Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
This document contains a Dissolution of Marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for Divorce on the Grounds of Cruelty on behalf of the Plaintiff, i.e. the Wife. Key Words: ‘Physical’ and ‘Mental’ Cruelty; Maintenance; Dowry.
Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research
1 / 20
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
On special offer
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTRICT JUDGE AT ANMOL MATRIMONIAL CASE NO. ___ / IN THE MATTER OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 Mrs. ANJALI KARMALI Wife of Mukund Deshmukh, Major in age, Housewife, r/o Anmol District ...PETITIONER VERSUS Mr. MUKUND DESHMUKH Major in age, Business, r/o Jagol District ...RESPONDENT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
Counsel For Petitioner… SHAMITA A. ARSEKAR.
Case Name Citation Pg.no A. Jayachandra V. Aneel Kaur (2005) 2 SCC 22 15 Bimla Rani V. Subhash Chander AIR 2007 SC 1786
Chitra Lekha Vs Ranjit Rai AIR 1977 Delhi 176
Lata Kumari V. Om Prakash Mandal Mat. App. (F.C.) 92/
Manish Jain Vs. Akanksha Jain (2017) 15 SCC 801
Meera V. Vijya Shankar AIR 1994 Raj 33 16 N.G. Dastane V. S. Dastane AIR 1975 SC 1534
Premdeep Matlane V. Bhavana Matlane 2021(5) All MR 134
Russell V. Russell (1895) Pd 315 15 Shefali Akshay Dewani V. Akshay Dewani 2022(1) All MR 381
Shobha Rani Vs Madhukar Reddi (1998) 1 SCC 105 13 Sudha Mishra V. S.N. Mishra C.S. No.39/2013 18 V. Bhagat V. D. Bhagat AIR 1994 SC 710 16 Vijay Kumar Bhate Vs Neela Vijaykumar Bhate (2003) 6 SCC 334 16 BOOKS
ALL MAHARASHTRA CASES DIGEST 2021 – An All- Maharashtra Law Reporter Publication Author: LAL C. SAHITA; R.S. KELKAR; VIKAS L. SAHITA ALL MAHARASHTRA CASES DIGEST 2022 – An All- Maharashtra Law Reporter Publication Author: LAL C. SAHITA; R.S. KELKAR; VIKAS L. SAHITA ALL MAHARASHTRA CASES DIGEST 2009 – An All- Maharashtra Law Reporter Publication Author: LAL C. SAHITA; R.S. KELKAR; VIKAS L. SAHITA SUPREME COURT ON FAMILY AND PERSONAL LAWS- VOLUME 3 Author: SURENDRA MALIK; SUDEEP MALIK LAW OF MARRIAGE, MAINTENANCE, SEPARATION AND DIVORCE- THIRD EDITION Author: S. KRISHNAMURTHI AIYAR FAMILY LAW IN INDIA – 10 TH EDITION Author: PROF. G.C.V SUBBA RAO JURISDICTION OF FAMILY COURT & DIVORCE Author: Smt. P.V.P. LALITHA SIVA JYOTHI ONLINE SOURCES https://indiankanoon.org https://www.casemine.com
The Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under Sec. 19 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Sec. 19 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 lays down that: The Court to which petition shall be presented. Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the district court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction (i) the marriage was solemnised, or (ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, or (iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together, or (iiia) in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition, or (iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Miss Anjali Karmali, a 21-year-old native of Anmol, lived with her parents and two younger siblings. Anjali's mother was a housewife and her father was a retired public servant. Anjali was in her final year of commerce degree and wanted to continue her education as well as work for the family, but her parents were ready for her to tie the knot as soon as possible. -II- Sushma, the maternal aunt of Anjali, presented a proposal, in particular, one from Mukund Deshmukh, a 27-year-old who ran a beverage distribution business in the state of Anmol. The family was well-known and had a good name. Mukund also had a successful and flourishing business. When Anjali and Mukund first met, they talked about their ideas, grew fond of one another, and decided to get married. Additionally, Anjali's in-laws were all lovely to her and treated her like their own daughter.
