Skip to main content

Impotency allegations against hubby amounts to cruelty

Dismissing wife's plea for restitution of conjugal rights, Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court ruled that allegations of impotency against husband amounts to cruelty and he is entitled for divorce. "No husband would like to hear that he was impotent for about six to seven months after the marriage. If that was not true, allegations would surely hurt a man's ego. Before levelling them against the husband, the wife should have given some thought," a division bench comprising Justice Vasanti Naik and Justice Swapna Joshi stated.
The couple entered into matrimony on September 27, 2007, but problems started as they used to reside in a joint family. After honeymoon period, the wife started disrespecting her in-laws and abusing them. She also pressurized the husband to live separately and refused to do household daily chores. She used to threaten husband to implicate him and in-laws under false charges and made a startling allegation that he was impotent during initial period of marriage and used to consume medicines like Nag Bhasma. As the couple found it difficult to have a child for a long time, the doctor suggested medical treatment to the wife, which she declined.
Fed up with her erratic behaviour and constant harassment, the husband filed divorce case in family court. While allowing his plea, the court dissolved their marriage on January 22, 2013, but directed him to pay Rs2 lakh to wife along with Rs2,500 alimony per month.
The Hinganghat-based wife challenged it in the high court contending that husband's allegations were regarding normal wear and tear of married life, which were insufficient to grant divorce. She asserted that she desired to live with him and continue their marriage, despite ill treatment meted out to her.
Then Justice Naik and Justice Joshi observed that threats of committing suicide and implicating the in-laws under false cases coupled with allegations of husband being impotent and a wife-beater, tantamount to cruelty, if not proved. "The family court rightly observed that though husband failed to prove that wife declined to do routine household work and cook for his family, he was successful in proving that she had threatened him on several occasions of committing suicide by pouring kerosene and falsely implicating in-laws," they said.
They however flayed the family court for justifying wife's father's suggestion to the husband to mutate his name on entire property, including agriculture land, in his name, particularly on the day, when his father expired. "We find that conduct on part of wife's father is absolutely improper as on the date of husband's father's death, the father-in-law can't suggest to him that he should record his name on entire properties left behind by his father. That is not the time or occasion to give this suggestion," the judges tersely observed.
They added that family court's observation that such a suggestion wouldn't be unwarranted or improper does not appear to be correct. "If such suggestions are given on same day of husband's father died, we don't find that the same would be correct. No father-in-law should ask his son-in-law to mutate latter's name on all properties left behind by his father on the very day he dies. Such an unwarranted suggestion by the wife's father may also have triggered further animosity between the parties," the judges clarified.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376
2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551
3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467
4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298
5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567)



5.The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii)Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a)Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b)Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii)Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv)Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v)Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects…

Passport - DRT - power to impound - High Court

1) Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.Ramarathnam. Asst. Passport Officer, 1967 (3) SCR 52
2) Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248
3) Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd., (1994) 4 SCC 710
4) Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2008 (3) SCC 674
5) Damji Valaji Shah & another Vs. L.I.C. of India & others [AIR 1966 SC 135]
6) Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & others [1999 (7) SCC 76]
7) Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1999 SC 3125]
8) Sanjeev R.Apte v. I.F.C.I. Ltd., and others, 2008 (154) DLT 77
9) Smt.Annai Jayabharathi v. The Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr., CDJ 2005 Ker HC 171
10) Allahabad Bank v. Radhakrishna Maity, AIR 1999 SC 3426
11) Ramalinga v. Radha, 2011 (4) CTC 481
12) Sinnaswami Chettiar v. Aligi Goundan and others, AIR 1924 Madras 893 (OVERRULED)
13) Nallagatti Goundan v. Ramana Gounda and others, AIR 1925 Madras 170
14) Income Tax Officer v. M.K.Mohammad…

DISTINCTION BETWEEN NECESSARY & PROPER PARTY

Who is Necessary to Proper Party

Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, [1959] SCR 1111, relied on. Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd., (1956) 1 All E.R. 273 and Dollfus Mieg et Compagnie S.A. v. Bank of England, (1950) 2 All E.R. 611, referred to.

National Textile Workers’ Union, etc. v. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Ors., [1983] 1 SCR 922,

distinguished.

Meaning of Necessary or Proper Party

Whether Court could direct plaintiff to add lessee as defendant in suit.

Whether Court has discretion to direct a plaintiff, though dominus litis, to implead a person as a necessary party.

The Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524 : 1992 (2) SCR 1 : JT 1992 (2) SC 136 : 1992 (1) Scale 530 : 1992 (1) CCC 594 : 1992 (1) RCR 644 : 1992 (2) UJ 181 held that a party can be joined as defendant even though the plaintiff does not think that he has any cause of action against him.

A bench comprisi…