Rajesh pratap sainani vs. mrs.

Bhavna rajesh sainani 13B petioner rajesh consent peeche hata, case
dcided against him

 Smt. Jayashree Ramesh Londhe 
Vs.
Respondent: Ramesh Bhikaji Londhe VV imp relavant fulyly cannot
withdraw concent and decree court ko dena is necessary

Overruled / Reversed by:

Smt. Sureshta Devi Vs. Om Prakash, MANU/SC/0718/1991

: Raj Rani
Vs.
Respondent: Roop Kumar

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13B--Where a party appears

in the first motion but declines to appear in the second motion,
it is well settled law that such a party cannot be allowed to
withdraw nnilaterally unless that party shows that the consent
was obtained by force, fraud or undue influence.

 Smt. Sureshta Devi
Vs.
Respondent: Om Prakash 23 1 bb ??

Apurba mohan ghosh vs. manashi ghosh

 U. Sree
Vs.
Respondent: U. Srinivas 

ON CRUELITY AND NOT DESERTION

 Appeal by Special leave - Held, husband has proved his case of
mental cruelty which was the foundation for seeking divorce -
Respondent husband has rightly been granted a decree of
divorce - Wife is entitled to permanent alimony for her
sustenance

 Sandeep Kumar
Vs.
Respondent: Smt. Sonila Kumar

Family - Dissolution of marriage - Application filed under

Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act,1955 - Desetion by wife -
Lower Court dismissed the application.

Issues : 

Whether the decree for dissolution of marriage under Section

13 of Hindu Marriage Act allowed?

Holding : 

The application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for

dissolution of was allowed the marriage of Appellant was
dissolved by the decree of divorce. Hence Appeal allowed.
Disposition: 
Appeal Allowed
:Sanat Kumar Agarwal
Vs.
:Smt. Nandini Agarwal

desertion

 Now it is more than ten years that parties are living separately

 In spite of best efforts made by Lower Courts as well as by this

Court, reunion between parties could not be possible - Court is
clearly of view that appellant has proved his case for grant of
decree of divorce on ground of desertion - In result this appeal
is allowed

 Mabel Treeza Pinto 

Vs.
Respondent: Francis Pinto

DWESERTION CRUELITY BY NOT HAVING SEX

FURTHER HELD,

(a) In the institution of marriage, among several factors,

physical relation between the couple is an important
ingredient. Willful refusal for physical relation by one of the
parties certainly amounts to infliction of cruelty on the other.
In the light of the pleadings on record and the admission of the
appellant, it is clear that there was willful act on the part of the
appellant in refusing to consummate the marriage and it is held
that such behaviour on her part amounts to cruelty. - No
evidence is placed on record by the appellant to demonstrate
that the couple had lived together. [15] and [16]

(b) The parties in this case have lived separately for a long
spell of time. To be precise, it is 15 years and 9 months.
Appellant stayed in her matrimonial home for a very short
period less than eight months. She has admitted to have
refused to cohabit with the respondent. While replying during
cross-examination recorded in the form of questions and
answers, she has expressed her opinion that respondent would
not leave the company of two girls and not take her back. Thus,
all along she entertained a resolute stance in her subconscious
mind that the respondent was in an illicit relation with two
women and he would not take her back, which is not
corroborated by any evidence. - The material on record clearly
indicates that the appellant had willfully refused to
consummate the marriage, she had deserted the appellant and
thus inflicted upon him mental cruelty by depriving him of
conjugal pleasures. [17] and [19]

 Anil Khatwani very imp case

Vs.
Respondent: Nistha Khatwani
12. In the opinion of this Court, the additional affidavit filed by
respondent wife, Nishtha Khatwani, in pursuance of order of this Court
dated 20/4/2012 appears to be tissues of lies and is a sheer retraction
of her past conduct, consent, facts and averments made in the joint
petition under Section 13B of the Act supported with respective
affidavits of the parties.

HELD DIVORCE DDECREE GRNTED

Jayashree Ramesh Londhe  very imp case

Vs.: Ramesh Bhikaji Londhe

Case Note: 
Hindu Marriage Act (XXV of 1955), Sections 13B, 21, 23 -
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order XXIII, Rule 1(5) --
One of the spouses whether can withdraw a joint petition
under Section 13B -- Consent for mutual divorce initially
given whether can be withdrawn at later stage -- At later
stage one party not wanting divorce whether relevant
circumstance under Section 13B.
When one spouse is not consenting to abandonment of a joint
petition for divorce filed under Section 13B of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, the other party has no right either to
abandon that petition or withdraw that petition. One of the
spouses cannot withdraw a joint petition for divorce filed
under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
A reading of Section 13B would show that what is necessary
is that there should be a consent for mutual divorce at the
time when the petition is filed. If that consent is a free
consent of both the parties, it will not be possible for any of
them to nullify the petition by saying that though initially the
consent was voluntarily given, still the said party now
intends to withdraw it. Permission to withdraw consent
would nullify the very purpose of a joint application under
Section 13B.
When there is abundant evidence to show that at the time
when the joint application was made, the husband and the
wife had mutually agreed that marriage should be dissolved
and other requirements of Section 13B are proved, it would
be necessary for the Court to grant a decree for divorce. The
fact that at a later stage either party does not want a divorce
would be irrelevant.