mistreatment at the hands of her in-laws and husband, along with her miscarriage, drove her into depression. -VIII- Anjali's brother paid her a visit at Jagol and witnessed how badly she was treated. Horrified by what he saw, he took decisive action, bringing Anjali back to their family home in Anmol, where she chose to file for divorce against Mukund. -IX- Anjali is a housewife with virtually no other source of income. As a result of these circumstances, she is entitled to maintenance and alimony. ISSUES RAISED
Whether the petitioner proves that there was ‘Physical’ and ‘Mental’ Cruelty? ISSUE II Whether the petitioner proves that she is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? ISSUE III Whether the petitioner is entitled for Maintenance under Sec. 24 and Sec. 25 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
False accusation of adultery, demand for dowry and aggressive and uncontrollable behaviour of the husband if correlated to the case in question, it can be seen during the entirety of this case through the conduct of Mukund in treating Anjali. Premdeep Matlane V. Bhavana Matlane: For Cruelty, the conduct of person afflicting harm is an important element to be looked into. It must be seen whether it is making it impossible for the couple to co-habit. Shobha Rani vs Madhukar Reddi: The Apex Court observed that the enquiry of mental cruelty must begin with the nature of the cruel treatment and subsequently, the impact of such treatment on the spouse must be examined. Such actions should cause reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other spouse. Lata Kumari V. Om Prakash Mandai: Thus, false allegations of illicit relationship are the ultimate kind of cruelty as it reflects a complete breakdown of trust and faith amongst the spouses without which no matrimonial relationship can survive. Mukund would often beat Anjali up under the pretext that the business was in a financial constraint, this caused her to suffer physical cruelty. Anjali endured both physical and mental suffering due to her mother-in- law's unfair treatment, stemming from unmet dowry expectations. Additionally, her husband, Mukund, subjected her to torture during pregnancy, which tragically led to a miscarriage in the third trimester.
Whether the petitioner proves that she is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? It is hereby submitted that the petitioner suffered both, mental and physical cruelty from the respondent. There were several instances throughout the marriage when the petitioner was subject to cruelty by the respondent and her mother-in-law. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, did not include "cruelty" as a ground for divorce (Section 13) but allowed it for judicial separation (Section 10(1) (b)), where cruelty caused reasonable apprehension of harm. The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, expanded "cruelty" as a valid ground for both judicial separation and divorce under the Act. N.G. Dastane vs. S. Dastane : According to a landmark decision decided by the Supreme Court , the 1976 amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 turned out to be a game-changer, which gave couples the right to get separated or even get divorced on the ground of mental or physical cruelty. The Sec. 13(1)(ia) of the HMA,1955 lays down the following:
If related to the current case, we can see that the Petitioner suffered from situations that caused a danger to her health, bodily and mental, due to her husband Mukunds’ uncontrollable behaviour. Vijay Kumar Bhate vs Neela Vijaykumar Bhate: the Supreme Court recognized allegations of illicit relationships as acts of cruelty, deeming them a severe assault on the accused's character, honour, reputation, and health. Meera v. Vijya Shankar: The court here, emphasized that cruelty, as a basis for divorce, must be of a nature that convinces the court that the relationship between the spouses has deteriorated to the point where it's impossible for them to coexist without mental agony, torture, or distress. V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat: According to Section 13(1)(ia), acts that cause the other person such emotional agony and suffering that it is impossible for them to coexist are considered acts of mental cruelty. Or, to put it another way, the mental cruelty must be of a kind that makes it impossible for the parties to coexist. As can be seen in the above cases, and relating it to the current case, accusing the spouse of an illicit relationship amounts to mental cruelty. In Anjali's situation, Mukund's physical abuse and the mental anguish she endured as a result of turbulent relationships fit the description of cruelty in this section. If Anjali decides to file for divorce, she can make use of the aforementioned provision to demonstrate how she has been treated unjustly and ask for the marriage to be dissolved.
Whether the petitioner is entitled for Maintenance under Sec. 24 and Sec. 25 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? It is humbly submitted that the petitioner is eligible for maintenance under sec. 24 and sec. 25 of the HMA, 1955 since she was dependent on her husband for financial assistance since she was not allowed to work due to the extra work and pressure of her mother-in-law. Section 24 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 lays down the following:
Bimla Rani v. Subhash Chander : The Supreme Court in this case discussed the scope and purpose of Section 25 and clarified that it applies to both husband and wife, emphasizing the importance of financial stability in post-divorce life. Shefali Akshay Dewani V. Akshay Dewani: The husband is liable to pay the wife maintenance along with interim rent amount, for her accommodation. Manish Jain Vs. Akanksha Jain : the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a wife cannot be deprived of interim maintenance on the ground that she was educated and could support herself. The maintenance awarded to Anjali serves as a crucial means to meet both her present and future financial requirements. It not only ensures her immediate well-being but also offers the opportunity to regain some of the opportunities she might have missed due to her circumstances. This financial support allows her to lead a stable life, affording her necessities and, importantly, helps her rebuild her life with a measure of financial security. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a maintenance of Rs. 50,000/p.m. as Mukund is capable, and has a stable business and a sufficient income.
Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudicate and declare that:-
