the child and had not paid child maintenance for years.   Vineet, who was present in court, said, “If there is even a single rupee pending from my side as child maintenance, I would withdraw this appeal.”   Justice Manjunath asked Shiny’s advocate if the girl’s father was paying the monthly maintenance. When told he was, the judge said, “You tried to create an impression that he was not paying for the last three years. I am sorry to say this, but society is being spoilt because of women’s empowerment, ego problems and small issues being blown out of proportion. I do not know where the society is headed with such attitude. Both the parents pamper the child to make it avoid the other parent. The child takes money from both the parents, and will end up as a vagabond on the streets. Even the judges are to be blamed for this. They pass orders on just the facts, without considering humane issues.”   Justice Manjunath said that advocates had the responsibility of trying to get the parties to reconcile. He further said that the woman in this case was behind money. “You want his money, but don’t want him to see the child,” the judge said.   Divorced in 2005 Vineet and Shiny were married on June 23, 1994, at St George’s Church, Kerala. They divorced through mutual consent in March 2005. Their only daughter is now 16 years. Vineet has been trying to get custody and visitation rights for years. In 2008, the trial court rejected his plea, and Vineet moved the high court last year.   In its order, the HC said, “We tried to persuade the parties to reconcile. But the respondent says that the daughter is not willing to meet her father. The respondent contends that the child has apprehensions about meeting her father and fears that she would not be compatible and comfortable. We cannot appreciate her arguments on these grounds based on the child’s response.”   The court also noted that the child is now studying in Std X in a reputed school in Bangalore and would join college shortly. “The appellant is allowed to meet his daughter once in two weeks for three to four hours,” the court ordered.   Vineet’s advocate, Siju Abraham Verghese of Ranjit Shankar Associates, said, “The case for custody of the girl started in 2001, when she was just five years old. In the past seven years, the father did not get to meet his daughter even once despite both of them living in the same city.   “A case was also filed when our client went to his former wife’s house to see his daughter. The comment made by the judge was of a serious nature, but very true. The wife’s advocate told the court that maintenance had not been paid for the past five years. It is totally false. There had been blatant misuse of law by women in some cases which was looked into by the court today. Any number of problems may arise between the husband and wife but even as advocates we have to look at the welfare of the child and try make the parents reach a settlement as far as the child is concerned.”

http://www.bangaloremirror.com/article/1/2012022720120227035143505b8e44d89/Women%E2%80%99s-empowerment-and-ego-problems-are-spoiling-society-HC-judge.html

‘Mum can’t prevent dad from meeting their child’ Karnataka HC (Banglore) Landmark ruling in favor of Shared parenting and upholding fathers’ rights on his children

Kudos to the CJI for a great order to curb such unscrupulous mothers from conducting such henious tactics of depriving fathers of their natural rights.
Hope the Indian judiciary wakes up to the true realities and shrugg off its biased attitude in Child custody cases

 

‘Mum can’t prevent dad from meeting their child’ Karnataka HC (Banglore) Landmark ruling in favor of Shared parenting and upholding fathers’ rights on his children

 

Hearing divorce case, chief justice Khehar rules in favour of husband who was denied visitation rights. But the real drama took place outside the court when the lawyer’s former wife turned up

author - shyam.prasad1@timesgroup.com

Posted On Wednesday, November 10, 2010 at 05:27:31 AM

In what is being seen as a landmark judgment in cases related to divorce and visitation rights of parents on their children, the high court of Karnataka on Tuesday ruled in favour of a husband who was prevented from seeing his son for over 10 months.

 

Photo - Seeing Madhuri cry in court, the CJ said, “This is not going to affect us”

In what is being seen as a landmark judgment in cases related to divorce and visitation rights of parents on their children, the high court of Karnataka on Tuesday ruled in favour of a husband who was prevented from seeing his son for over 10 months.

In what is being seen as a landmark judgment in cases related to divorce and visitation rights of parents on their children, the high court of Karnataka on Tuesday ruled in favour of a husband who was prevented from seeing his son for over 10 months.
The ruling came on the divorce proceedings of Shivkumar Challa and Madhuri who were married in 1996. Their son Rahul was born in 2000. Madhuri is being represented by James Arun Kumar.

Threat of jail
The court berated Madhuri for not following its order to allow her husband to meet Rahul every Sunday.

“We will send you to jail. Do you understand what jail is? You will be sent there right from here. Then your counsel can go to the Supreme Court,” chief justice J S Khehar told a stunned Madhuri in open court.

