Home > Other news > Bench ‘no’ to divorce plea by disabled

Bench ‘no’ to divorce plea by disabled

Calls him a “wily and insidious” person trying to dissolve his marriage

The Madras High Court Bench here has rejected the plea of a physically challenged to grant divorce after terming him as a “wily and insidious” person who was trying to dissolve his marriage with an “evil design and an oblique motive.”

Dismissing a second appeal filed by him, Justice A. Selvam held that the Karur District Court had rightly reversed the Family court’s “erroneous” order granting divorce to the appellant and hence there was no need to interfere with the well merited judgement of the first appellate court.

The judge pointed out that the appellant got married in 1988 and was blessed with a female child when he was working at Andhra Pradesh. In August 1992, his right leg was amputated after he met with a road accident and since then there was a strain in the relationship between the couple.

In June 1994, he issued a legal notice to his wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In the notice, he accused her of deserting him since October 1993 and residing with her parents. He also alleged that she did not take care of him properly after the accident.

Thereafter, he filed a divorce petition on the ground of desertion and cruelty. Disagreeing with the allegations levelled by him against his wife, Mr. Justice Selvam said that the appellant had failed to substantiate the allegations of cruelty with sufficient materials.

The judge pointed out that the appellant’s wife had contended that she had to undergo abortion twice due to the insistence of her mother-in-law. The contention was substantiated by the evidence adduced by a doctor who supposed to have aborted the pregnancy in March 1997.

Though the appellant during the hearing of the case claimed that the pregnancy was not due to him, such a claim could not be accepted for the simple reason that the appellant had not raised adultery as one of the grounds to seek divorce, the judge said.

“Since no contra evidence is available on the side of the appellant with regard to alleged pregnancy and subsequent abortion of the respondent, it is made clear to the court that the appellant is the sole cause for the alleged pregnancy of the respondent,” he added.

The judge also said that Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act states that the court might presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened… in their relation to the facts of a particular case.


Categories: Other news
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: