Divorce by Mutual Consent : Court can't compel the Defaulting Party to Give its Consent; HC

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday ruled that once a party decides to have a second thought and on reflection, backs off, the concerned court cannot compel the defaulting party to give its consent on the basis of an earlier settlement / undertaking.

A Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Deepa Sharma said that the right of withdrawal of consent in the proceedings can be exercised at any stage and exercise of such a discretion cannot be treated as being opposed to public policy.

Read Full Text of the Judgment : Rajat Gupta & Others Vs. Rupali Gupta & Others [Delhi High Court, 15-05-2018]

The court was dealing with the complex issue of whether a spouse who has initiated proceedings for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act can be held liable for contempt if he or she reconsiders or retracts from the decision of taking divorce by mutual consent.

The subject became a matter of contention between 17 couples, where one of the spouses had filed for initiation of contempt proceedings against the other for breaching the settlement agreement.

Comments

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014]

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - 8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog