"Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. Jaya Ghosh (2007)and by the division bench of Kerala High Court in Beena v. Neelu Kohli (2006), where the apex court had held that when the parties cannot live together on account of obvious differences and when one party is adamant and callous in attitude for having divorce on mutual grounds, such attitude can be treated as mental cruelty to the other spouse. The court also discussed decisions of the Apex Court in Naveen Kohli v.
The court drew attention to Section 10 of Indian Divorce Act 1869, marriage can be dissolved by decree of divorce on a petition presented either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the other party as after the solemnization of the marriage not co-operated to consummate the marriage and the marriage has not therefore been consummate is entitled for divorce. Continuance of the relationship for namesake is prolonging the agony and affliction would be a cruelty to both the parties, it said. The court observed that there was no emotional attachment between the parties and that the marriage was dead both emotionally and practically. The parties had been living apart for more than fifteen years. According to wife, it was owing to the incapacity of the appellant to penetrate. According to the appellant, non-consummation of marriage was due to willful refusal of his wife.
Justice K Kalyanasundaram and Justice V Sivagnanam were hearing an appeal filed by an army officer, Major Frank Ralston Samuel Raj against the order of Family court dismissing his petition for dissolution of marriage and allowing the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights.īoth the parties have made reciprocal accusations against each other.
0 kommentar(er)