“Since January, how many Sundays have the father and son met? Not a single Sunday should be missed. Follow the order. If you fail, the following day you should be present in court at 10.30 am to tender an explanation for the same. Jail is a very bad thing. We look upon you as children. But even children should be reprimanded.”

At this point, Madhuri started crying profusely. Seeing this, the chief justice told her, “This is not going to affect us.”
Challa then told the court, “My child’s life is in danger.” But the court told him to stick to the present case, that of child visitation rights.

Lawyer gets it too
After the division bench of the chief justice and justice A S Bopanna had read its order, James Arun Kumar began to plead Madhuri’s case again.

But the chief justice said, “Do not play tricks. Do not play with words. We will be only too happy to take action. You are giving one explanation after the other. We will not allow this to happen. On Monday, you wasted 30 minutes of the court’s time. It will not be allowed to happen again. If there is the slightest deviation from the order, severe action will be taken. We are fed up with this case.”

LAWYER’S EX CLASHES WITH CLIENT
But the real drama happened outside the court as James Arun Kumar’s former wife Geetha and son Jason showed up. Challa had told Bangalore Mirror that Madhuri and his son were staying with James Arun Kumar who had divorced Geetha seven years ago.
As Challa came out of the court with his mother-in-law (Madhuri’s mother), Geetha told her, “You have not brought up your daughter properly. She stole my husband.”

Madhuri’s mother retorted, “Your husband stole my daughter.”

Son’s plea
Geetha and her son then turned to Madhuri. Geetha berated Madhuri for ‘taking away my husband’,
which led to a heated argument.

While Challa is fighting for visitation rights on his son, Geetha’s son wants his father back. Jason said, “My father drops Madhuri’s son Rahul to the same school where I am enrolled while I go by bus. I want my father back.”

My father drops Madhuri’s son to the same school where I’m enrolled while I go by bus. I want him back
Jason, son of lawyer challa

http://www.bangaloremirror.com/article/10/201011102010111005273150984689fd0/%E2%80%98Mum-can%E2%80%99t-prevent-dad-from-meeting-their-child%E2%80%99.html

Mom-in-law safe from Domestic Violence Act

Mom-in-law safe from Domestic Violence Act

BANGALORE: Can a woman try another woman under the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005? No, says the Karnataka High Court.

Clearing this confusion, the division Bench comprising Justice K L Manjunath and Justice B S Patil said a complaint under this act against her mother-in-law or sister-in-law or women relatives can be registered, but the police can initiate action against them (respondents) only under Section 498A of the IPC or any other suitable enactments of law.

The Bench gave this clarification while dealing with the petition filed by one Leelavati.

In respect of residential rights, custody rights or protection, women can file complaints against only male members under the Domestic Violence Act but not against female members like mother-in-law or sisters-in-law or any others, the division Bench clarified with regard to ambiguity of the meaning of the word relative, in the proviso in section 2(q) of the Act.

Leelavati, a resident of Okalipuram, had filed complaints against her husbandBhaskar, father-in-law Murugeshan, mother-in-law Nalini and sister-in-law Kavitha under this Act, before the magistrate court. This was challenged by her husband and others. The fast track court had ordered that except Bhaskar's, other names should be dropped from the complaint.

Leelavati challenged this decision before the high court. The single bench, while concurring with the fast track court, referred this matter to the division bench for clarification.

 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Mom-in-law-safe-from-Domestic-Violence-Act/articleshow/6526918.cms#ixzz0z7ZVcPxs

also @

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/95506/women-cant-respondents-hc.html
Women can't be respondents: HC

Bangalore, September 9, DHNS:
In a judgment that is bound to have wide social implications, a division bench of the High Court has ruled that a case filed under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 cannot include women as respondents. 

A division bench comprising Justice K L Manjunath and Justice B S Patil has ruled that "the definition of the term 'respondent' as defined under Section 2(q) of the Act, does not include a female relative of the husband or the male partner of the aggrieved female or a female living in a relationship of the nature of a marriage."

The ruling stands apart from the ruling of four other High Courts of the country including the Delhi High Court. The matter had been referred to the division bench by a single judge to define the term 'respondent' following a petition filed by Leelavathi S against her father-in-law Murugesh, her mother-in-law Nalini and her sister-in-law Kavitha under the Domestic Violence Act.

The debate on the inclusion or exclusion of women as respondents under this Act has been a long standing one. Many have felt that the Act, which was meant to protect women also has become a tool for targeting women. The Indian Penal Code already allows a case to be filed against women under Section 498A for dowry harassment. A complaint filed under Domestic Violence Act also provides for the respondent to be removed from the shared household or can be prevented from entering the household