Noida lawyer

Mumbai doctor granted divorce after wife locks fridge
*********************

A family court has granted divorce to a doctor couple married for 19 years on grounds of cruelty after he told the court that she had repeatedly insulted him and had denied him food by locking up the refrigerator.

The court accepted the doctor's contentions and passed an order ex parte as the estranged wife did not appear in court. The former couple, were married in January 1994 and had no children.

In the petition filed in September, 2011, among many other complaints, the petitioner said that at the time of the marriage, while he was studying medicine in Mumbai, the woman was pursuing her degree in Karnataka. He alleged that during that time, whenever she was in the city, she would insist on staying with him despite him living in the bachelor quarters. He further alleged that she suspected him of having affairs with his colleagues. This he said, forced him to change his campus and eventually even a take a drop from his final year MD examination.

The doctor also alleged that since 2003, the woman refused to work, cook or cohabit with him. He claimed that he had to shut down his hospital due to her "doubtful nature".

Further, he said she started locking the refrigerator and deprived him of any eatables and water and every time he was forced to ask her for the key. The doctor claimed that he could only drive the car if she accompanied him or was using the car.

The petitioner said that he was taunted for looking older than her and she refused to see movies or visit places with him. He alleged that this caused him tremendous mental pain and agony. Stating that her behaviour affected his work, the doctor claimed that female patients got an impression of insecurity while under his treatment.

After going through his evidence, the court held that it was practically identical to his allegations. "As the petitioner was not cross examined due to consistent absence of the respondent, whatever the petitioner has stated in his petition and affidavit of examination-in-chief has gone unchallenged. Therefore, I have no alternative but to accept the same in toto," the court said while granting the divorce.

The doctor claimed that he could only drive the car if she accompanied him or was using the car.

The petitioner said that he was taunted for looking older than her and she refused to see movies or visit places with him. He alleged that this caused him tremendous mental pain and agony. Stating that her behaviour affected his work, the doctor claimed that female patients got an impression of insecurity while under his treatment.

After going through his evidence, the court held that it was practically identical to his allegations. "As the petitioner was not cross examined due to consistent absence of the respondent, whatever the petitioner has stated in his petition and affidavit of examination-in-chief has gone unchallenged. Therefore, I have no alternative but to accept the same in toto," the court said while granting the divorce.

Family court casual in granting divorce: Bombay high court

Observing that a family court judge was “casual and negligent” in granting divorce to a man in the absence of his wife, the Bombay high court said it revealed a sorry state of affairs.

A division bench of Justice P B Majmudar and Justice Anoop Mohta was hearing an application filed by Smitha Menon (34), challenging the divorce obtained by her husband Anand (42) from the family court in Bandra on June 11, 2006.

Anand stayed with her and their daughter (9) in Nalasopara for 18 more months and left home in February 2008, a week before the bailiff came to serve papers of the suit he had filed for possession of the flat.

Smitha then learnt about the divorce and moved court, saying she was never issued a summons for the case. However, the family court rejected the plea.

HC judges called for the records the family court proceedings and also summoned Anand from his second honeymoon. They said the family court passed the divorce decree without verifying if summons had been served on the wife. They added that the family court judge should have been “doubly sure” that the court summons was properly served on the party in case of non-appearance. They said the bailiff should have identified Smitha through neighbours, panchas or even Anand.

The judges said family court judge R S Bhat, who has retired, should have issued fresh summons to wife. “What business the judge had to take up the matter? This is no (divorce) decree in the eyes of the law. It is a well-settled proposition of law that fraud vitiates everything. This case reflects ignorance of the law on the part of the judge,” said Justice Majmudar.

The judges observed that while Smitha filed the petition in the HC on March 9, Anand remarried on April 9. Also, he showed her as a nominee in his form with a private insurer in December 2006. “This shows you kept her in the dark even after six months of divorce,” said Justice Majmudar. The judges have admitted Smitha’s petition to decide the issue “so that judges don’t make mistakes in future”. They also directed that a copy of Friday’s order be circulated to all family court judges in the state to take appropriate care before hearing ex-parte cases.

http://legalservices.co.in/m/debate/view/Is-498A-of-the-Indian-Penal-Code-Anti-Social

Is 498A of the Indian Penal Code Anti-Social? 498A was inserted in the IPC by way of Amendment Act of 1983, with a social aim to protect the women from the demand of dowry & consequent cruelty exercised within the vicinity of matrimonial home. The object of law was social & pious and aimed